Don Wise and Incompetent Design

Posted 30 December 2005 by Burt Humburg

The idea that evolution is best exemplified in silly or stupid adaptations is an idea with a rich history. Quoting from the late, great Stephen Jay Gould in the essay that provides this site's namesake (PDF link): Thus, the paradox, and the common theme of this trilogy of essays: Our textbooks like to illustrate evolution with examples of optimal design - nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a poisonous species by a palatable relative. But ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution, for it mimics the postulated action of an omnipotent creator. Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution - paths that a sensible God would never treat but that a natural process, constrained by history, follows perforce. Following in this tradition, professor emeritus of geosciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst Don Wise has written a little ditty (WMV video link) on "Incompetent Design." He's interviewed in Seed Magazine, in an article called The Other ID. BCH

67 Comments

Steve S · 30 December 2005

LOL:

Regarding incompetent design, why is the creator not intelligent? I didn't say that! We don't get into religion. The last thing we want to do is get into arguments of religion, a creator and so on. We're just: "Is there, or is there not, intelligence in the design?"

KL · 30 December 2005

The song is terrific!

There was a question on a previous thread asking for a list. Here are a few more:

The brain is essentially three brains, layered on top of each other and not well connected. (I'm not sure I understand the details of that one-don't ask until my source gets back home!) It is sensitive to changes in hormones (ie adolescence, PMS, menopause) and neurotransmitters (many metal illnesses). The bones of the face, mentioned in the links above are prone to infection, which puts the brain at risk due to its proximity.

The upright carriage of the skull reduced the need for musculature and the dorsal and lateral processes on the vertabrae, leaving the cervical spine, the carotid arteries, the trachea all exposed and poorly supported, vulnerable to injury.

We eat, drink and breathe through the same opening. Choking is a risk in more "advanced" animals.

The eye produces an upside down image, which the brain must flip again. It has a limited range of wavelengths (many animals see into the UV and IR ranges)

The spine evolved for suspension (between hindquarters and forequarters) The discs wear down in the compaction of the spine held in a vertical position.

The pelvis had to be wider to accomodate the birth of a bigger brain, yet even so the human infact is born before gestation is complete, making it the most vulnerable of mammal young.

Large gluteal muscles are necessary for balancing the pelvis, making elimination messy. We are the only mammal with such a big behind.

In embryonic development, we have genes that "make" a tail, then other genes that reduce it again. We have genes that develop gill slits, then other genes that cause them to "un"develop. This does not make sense except from an evolutionary standpoint.

Mr Christopher · 30 December 2005

Have the intelligent design creationists ever offered an answer to the obvious flaws in human "design"?

I'd love to read how they respond to this. The evidence indicates the "intelligent designer" must be a chronic alcoholic, an idiot, or perhaps "he" is just cruel and instead of pulling the wings off of flies he enjoys watching his creations suffer from such poor "design"?

Steve S · 30 December 2005

Cancer requires multiple components and has been described here before, is Irreducibly Complex.

That's the worst of the design. Cancer.

Steve · 30 December 2005

Hey, this is great. I asked on another thread about this. Add to the list:

A collar bone that limits the range of arm motion by uniting the scapula and sternum and is prone to being broken, but makes pretty good sense for an animal that moves by swinging from tree to tree or knuckle-walking.

A knee joint that involves compressional grinding of two bones that are held in place by a sac of fluid prone to tearing, excess cartilage development, and excess fluid production.

Arches on the foot, which (I'm speculating) probably make sense if the foot could grasp but not if the foot was designed to support a biped.

yellow fatty bean · 30 December 2005

Maybe we'll get treated to some "before vs. after 'The Fall' " gibberish, accompanied by Noah riding a dinosaur...or whatever.

KL · 30 December 2005

Just a couple more:

The hock joint in quadrupeds is a source of tremendous strength and impact absorption. We stand on ours (heel).

Hearing must accommodate the transition of sound waves moving through air to vibrations in fluid, through the movement of a membrane and three bones linked together. Overkill, to say the least. In fact, if we depend on fluid so much, and 70% on the earth is covered in it, why can't we breathe in the stuff?

