Re: "Which comes first, the anatomic variation or the ability?"

According to the Emory University study however, there was
a rapid change in EQ, due to both increase in brain size
and reduced body size, that quadrupled the EQ about 35 to
37 million years ago. This was at the time of the
appearance of the first odontoceti.

I just find it interesting that they attribute a
relatively rapid, but significant change to one ability,
echolocation and dont seem to imply any transitions
between the archaeoceti and odontoceti, like suddenly this
ability appeared out of nowhere and was the cause of, or
the result of, increased encephalization.

Of course echolocation may not have had anything to do
with this increase in brain size. But it seems a
reasonable speculation given the modern dolphin anatomy
and where the increased brain size is localized.

   http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041027112550.htm

BTW a lot of this reasearch is SETI sponsored, so I guess
we could call these researchers SETICIANS!

On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:49:27 -0500
   "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu> wrote:
>
>
>No, I am not suggesting that, merely that new variants or
>mutations arose
>and then were whittled away. That is exactly how nature
>appears to
>function, per the examples I cited. The point is that
>we have evidence
>of extinctions, and evidence of less specialized forms
>preceding more
>specialized forms, and the cousins of many forms along
>the way dying out.
>
>
>
>
><drsyme@cablespeed.com> writes:
>>Correct me if I misunderstand you please. It seems to me
>>that in this idea of the "Divine Whittler" that you talk
>>about, all genetic variation that currently exists, was
>>there from the beginning, including many other variants
>>that have been whittled away.
>>
>>This is quite a different concept from mutations bringing
>>novel adaptations that increase surviveability, or at
>>least increase an organisms chance of passing that
>>mutation on.
>>
>>So as I understand your concept I think it is quite
>>different than mutation and natural selection.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:46:36 -0500
>> "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu> wrote:
>>>"jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com> writes:
>>>>Again this leads to my question, which comes first the
>>>>anatomic variation
>>>>or
>>>>the ability?
>>>
>>>ED: Good question. I always keep in mind that the
>>>earlier types all
>>>died, became extinct, including early cetaceans, early
>>>feathered gliding
>>>reptiles, as well as primitive apes and our homo
>>>cousins. The earliest
>>>cetaceans were not suited to spending their entire lives
>>>in the ocean.
>>>They hadn't fully developed underwater hearing and hadn't
>>>even gotten to
>>>the stage where their nostrils exited their heads, but
>>>their nostrils were
>>>merely halfway up their snouts. And it was only after
>>>the nostrils
>>>reached the head that the echolocation ability arose (in
>>>toothed-whale
>>>species; since the other whales, the ones that lost their
>>>teeth and
>>>evolved baleen, never evolved echolocation). Some whales
>>>still have
>>>paired nostrils coming out of the skulls instead of a
>>>singular blowhole.
>>>And the Right Whale still has rudimentary hind legs,
>>>including pelvis,
>>>femur and tibia, connected by ligaments, inside its
>>>blubbery body.
>>>
>>>As for flying reptiles, the earliest had small keel bones
>>>to attach their
>>>flight muscles to. Modern day species have enormous keel
>>>bones the length
>>>of their torsos to which to attach far larger and more
>>>effective
>>>wing-flapping muscles. Early flying reptiles had long
>>>BONY tails that
>>>created drag, and unfused wrist bones that made any long
>>>flights or glides
>>>unsteady. Also, as you know feathers evolved before
>>>gliding reptiles
>>>ever did.
>>>
>>>The same story for man, we know of over 30 species of
>>>extinct primitive
>>>apes, all with longer arm to leg ratios than modern apes.
>>> So the
>>>primitive ape already was nearer to what was to become
>>>the genus homo's
>>>arm to leg ratio, than it was to modern ape arm to leg
>>>ratios. And as you
>>>know all the species of primitive ape became extinct, as
>>>well as other
>>>primates and cousins of the human lineage. A lot of
>>>extinct species.
>>>
>>>I am also reminded of the earliest fish that resembled
>>>amphibians, and how
>>>their digit numbers varied, some had eight little
>>>piggies. But five
>>>little piggies won out among evolving species of early
>>>amphibians and
>>>later, reptiles.
>>>
>>>There seems to be a lot of whittling down in the genome
>>>too, since whole
>>>genome duplication appears to have occurred in yeast, as
>>>well as in our
>>>pufferfish evolutionary cousins, then the wholly
>>>duplicated genome later
>>>got whittled down. It was in the latest Nature
>>>magazine.
>>>
>>>When I look at our cosmos, and all of the planets that do
>>>not contain
>>>life, empty real estate, and wasted solar energy beating
>>>down on them,
>>>makes me wonder if that's not part of a cosmic whittling
>>>down process too.
>>> Not to mention the fact that on our own planet, seven or
>>>more major
>>>extinctions of life have taken place, whittling down the
>>>dinosaurs,
>>>leaving the mammals, that radiated out a lot of weird
>>>species, from giant
>>>Guinea pigs to Mammoths, that also got whittled down.
>>> Is that the
>>>Designer's way, is the Designer a whittler or perhaps a
>>>Tinkerer?
>>>
>>>And what about the hypothesis of multiple cosmoses? What
>>>if the Designer
>>>tinkered around with lots of different original constants
>>>before whittling
>>>down cosmos after cosmos and arrived at ours?
>>> Everything else I have
>>>mentioned above would seem to suggest such a thing, at
>>>least
>>>theoretically. But then, is a Divine Whittler (or Divine
>>>Tinkerer),
>>>really so far from Darwin's hypothesis of some sort of
>>>mutation and
>>>selection going on?
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>Ed
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Sat Nov 6 00:25:49 2004