Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!glacier!bhayes
From: bhayes@glacier.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bio
Subject: Evolution (was Re: Bipedalism)
Message-ID: <7395@glacier.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 11-May-86 03:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: glacier.7395
Posted: Sun May 11 03:00:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 13-May-86 19:25:00 EDT
References: <487@bcsaic> <1180@umcp-cs>
Reply-To: bhayes@glacier.UUCP (Barry Hayes)
Organization: Stanford University, IC Laboratory
Lines: 22

In article <1180@umcp-cs> mangoe@umcp-cs writes:
>
>This also suggests why we don't have centaurs, pegasi, and various similar
>things.  It's generally easier to modify the existing features than it is to
>stick something new in.
>
>C. Wingate

This is very important for an understanding of evolution.  It is, in fact,
not only harder, but impossible to "stick something new in".  Evolution
can only modify existing parts and often does so in a damned kludgy way.

A readable book on this [and many other] subjects is Stephen J. Gould's
The Panda's Thumb.  The title essay is about the author's trip to the
national zoo to see the giant pandas.  When he got there, he noticed that
they ate bamboo by stripping the leaves from the stalk by putting it
between the palm and the thumb and pulling.  But aren't humans the only
species with opposable thumbs?

Well, I won't give away the ending to this little mystery.  Turn off
your screen and read the book.
 Barry Hayes