But here is the Asian sheepshead, and you cannot make this stuff up.
That is one ugly fish, unlikely to show up on your menu. Like its human-toothed conspecific, it does not give you hallucinations. It is an hallucination. Sheesh.
Undoubtedly, someone can come up with a Darwinian adaptationist just-so story that neatly accounts for this fish's head. My theory is: a) mutations happen, b) this mutation neither killed the fish nor impeded reproduction, and so c) here it is. Since the fish uses its head in some manner or other, one can point to this usage and claim that this was the telos for which it was naturally selected; but it is surely just as plausible that the telos was the fish's drive-to-survive.
Why it's called a sheepshead is a mystery.
You might enjoy Walter ReMine's The Biotic Message, wherein he proposes the theory that God has intentionally arranged the creation of kinds in such a way that no theory of evolution can actually explain them.
ReplyDeleteIt is the Archosargus Leno
ReplyDeleteRegarding your theory on the Asian sheepshead, I submit that natural selection is not about what is advantageous, but about what is not disadvantageous; traits are not selected for, but they are selected against. And so, you are probably correct. It has that ugly noggin for no better reason than the reason male mammals have nipples: the possession of such is not disadvantageous.
ReplyDeleteBlythe, who originated the theory of natural selection, thought it was a force for maintenance of type, because it weeded out divergent forms. IOW, an argument against evolutionary change. Darwin used his theory but claimed an opposite effect.
DeleteTechnically, Darwin claimed both effects, depending on the environment. In a (relatively) stable environment, change is weeded out. In a changing environment, some changes are become preferred.
Delete