I'm a pretty big fan of Charles Darwin (especially his awards show) and his theory of natural selection. (IIRC it is his Theory of Natural Selection that evolutionists use to bolster their case, but the theory of evolution is not specifically due to Darwin. Correct me if I'm wrong.)
In any event, I was watching a fascinating show called Planet Earth which I highly recommend if you can find it. (Below is an example of the sights you'll see on Planet Earth, but it is a home-made video from some fan of the show so the music is not part of the show).
One episode was about shallow water and they talked about a salamander in Japan (Dragon Salamander???) that was like 2 meters long. That's big. They explained that the salamander has poor eyesight and lives in murky, cold water, so it has developed (through evolution and natural selection) this phenomenal electrical impulse-measuring system that allows it to sense other prey (fish) as they come near based on the infinitely small electrical pulses the fish give off simply by being not dead.
Wow! That seems like a VERY HANDY adaptation that makes a lot of sense.
Except, why didn't the salamanders also evolve into salamanders with good eyesight? Its very confusing to me, if the salamanders did, indeed, evolve, why did only the most esoteric and one-purpose trait get better? Isn't good eyesight the least bit valuable?
Sheesh... very confusing to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I think that is one of the shows that Wes told us that is awesome once you get HDTV, I think he watches a lot of it. When I was reading your message, and before I got to the end I was thinking, "gee, it seems like the salamander's eyesight would have improved too...", so you are not alone in your confusion :) I wonder if there is a link between the intelligence of the animal that is evolving and how appropriately it evolves, because really, if evolution itself were independently intelligent, then wouldn't we all be headed towards the same super efficient being? (I have actually wondered about this before).
Okay, now THAT is a comment that proves we really should be putting a few minutes each week into this blog thing. Why? Because Sara got me thinking a whole new way. I knoew there was somethign sketchy about this evolution thing, but she went even further: why haven't we all evolved to be the same? Huh? why? Totally makes sense. Great question. I was only thinking of evolution along the lines of "salamanders becoming better salamanders" but there's so much more for me to think about!
Sara -
I think I saw three people evolve into Johhny Depp the other day. It's already started!
Eric -
Salamanders don't evolve great eyesight for the same reason we don't evolve wings - it would be too costly a trade-off. The wings would come in handy, but unless you simultaneously evolved thin light bones, a streamlined hairdo, and a layer over your eyes to keep them from watering when you dive-bomb Hanauma Bay from 30,000 feet, you'd have wings but wouldn't be able to use them. Then, the next proton-sensing slamander that finds you wet-winged in a Japanese tide-pool would have you for breakfast.
We evolve into beings that are vastly different because the first thing that evolved is the universal need to be a little ways away from someone, whether it's your parent, that smelly guy from class, or an extremely difficult ex, and that drive makes us move to places that then sort out the survivors from non-survivors one generation at a time with things like forest fires, hurricanes, and Maroon 5 concerts. From a non-homogenous pool, a thinned out group evolves new mutants who have advantages or disadvantages, and then someone pisses one of them off and they scatter their new genes to new locations, and it starts all over again.
It's like one or two steps short of chaos.
Post a Comment