Re: the evolution of mousetraps

Chuck Warman (cwarman@wf.net)
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 20:35:29 -0600

At 08:18 PM 11/23/96 -0600, Steve Clark wrote:
>>Again, it may only be due to my non-experience with the subject, but HOW CAN
>>THIS BE? A proto-digital watch (or a proto-mousetrap or a proto-motorcycle,
>>for that matter) doesn't strike me as being functional AT ALL. It is true
>>that I may only be ignorant of possible explanations, but one grows
>>suspicious when the alleged explanations aren't forthcoming. . .
>
>This is a good question Andy. I believe the confusion here lies in the
>requirement for the proto-structure to have a similar function as the final
>structure. Why is this required? If we can agree that a proto-mousetrap
>does not have to necessarily trap mice, then this confusion is minimized.
>For a simple exercise, let's look at evolution in the forward direction.
>Say you take a motorcycle and add wings to it. It is now an airplane, but
>it never "evolved" into an airplane by gradually improving on its ability to
>fly.

Steve,

If the original function of the proto-mousetrap isn't catching mice, then
what would be the force impelling it in the direction of a wholly new
function? I've never seen natural selection credited with this kind of
foreknowledge.

Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Chuck Warman <cwarman@wf.net>
"The abdication of Belief / makes the Behavior small."
----Emily Dickinson