• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Evolutionary logic

Climber

Climber

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2004
Location
Clovis/Fresno
Moto(s)
01 Goldwing GL1800
Name
Brett
Why did T. rex have tiny arms? A new study may finally have the answer
The reason is that “evolution doesn’t like to have everything all at once,” as Scherer put it, because it tends to prioritize one thing over another. “If you want to focus on using your head to bring down large prey, you don’t really want to be putting much effort in keeping your arms long and with claws, because you’re probably not really going to need that, so evolution kind of says, ‘We don’t need the arms anymore, so let’s shrink them down and put more energy into keeping the skull strong and using that as the primary weapon.’”
Click to expand...
My perception is that they're ignoring the actual natural selection forces. They're saying that the body chose to shrink the arms as the mouth grew. But, my understanding of evolution is that the animals with the larger head and smaller arms survived to move the species in that direction through the forces of natural selection, not through some decision that the body made.

Am I barking up the wrong tree or am I correct in the forces that resulted in the direction the species went?
 
Climber said:
Why did T. rex have tiny arms? A new study may finally have the answer

My perception is that they're ignoring the actual natural selection forces. They're saying that the body chose to shrink the arms as the mouth grew. But, my understanding of evolution is that the animals with the larger head and smaller arms survived to move the species in that direction through the forces of natural selection, not through some decision that the body made.

Am I barking up the wrong tree or am I correct in the forces that resulted in the direction the species went?
Click to expand...
No, you are right. This guy is doing a bad job of explaining it. He is not wrong either. Natural selection is exactly that. Things are born with different features. Some of these features prove to be an advantage, and that animal will successfully breed, potentially passing on this feature to some of its offspring. If they succeed, more and more will have that feature because it is an advantage. It works the other way too. Born with half a heart, yeah you probably aren't breeding and passing on that feature.

In this case, I feel that the animal kept growing a bigger head, which gave it an advantage. The arms were less relevant so when one of the offspring had deformed mini arms, its gigantic head still provided an advantage and maybe it now was faster because it didn't keep hitting itself in the dick with its flailing arms. So it had more babies with huge heads, deformed arms, and happy crotches. Voila, T-Rex.
 
Climber said:
Why did T. rex have tiny arms? A new study may finally have the answer

My perception is that they're ignoring the actual natural selection forces. They're saying that the body chose to shrink the arms as the mouth grew. But, my understanding of evolution is that the animals with the larger head and smaller arms survived to move the species in that direction through the forces of natural selection, not through some decision that the body made.

Am I barking up the wrong tree or am I correct in the forces that resulted in the direction the species went?
Click to expand...
I mean, evolution is a longer more complex process than alluded to by the concept of "making decision." My assumption has long been that the stump arms are similar to the blind eyes some cave dwelling species are born with, or whales and dolphins that show some remnants of hind legs.
 
There's a lot of anthropomorphism surrounding evolution. None of it acknowledges that it's a RANDOM event. The fortuitous events are favored due to survival.
 
Never really worried about it. Interesting article.

Andre Rowe, a paleobiologist and a senior research associate at England’s University of Bristol, agreed it is not the size of the forelimbs but how you use them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Missing in this discussion is Mrs. T-Rex. You've been talking all around the actual cause/effect. Let's see if I can illuminate without crossing the family entertainment line in the jungle underbrush.

Long-armed T-Rex could reach his...cloaca? In opposition, the T-Rex we all know could not. In his idle time, not hunting and eating, long-arm T-Rex could enjoy himself and leave nothing for Mrs. T-Rex. Short-arm T-Rex to the rescue! Tiny limb had plenty of get up and...go? Thus, we have selective evolution at its simplest.

And, as a result, the first use of the phrase,size matters. ;)
 
Eldritch said:
I mean, evolution is a longer more complex process than alluded to by the concept of "making decision." My assumption has long been that the stump arms are similar to the blind eyes some cave dwelling species are born with, or whales and dolphins that show some remnants of hind legs.
Click to expand...
Many species of snakes still display vestigial remnants of legs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top