tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post8560193291464240252..comments2024-03-28T02:54:46.537-04:00Comments on The TOF Spot: The War Between Fact and TheoryTheOFloinnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-78359599356824734132010-12-04T11:44:27.270-05:002010-12-04T11:44:27.270-05:00The fundamental problem is that we can always spin...The fundamental problem is that we can always spin a theory to explain why a thing is as it is. Had the polar bear dark fur, I dare say we could come up with an explanation. (By freezing in place while stalking, the dark-polar bear appears to be a rock on the landscape to the seal, who then disregards it. The bear learns not to move while the seal is looking its way.)TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-60606243593616982602010-12-04T11:05:49.214-05:002010-12-04T11:05:49.214-05:00I think it was St. Albert, in his geography book w...I think it was St. Albert, in his geography book where he ripped on St. Augustine's antipodes ideas, who theorized that arctic animals would have to be white for some sort of fittingness reason. (Since he probably got as far as Poland or Russia, this theory may have been cheating somewhat.)<br /><br />The current explanation is apparently that polar bears' fur is clear, for better absorption of sunlight into the skin through such thick warm fur; but it appears white to our eyes. So what happened before was that polar bears had thick warm dark fur, which assisted absorption of sunlight into the top layer of their fur and helped them hide in the woods. But they probably had trouble getting enough Vitamin D, except by eating things.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-70581294614885020062010-12-03T20:05:28.086-05:002010-12-03T20:05:28.086-05:00Flynn's theory of evolution runs thusly:
Muta...Flynn's theory of evolution runs thusly:<br /><br />Mutations happen. <br />Internal genetic machinery accommodates the mutation to the rest of the genome. <br />Some mutations destroy the organism or render it non-viable. This is where natural selection plays.<br />For all other mutations, the organism possessing it finds some way to make use of it or works around it. If needs be, it will exploit a different niche than its ancestors. This is like painting the bulls-eye around the arrow. <br /><br />The old bit about the polar bear becoming white "in order to" blend into the environment: what did these bears do before they became white? Die off? During the winter, the polar bear hunts seals by waiting near the breathing holes and whacking the seals when they pop their heads out. Blending in has no advantage, since the seal cannot see the bear before it emerges to its doom.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-447603865959500290.post-68285021804257774432010-12-03T11:54:32.119-05:002010-12-03T11:54:32.119-05:00Well said. In particular, "However, it is ent...Well said. In particular, "However, it is entirely possible that the theory of natural selection may fail to account for all evolution (in the sense of change over time). Gravity does not account for all motion; electromagnetism is needed for some of it!" <br /><br />As you know, there is a sizable (and aggrieved) body of molecular biologists who think genetic drift, as a major driver of evolution, gets no respect--along with the other kinds of stochastic processes ordinarily subsumed under the breezy term "random mutation". <br /><br />For what it's worth. :)John Farrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18280296574996987228noreply@blogger.com