Our hands, when relaxed, have the fingers flexed. This makes sense from a arboreal lifestyle. However, our carpals are straight, rather than curved like most primates.

Steviepinhead · 30 December 2005

Shouldn't the quote have "tread", instezd of "treat"?

Steviepinhead · 30 December 2005

And shouldn't my nitpick have "instead" instead of "instezd"?

Maybe keyboards are another example of less-than-optimal design?

Steve S · 30 December 2005

Comment #66019 Posted by KL on December 30, 2005 01:20 PM (e) (s) In fact, if we depend on fluid so much, and 70% on the earth is covered in it, why can't we breathe in the stuff?

You do breathe a fluid.

Steve S · 30 December 2005

To the Steve above--several of us have, and some still do, post under the single name Steve. Consider adding a little more info, lest you be confused with me, or Steve Verdon, or Steve Sheets, or any number of other Steves.

yellow fatty bean · 30 December 2005

Also, drinking beer makes me fat. Nice going Jeebus!

Joe Shelby · 30 December 2005

The "flawed" design argument is old, and of course still valid. Its what I was taught in the brief bit of evolution we got in my high school bio class, using gould's pandas thumb as one of many examples, along with the human appendix and a few others. also taught was the example of invasive species (using the major disruption of australia by westerners, including the extinction of their native dogs and the mass explosion of rabbits) and how ecosystems take time to achieve their balance and perceived "perfection".

Have the intelligent design creationists ever offered an answer to the obvious flaws in human "design"?

their latest trick i read this week is trying to prove that, by comparison to a computer program (and thus trying to assert that Bill Gates is an ID supporter, which he certainly isn't), that the junk DNA in our code still has a purpose to the point of saying there's no such thing as junk DNA, that its all being used somehow and we just haven't figured it all out yet.

Bill Gascoyne · 30 December 2005

Isn't there a nerve in the neck of a giraffe that runs several feet down the back, around some bone or other, then back up the front?

Caledonian · 30 December 2005

It is sensitive to changes in hormones (ie adolescence, PMS, menopause) and neurotransmitters (many metal illnesses).

The effect of hormones on adolescence is an old canard. PMS is difficult to verify. Frankly, complaining about the effect of hormones on the brain isn't substantiated. Don't even get me started on neurotransmitters. Mental illnesses are not known to be the result of problems with neurotransmitters, and in any case, saying the brain is sensitive to them is like saying computers are sensitive to electronic impulses. Well, no kidding.

JONBOY · 30 December 2005

How about the male testicles which hang outside the body and are vulnerable (ouch),also the fact that the passage way down which they descend, cannot close correctly, and cause hernias.And of course male nipples,I have wondered about them

KeithB · 30 December 2005

I don't think that we have the "most vulnerable of mammal young." Marsupials are much more vulnerable. However, they have a marvelous adaption called a pouch where development can complete in comparative safety.

Getting to the pouch however, is a pretty tough slog.

Caledonian · 30 December 2005

Then there are the more subtle forms of poor design: our cravings for sweet, salty, fatty foods, for example. Surely such desires wouldn't have been necessary in our edenic early days in... Eden. And they're certainly not appropriate for modern civilization. As Ivanova said, "All my life I've fought against imperialism. Now I *am* the expanding Russian frontier!"

What gives? Why are our food preferences designed to torment us and lead us into early graves?

yellow fatty bean · 30 December 2005

How about the male testicles which hang outside the body and are vulnerable (ouch),also the fact that the passage way down which they descend, cannot close correctly, and cause hernias.And of course male nipples,I have wondered about them
— JONBOY

Yes, but if you drink enough beer, eventually you grow a protective layer of flab that completely protects your testicles, thought at that point, you probably won't be using them all that much.

Steve T · 30 December 2005

Steve S said:

To the Steve above---several of us have, and some still do, post under the single name Steve. Consider adding a little more info, lest you be confused with me, or Steve Verdon, or Steve Sheets, or any number of other Steves.

Fair enough. I'm Steve T

Greg Peterson · 30 December 2005

And speaking of testicles, which I too often am, how about the fact that the urethra passes through the donut-shaped prostate gland, which very often hypertrophies with age and thus pinches of the flow of urine like Jeebus-beer-gut guy standing on a garden hose? Another nice feat of Rube-Goldberg design, short-bus Jehovah.

