Re: Wet clothes and big bodies... Was:re: AAT, a method to falsify
H. M. Hubey (hubey@pegasus.montclair.edu)
14 Oct 1995 02:32:24 -0400
bbur@wpo.nerc.ac.uk (Bill Burnett) writes:
>Even ignoring the models physics gives us, I think the whole point with fur
>has often been missed and stares us in the face... The greater diversity of
>aquatic mammals HAVE fur. WHY might even be irrelevant to this argument.
It could be largely irrelevant. For one thing we are still pushing
analogical reasoning. X has Y, and so does Z therefore Z must have
Y. It's too binary/boolean and it doesn't surprise me that there
are serious disagreements.
>Our SA/V ratio is hopeless, too many long limbs. If we're big to keep warm
>we should be short and tubby. But being big (i.e. tall) IS an advantage if
>you want tosee further. I think the lions are a definite (if unintentional)
I'd really want to see the differences that these S/V ratios make
for say lasting overnight in the savannah and how much of an
increase in the metabolic rate would be needed if the size changed
say by X percent or if the body hair was lost etc. Does anyone
know of any such calculations?
>>--
>> Regards, Mark
>> http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
>
--
Regards, Mark
http://www.smns.montclair.edu/~hubey
|