|
|
Re: Bipedalism and endurance (was Re: AAH - enough already
Pat Dooley (patdooley@delphi.com)
Sun, 11 DEC 94 23:43:08 -0500
loopy <lmm5@cornell.edu> writes:
>In article <3c10e0$dak@newsbf01.news.aol.com>, patdooley@aol.com (Pat
>Dooley) wrote:
>
>> Whatever you said hardly applies to Lucy and her predecessors. Big feet.
>> Short legs. Not very big to start with. More like Toulouse Lautrec than
>> your favorite track star.
>
>sort of like asking, what good is 10% of an eye? the answer is, 10% of an
>eye is better than no eye. Evolution doesn't start out by producing perfect
>systems.
Nor does evolution produce disadvantageous intermediates. Read Dawkins
for more information on the process. The problem with the idea that
bipedalism evolved as Hominids moved from the forest to the savannah
is that there is no opportunity for the new feature to evolve. An
ape adapted for an arboreal life is going to be easy prey if it starts
tottering around bipedally. It's not like going from 10% of an eye to
100% - it's like giving up adequate eyes and evolving a new methos of
vision. The blind creature at the half-way point of the transition
could not exist, no matter how good the final result. Similar
principles apply in designing computer programs in chess: there is
no point in searching from a great board position three possible
moves ahead if you have to rely on your opponent making a stupid move
to get there.
Pat Dooley
|