Savagemutt · 30 December 2005

What gives? Why are our food preferences designed to torment us and lead us into early graves?

Maybe the problem is just that we aren't "supposed" to live as long as we do. In a state of nature wouldn't most of us be kicking the bucket by our 30s?

Bob O'H · 30 December 2005

As demonstrated on the .wmv, how about the total inability of some people to sing in tune? It's not going to help you when you join the Celestial Choir, even if it is impressive in its own way.

Bob

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

Our hands, when relaxed, have the fingers flexed

of all the "flaws" mentioned, this is the only one I never saw addressed in any article i ever read. Does anybody know the suggested selection pressures that lead to a straightening of the carpals and metacarpals?

What gives? Why are our food preferences designed to torment us and lead us into early graves?

lol. one, they weren't "designed" (yes, i know you would have used the term "selected" instead). two, they wouldn't lead you into an early grave if you lived in an area where food was a bit more scarce than we are used to these days. fat and sugar are high energy foods, and selection would naturally favor a preference for high energy foods in any natural environment. check out a bear's diet sometime

Arden Chatfield · 30 December 2005

Maybe the problem is just that we aren't "supposed" to live as long as we do. In a state of nature wouldn't most of us be kicking the bucket by our 30s?

No doubt. For the vast majority of our history, I think we were selected to make it to age 13, then breed, then die from some horrible accident or starvation about 5-6 years later. This is why osteoperosis and inflamed prostates aren't going away any time soon.

Arden Chatfield · 30 December 2005

As demonstrated on the .wmv, how about the total inability of some people to sing in tune? It's not going to help you when you join the Celestial Choir, even if it is impressive in its own way.

Maybe singing out of tune was something that only ever happened after 'the Fall'?

Corkscrew · 30 December 2005

Maybe keyboards are another example of less-than-optimal design?
— Steviepinhead

Actually, computer keyboards are a classic example of cooption. Early typewriter keyboards used to jam regularly due to typists' speed, so a keyboard arrangement was created that did its utmost to slow them down to a reasonable amount. When computer keyboards were first created, they were basically typewriters with wires attached so the layout stayed the same. And, once computers had reached the point that unskilled personnel (for example secretaries) used them, there was a strong retarding effect on any attempt to change the layout because all those secretaries had been trained to use QWERTY typewriter keyboards back in the day and weren't terribly keen on switching. The result is that we're stuck with QWERTY keyboards despite the fact that alternative layouts (such as the dvorak keyboard) or even alternative devices (I recall this thing that looked like a stress-reliever...) would be far more effective.

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

alternative devices (I recall this thing that looked like a stress-reliever...)

hmm. sounds interesting. post a link if you can recall specifics about it; I'm always interested in new input and pointing devices.

Steviepinhead · 30 December 2005

Sir Toejam queried:

Does anybody know the suggested selection pressures that lead to a straightening of the carpals and metacarpals?

This is probably one that needs to be directed to the Shaolin monks. (Sorry. I first mis-typed "minks" after "Shaolin," and I had to stop laughing before I could continue.) I'm sure this will turn out to have something to do with using the edge of the hand for blows in the martial arts. Does anybody know Kane's email address?

Steve · 30 December 2005

It's interesting that Gould in making his argument, had to explicitly distance himself from what he calls "examples of optimal design." "Optimal" is an interesting choice of words, isn't it?

I further wonder if Don Wise is familiar with Gould's reference to "nearly perfect mimicry of a dead leaf by a butterfly or of a poisonous species by a palatable relative." "Nearly perfect." Why, that's an interesting choice of words too!

So, he says that optimal design exists in nature, and provides examples that he thinks are nearly perfect, and then concludes that "ideal design is a lousy argument for evolution," as indeed it is! The amazing thing is I'm not making any of this up.

Oh, and I liked the song, by the way. So, how about this for a second verse:

My retina is "upside down" but I can see just fine
The spine I have gets me around when upright or supine
Gould says things are "optimal" but all you do is whine!
Intelligent design!

