Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Tautological Jellyfish Message-ID: <1135@uwmacc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 23-May-85 17:35:22 EDT Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1135 Posted: Thu May 23 17:35:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 05:22:34 EDT Distribution: net Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center Lines: 36 > [Mike Huybensz] > A vestigial organ is one that is reduced from a previous state (induced > by comparison with homologous organs in other taxa.) What permits > natural selection to favor the reduction? The reduction in types or > quantity of function. The amount of that reduction of function determines > how much reduction of organ is adaptive. This looks to me like: Change is adaptive, because evolution is true. But that begs the question. > ... > The fact that an animal today is an obligate parasite in no way requires > its distant ancestors to have been obligate parasites. There are endless > examples (I'll list some on request.) Mesozoa are not really considered > likely ancestors anyhow. I'm interested, so: Requested. "With references, please." > Ancestors of today's multicellular animals are still hypothetical. > There are no good extant candidates, and fossil candidates will be > extremely hard to find (because of size, lack of preservable structures, > and difficulties in distinguishing cellular-level distinctions from > other organisms.) After all, how many fossil invertebrate embryos > are known? (They show comparable problems in fossilization.) Jellyfish don't fossilize well, either, but we have jellyfish fossils. Algae fossils are known, too, even though they aren't very rugged. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |