Dragonflies and mosquitoes...

By -

and the incomplete nature of evolutionary explanations.

If you take walks in the country in the summer, you have almost certainly observed that you will get bitten by mosquitoes much more often in the shade than in the sunlight. Why? Well, the evolutionary explanation that I've heard (and it seems perfectly sound as far as it goes), is that a major predator of the mosquito is the dragonfly, and dragonflies only fly in the sun, so mosquitoes have evolved to fly in the shade in order to stay away from them.

Excellent... But then why haven't dragonflies subsequently evolved to be able to fly in the shade, and go get the mosquitoes where they are?

Again, I'm not saying that last question shows that the explanation on offer is wrong: I think it is most likely correct, as far as it goes. I am just noting that it leaves much unexplained.

Comments

  1. Silas Barta2:07 PM

    It's common for a species to fall into a local optimum where there is no "upgrade path" consistent with the constraints of evolutionary adaptation (i.e. where each generation must be a local fitness improvement) -- that's one of the exact things evolution is ideal for explaining.

    It's common to see things like the recurrent laryngeal nerve or optic never where each generation saw a fitness improvement in structure, but over time they end up with some that makes you want to say, "geez, just cut that out and punch straight through".

    Evolutionary theory would suggest that dragonflies require a sort of complex adaptation that lacks the above kind of "upgrade path".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:27 PM

      Yes, that is likely correct. I actually thought of putting a note in the post stating something like that.

      Delete
  2. Bob Murphy12:53 PM

    "It's common for a species to fall into a local optimum where there is no "upgrade path" consistent with the constraints of evolutionary adaptation (i.e. where each generation must be a local fitness improvement) -- that's one of the exact things evolution is ideal for explaining."

    Actually Silas, evolution is (apparently) ideal for explaining ANYthing. Unbelievable complexity that seems to be designed? Evolution.

    Get stuck in a rut? Evolution.

    Complex structure that apparently exhibits irreducible complexity, such that any evolutionary story would get stuck at a local optimum? "Your lack of imagination is no strike against our theory" is what the PhD biologists say. (I mean, the ones who dismiss intelligent design and are thus *good* PhD biologists.)

    NOTE: The above is not intended to dismiss the scientific work on evolutionary theory. I am talking about the rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samson Corwell2:36 AM

      "Unbelievable complexity that seems to be designed? Evolution."

      I have an affinity for guided evolution, but I can see no "unbelievable complexity that seems to be designed".

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more