Thanks for your time,

-Steve

KL · 30 December 2005

Correction on my early post: That should have been meta carpals, right? Aren't carpals little round jobbies? I'm an idiot (but not an IDiot!)

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

Does anybody know Kane's email address?

You can contact him here: http://www.davidcarradine.org/ funny, having seen many interviews with him, he might actually have an answer to the question posed. Not necessarily what i would expect, I'm sure, but an answer nonetheless.

Julie · 30 December 2005

Greg wrote:

And speaking of testicles, which I too often am, how about the fact that the urethra passes through the donut-shaped prostate gland, which very often hypertrophies with age and thus pinches of the flow of urine like Jeebus-beer-gut guy standing on a garden hose?

Human reproductive, excretory, and digestive plumbing, in both sexes, bring to mind the old joke that they must have been designed by engineers so incompetent that they ran their waste disposal pipelines through a recreational area. On a more serious note, my Ph.D. advisor often said that the aspect of evolutionary biology that most intrigued him was that it could provide a theoretical basis for the general phenomenon of senescence. For years, I was a TA in his organismal biology course, and introduced lots of undergrads to the joys of life tables!

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

That should have been meta carpals, right?

yup. or even phalanges? both seem to have been straightened. the carpals are basically in the wrist, but these have seen modification too. Not sure i would call it "straightening" per sae, but now we're quibbling over details.

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

"Shaolin Minks"

... the next iteration of teenage-mutant-ninja turtles?

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

talk about irony; after thinking about "shaolin minks", i thought, why not "kung-fu ferrets"?

so i did a search...

http://www.christianforums.com/t2327190

ROFLMAO!

Steviepinhead · 30 December 2005

Wheee!

Pierce R. Butler · 30 December 2005

"... the dreaded hemorrhoid. A uniquely human condition, it was the direct result of our hominid ancestor's fateful decision to stand up and walk on two legs instead of four. In virtually every other mammal, the anus and heart occupy the same horizontal plane. ... Upon assuming an upright stance, a hominid positioned its heart approximately two feet above its anus in a vertical plane. This created a bedeviling hydraulics problem. Arterial blood flow hurries along on its appointed tasks, urged onward by the propulsive force of each systolic heartbeat. Once on the venous side of each capillary, however, the movement of blood slows to a sluggish crawl, since there is no pump propelling it back to the heart. In humans, venous flow returning to the heart from the pelvis must defy the force of gravity, heading straight uphill. As a result, the veins underlying the delicate lining of the distal rectal tract remain permanently engorged, because there is a several-foot-high column of blood pressing down from above. ... Humans are the only animal in all the phyla that must learn at a very early age to maintain tight control over their anal sphincter. ... A physiological side effect of this idiosyncratic human cultural convention is that the human anal sphincter is in a state of near perpetual construction. The small circular muscle squeezes the veins around it, engorging them further, making them more susceptible to bleeding."
- Leonard Shlain, Time, Sex and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution, pp 33-34

Pierce R. Butler · 30 December 2005

There's also this strange and metabolically demanding thing that about half the members of our species do on an approximately monthly basis, the topic of frequent complaints when it happens and either glee or panic when it doesn't...

Who was it who said you should beware of anything which can bleed for a week and still live?

WhirlingBlade · 30 December 2005

This passage got me thinking:

"Wise cites serious flaws in the systems of the human body as evidence that design in the universe exhibits not an obvious source of, but a sore lack of, intelligence."

One of the reasons I found it interesting, is because it mirrors the Intelligent Design theme that we can detect design in the first place. Can we?

MrDarwin · 30 December 2005

One of my own personal favorite "incompetent designs" is the reproductive system of the spotted hyena. Females of this species have an enlarged clitoris (known as a pseudopenis for obvious reasons), through which they have to give birth and which tears traumatically when they have their first litter. The death rate of hyena pups, and of mothers giving birth for the first time, is very high, in part because the umbilical cord is shorter than the birth canal, so the pups tend to suffocate during birth).

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

Who was it who said you should beware of anything which can bleed for a week and still live?

hmm. Mr. Garrison on South Park was the last time i heard that one.

