Comments on: PLAN 10 FROM OUTER SPACE. http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/ Lollards in the high church of low culture Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:54:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296497 pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:49:39 +0000 http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296497 oops the asterisk pointed to this point: all non-extinct species are "as adapted as we are (in a general sense), since "less adapted (in a general sense)" = "extinct" relative adaptivity in ref any given particular environmental context is a different matter oops the asterisk pointed to this point: all non-extinct species are “as adapted as we are (in a general sense), since “less adapted (in a general sense)” = “extinct”

relative adaptivity in ref any given particular environmental context is a different matter

]]> By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296495 pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:46:10 +0000 http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296495 actually we didn't evolve "from chimps" -- chimps and us evolved from one ancestor, so really the energy-saving thesis has to compare both of us with that ancestor (in ref our different environmental pressures) to get traction actually we didn’t evolve “from chimps” — chimps and us evolved from one ancestor, so really the energy-saving thesis has to compare both of us with that ancestor (in ref our different environmental pressures) to get traction

]]> By: pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296493 pˆnk s lord sükråt cunctør Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:43:10 +0000 http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296493 of those four, surely only the water reason would (well, might) work as an evolutionary factor in normal gait? chimps can reach for food as well as us and climb rather better than we can; and are as adapted as we are (in a general sense)* to "look out for predators" (adaptation-in-ref-predators wd have to cite a human-chimp differential in respective predator-environment i think; ie has to be adaptatively-distinct-in-ref-locally-specific-predators) the swimming reason is nice bcz it exemplifies the (badly named) concept of "pre-adaptation", where a feature part-develops in ref. better fitness for environment A (or "purpose A", to put it teleological bad-Darwinism), and then the partial development further develops in better fitness for environment B/purpose B. viz middle-ear bone was once part of the jaw structure, where it had a biting value, and developed a sound-sensitive value of those four, surely only the water reason would (well, might) work as an evolutionary factor in normal gait? chimps can reach for food as well as us and climb rather better than we can; and are as adapted as we are (in a general sense)* to “look out for predators” (adaptation-in-ref-predators wd have to cite a human-chimp differential in respective predator-environment i think; ie has to be adaptatively-distinct-in-ref-locally-specific-predators)

the swimming reason is nice bcz it exemplifies the (badly named) concept of “pre-adaptation”, where a feature part-develops in ref. better fitness for environment A (or “purpose A”, to put it teleological bad-Darwinism), and then the partial development further develops in better fitness for environment B/purpose B. viz middle-ear bone was once part of the jaw structure, where it had a biting value, and developed a sound-sensitive value

]]> By: Martin Skidmore http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296482 Martin Skidmore Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:12:20 +0000 http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/2007/07/plan-10-from-outer-space/#comment-296482 I'm unconvinced by their leap to claiming this is the evolutionary cause. Reaching for food, climbing, keeping an eye out for dangerous dinosaurs (okay, sabretoothed tigers), the lovely water-dwelling explanation and possibly others are all still contenders, I'd have thought. There's clearly no reason why one factor has to win. I’m unconvinced by their leap to claiming this is the evolutionary cause. Reaching for food, climbing, keeping an eye out for dangerous dinosaurs (okay, sabretoothed tigers), the lovely water-dwelling explanation and possibly others are all still contenders, I’d have thought. There’s clearly no reason why one factor has to win.

]]>