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

One of the reasons I found it interesting, is because it mirrors the Intelligent Design theme that we can detect design in the first place. Can we?

one, the list of flaws is a mockery, not an analogy. two, answer your own question by trying to figure out, using the scientific method, how to develop a testable hypothesis about design, then figure out what the predctions would be that would support and reject that hypothesis, then figure out a way to design an experiment to test said predictions. hint: you won't be able to get even as far as step 1 without some serious fictional assumptions, and after that will have even more difficulty with each step beyond that. there's nothing like working out the logistics for yourself to prove how vacuous the whole "design" idea is.

Corkscrew · 30 December 2005

Okay, I think that, regardless of completely ignoring the point* of the argument, Steve definitely gets brownie points for managing to get "supine" to (almost) scan wrt "design". Kudos for making me spill beer on my keyboard.

* The point being that there are both clearly optimal and clearly suboptimal structures in nature, and that only one of these is more consistent with evolution than with creationism, so why are we dumb enough to harp on about the other?

Sir_Toejam · 30 December 2005

clearly optimal and clearly suboptimal structures in nature

I have to quibble with this and point out that there still remains serious debate about the usage of the term "optimal" when used to describe trait landscapes. I think "good enough" is more generally accepted, but I forget off the top of my head what the actual terminology used is.

jim · 30 December 2005

local maxima vs. global maxima

If the local maxima is "good enough" and the solution space around it is less optimal, the structure will tend to stay near the local maxima.

If on the other hand, there's a "path" in the solution space from the local maxima to another maxima (local or global) that is also "good enough", descent with modification will "explore" that other path. If an even better local maxima (or a global maxima) is found than that'll become the dominant variant.

Carsten S · 31 December 2005

Hi! Do not get carried away with your examples :-)

The eye produces an upside down image, which the brain must flip again.
— KL

This is meaningless.

Arches on the foot, which (I'm speculating) probably make sense if the foot could grasp but not if the foot was designed to support a biped.
— Steve

The arches are important in running. They store some of the impact energy when the foot hits the ground. And never underestimate humans. We are quite good endurance runners. Carsten

Sir_Toejam · 31 December 2005

This is meaningless.

so is that statement, unless you clarify it.

The arches are important in running.

so why not design a whole leg for better running then? there are lots of more efficient leg designs for running in mammals. are you trying to refute the general argument about inefficient and poor "design", or trying to deal with specific examples?

Carsten S · 31 December 2005

Hi!

so is that statement, unless you clarify it.

Yes, sorry. Maybe I just did not understand the argument. What does "produces an upside-down image" mean?

so why not design a whole leg for better running then? there are lots of more efficient leg designs for running in mammals.

What are these? The human leg seems to work just fine, even the often criticized knees, although they may not be as durable as one might wish. Of course, "just fine" may be translated to "near a local minimum" as explained above.

are you trying to refute the general argument about inefficient and poor "design", or trying to deal with specific examples?

I think that it is an argument that has to be carefully applied, because what we might call bad design might just be a function we do not fully understand. Nevertheless, our evolutionary heritage can be seen in some apsects of our bodies (and minds). Carsten (And never forget that the Christian designer is not said to have tried to design us as best as possible, but to have created us in his image. ;-)

Sir_Toejam · 31 December 2005

Yes, sorry. Maybe I just did not understand the argument. What does "produces an upside-down image" mean?

the image projected onto the retina is inverted. would you like references?

What are these?

kangaroo legs are great examples of efficient high-speed locomotion. check out a biology textbook sometime, i'm sure you'll find many great examples of locomotory efficiency in bipedal mammals in there.

Of course, "just fine" may be translated to "near a local minimum" as explained above.

now you're gettin it.

(And never forget that the Christian designer is not said to have tried to design us as best as possible, but to have created us in his image. ;-)

ooooh, I think if you analyze that statement you might want to reword it a bit, at the very least.

Carsten S · 31 December 2005

the image projected onto the retina is inverted.

And why would that make the image processing in the brain any harder? How would you improve it? Something that is often pointed out is that the nerve is attached in front instead of in the back of the retina. This is disadvantageous because of the blind spot it produces. And it could have been done better, as is even exemplified by some species iirc. So this would be a good example. The inverted image on the retina is none.

kangaroo legs are great examples of efficient high-speed locomotion.

Yes their counterparts of our Achilles tendons store energy even better. However, they seem to me to be quite specialised, I wonder if kangaroos would make good hunters.

check out a biology textbook sometime, i'm sure you'll find many great examples of locomotory efficiency in bipedal mammals in there.

You are right that I have never read a biology text. I would never try to argue biology with biologists. To see that a reverted image on the retina is just what you would expect and no example for something that would be different if designed, does not take a biologist. And regarding the construction of the feet, I have read some texts on running, and they included physiology (although I lack the background in biology or medicine for some of the details), so I am not completely ignorant there either. Btw, who thinks that humans are bad runners might want to read Bernd Heinrich's "Why we run". I found it very rewarding, but I do not know what biologists migth think about it.

(And never forget that the Christian designer is not said to have tried to design us as best as possible, but to have created us in his image. ;-)

ooooh, I think if you analyze that statement you might want to reword it a bit, at the very least.English grammar sometimes fails me, has that happened here? Or do you fear that I have hurt someone's religious feelings here? That would have been unintentional, I thought that level of playfulness was allowed here. Happy 2006! Carsten

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 January 2006

We are quite good endurance runners.

I do remember hearing somewhere a story about an athrnopologist or something who made a bet with somebody else that he could run down an antelope on foot. He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.

Bob O'H · 2 January 2006

"... the dreaded hemorrhoid. ... Humans are the only animal in all the phyla that must learn at a very early age to maintain tight control over their anal sphincter.... A physiological side effect of this idiosyncratic human cultural convention is that the human anal sphincter is in a state of near perpetual construction. The small circular muscle squeezes the veins around it, engorging them further, making them more susceptible to bleeding." - Leonard Shlain, Time, Sex and Power: How Women's Sexuality Shaped Human Evolution, pp 33-34
— Pierce R. Butler

I'm sorry for bringing this up, but it did get me thinking about other bipedal animals. Do penguins suffer from hemorrhoids? Who would know? Prof. Steve Steve? Bob (who must apologise again for making you think about this once more)

k.e. · 2 January 2006

Previously:

kangaroo legs are great examples of efficient high-speed locomotion.

Yes their counterparts of our Achilles tendons store energy even better. However, they seem to me to be quite specialised, I wonder if kangaroos would make good hunters.

Probably not hunters but they are great at ~~running~~ hopping away from them.

k.e. · 2 January 2006

Previously:

kangaroo legs are great examples of efficient high-speed locomotion.

Yes their counterparts of our Achilles tendons store energy even better. However, they seem to me to be quite specialised, I wonder if kangaroos would make good hunters. Probably not hunters but they are great at ~~running~~ hopping away from them :)

Carsten S · 2 January 2006

He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.

Yes, that is how to do it. At least that is what I have read in "why we run", the first edition of which was called "racing the antelope". However, as I have understood it, it takes longer than `a short while'. Carsten

Arden Chatfield · 2 January 2006

He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.

Interesting theory, tho it might not apply to that many animals. For example, I can't imagine that just chasing, say, White-tailed deer would be a very effective way of hunting them.

Registered User · 2 January 2006

Do penguins suffer from hemorrhoids?

Isn't that the answer to the question, "What's black and white and red all over?"

Arden Chatfield · 2 January 2006

Do penguins suffer from hemorrhoids? Isn't that the answer to the question, "What's black and white and red all over?"

Wow. Only 2 days into 2006 and we may already have the best PT joke of the year...

vandalhooch · 2 January 2006

He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.
Interesting theory, tho it might not apply to that many animals. For example, I can't imagine that just chasing, say, White-tailed deer would be a very effective way of hunting them.

There is a really great film sequence of this type of hunting on the "Food for Thought" episode of The Life of Mammals series. I use it in my anatomy and physiology class. My students are always amazed by it! White-tail deer would definitely not be huntable in this manner. You need wide open spaces (for visualization), little elevation change (humans are at a great disadvantage up and down hills) and an extreme temperature (white tails live in temperate zones).

Dean Morrison · 2 January 2006

I wonder if kangaroos would make good hunters.

yeah there was a 'carnivorous Kangaroo' that became extinct only about 20,000 years ago - although ti looks a lot more 'dog-like' than a typical Kangaroo: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/space/SpaceRepublish_167333.htm plus some rather batty 'carnivorous Kangaroo' sightings from the US of A - probably by Buckingham after a couple of tablets too many: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/articlekangaroos.shtml

He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope.....

As for running down an antelope - we are quite good at running away too: Two blokes were walking through the savannah when they were spotted by a a hungry lion. One of them took off his boots and put on his running shoes. The other bloke said 'don't be silly - you'll never outrun a lion!' To which the other one replied - 'I don't have to outrun the lion.....' ... a nice description of natural selection if ever I heard one.

Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠΓ · 3 January 2006

The first time I heard the running-down-an-antelope story, the protagonist was Louis Leaky. Apocryphal, perhaps.

Randy · 3 January 2006

Maybe keyboards are another example of less-than-optimal design?
— Steviepinhead

Acutually, another one of Steven Gould's essay's, The Panda's Thumb of Technology, in I believe, Dinosaur in the Haystack.

Randy · 3 January 2006

I do remember hearing somewhere a story about an athrnopologist or something who made a bet with somebody else that he could run down an antelope on foot. He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.
— Rev Dr Lenny Flank

A trait that we share with wolves. There's a hifalutin' term for it: we, and they, are cursorial hunters, and both species are well adapted to it; good thermal regulation during sustained exertion, endurance, and social cooperation. Interesting that wolves were the first domesticated species.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 January 2006

I'm sorry for bringing this up, but it did get me thinking about other bipedal animals. Do penguins suffer from hemorrhoids? Who would know? Prof. Steve Steve? Bob (who must apologise again for making you think about this once more)

Ewwwwwwww. (shifts in chair nervously) Actually there is something I've always been curious about. In the average human, the length of the foot from toe to heel is, on average, 1/6.6 of the height (and is, also, the same length as that of the forearm from inside elbow to wrist). So, if you know the length of the human foot, you can calculate the height of the individual by multiplying this by 6.6 . I've always been curious if this same proportion is found in any of the other bipedal hominids . . . My guess would be that it would appear only in the later species rather then the earlier ones. Anyone have any data handy on this?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 January 2006

He did it by just plodding on and on after the antelope, which would dash off frantically for a distance, then stop, exhausted, while the plodding human just kept coming and coming and coming. After a short while, the antelope dropped from exhaustion.

Interesting theory, tho it might not apply to that many animals. For example, I can't imagine that just chasing, say, White-tailed deer would be a very effective way of hunting them.

That'd be a function of habitat, though. The deer would be able to dash away and hide, and the poor plodding human would never find it. The antelope, though, on open grassland, doesn't have anywhere to hide.

A trait that we share with wolves.

But wolves do it in relays, no? Hyaenas too, IIRC.

Mike · 13 March 2006

Here's another example of Incompetent Design:

Rabbits have to eat their own poo in the morning because their stomachs are not "designed" to digest it properly the first time around. They have evolved bacteria in the intestinal tract which does the job AFTER it's passed through the stomach. Thus the Designer is forcing them to eat their own doo-doos.

I was recently re-reading Philip Kitcher's "Abusing Science" which briefly mentioned that example.

And the Lord made the rabbit and said, "Behold, it is good."
And the rabbit looked up and said "No it ain't! How would you like to eat your own shit for breakfast?"

(That's my joke, hope it doesn't get sensored. It's not funny without the S-word)

Actually, this is more of a case of "Malevolent Design" -- like the wasp that lays its eggs in the living caterpillar, which slowly eats it alive, taking the non-vital organs first in order to keep the "meat" as fresh as possible. The "deadbeat parents" lifecycle of the cuckoo bird is another famous example of Malevolent Design. Can anybody tell me: don't the cuckoo eggs look just like the eggs of the cuckolded species (I forget the poor creature's name)? If so, what sort of designer designed THAT?

Can we have a seperate thread for MD "theory"?