Most of their leg is a finger look closely. Count the joints. The hand begins 3 joints up (one is hidden in the hoof so it’s not as obvious. Count down from the shoulder works too.) The wrist is 4 joints up, elbow 5, shoulder is the last one at 6 total. They have the same number of joints in the same spots that we do, just like a giraffe has the same number of neck bones as a rat.
Evolution is not an intentional process. It’s just statistics compounding over time. Simplified example: By random chance this bird grew a 5% longer beak than its peers, which means it can catch 5% more food and raise 5% more chicks than the others. If its descendants have similar success, over time it means that their long-beak trait will become more and more prevalent in the population, and projected over thousands of years, the whole species will end up having this long-beak trait, simply because those who had it, had more kids grow to reproductive age than those who didn’t.
Meanwhile somewhere in the same time, worms that the bird feeds on start to die more because of that beak, except for those that were genetically wired to burrow a bit deeper.
Apparently it’s really rare for mammals to evolve that without getting somthing else that’s really nasty like cancer. There was a recent video about it on SciShow or HanksChannel
because it was never vital to survival to have fewer bones. evolution is a term that does a ton of conceptual heavy lifting but has sadly been warped by ignorance and a lack of understanding of the nuance of what is really happening.
somehow, life existed. we dont really know how it got started but it did. due to the laws of physics and thermodynamics, some life died and some life lived. that went on for a long ass time until today we see the stuff that has survived to now. evolution just says life changes over time because some life dies without reproducing and some life reproduces before dieing. thats it. its a statement about the effect of survivorship bias over the long term existence of life.
so why didnt animals evolve to have fewer bones? because it never mattered enough to happen. things kept on surviving with the number of bones they have. we can look at them and say their body would function better with more or fewer bones, or different chemistry, or different soft tissue, or whatever you like. but none of those things mattered enough to happen, or if they did happen they werent better enough to change anything at the time. but also animals do have different numbers of bones, just not so different.
i wish i could describe this better, but evolution isnt an active process. if you have to think of it as a thing, keep in mind that it produces only what barely works. every adaptation we have was developed by the deaths of countless individuals, so we only have it because at some point it was necessary, or so benefitial it couldn’t help but propagate. having way less bones was never either of those things.
Yes, and ‘pressure’ is used similarly. Think atmospheric pressure. It can lower and heighten, so a lack of pressure is low pressure, not the absence of it.
Yeah, it’s not the leg that’s a finger, it’s the hoof-part. The legs are legs, but instead of ending in 5 digits they end in 1.
Most of their leg is a finger look closely. Count the joints. The hand begins 3 joints up (one is hidden in the hoof so it’s not as obvious. Count down from the shoulder works too.) The wrist is 4 joints up, elbow 5, shoulder is the last one at 6 total. They have the same number of joints in the same spots that we do, just like a giraffe has the same number of neck bones as a rat.
The lower leg is the palm, not a finger.
Why didn’t nature ever learn to evolve fewer bones?
Like in 100 million years how much wide is the situation going to be?
Whales have a tiny remnant of a pelvis left
Whales have a tiny remnant of a pelvis left
Evolution is not an intentional process. It’s just statistics compounding over time. Simplified example: By random chance this bird grew a 5% longer beak than its peers, which means it can catch 5% more food and raise 5% more chicks than the others. If its descendants have similar success, over time it means that their long-beak trait will become more and more prevalent in the population, and projected over thousands of years, the whole species will end up having this long-beak trait, simply because those who had it, had more kids grow to reproductive age than those who didn’t.
Meanwhile somewhere in the same time, worms that the bird feeds on start to die more because of that beak, except for those that were genetically wired to burrow a bit deeper.
Because evolution doesn’t “learn” anything.
Once you’ve evolved it, one more or less is basically free *. Might fail sooner in old age, but everything after procreation is an afterthought.
* my aunt has a long neck, 3 vertebras more.
Apparently it’s really rare for mammals to evolve that without getting somthing else that’s really nasty like cancer. There was a recent video about it on SciShow or HanksChannel
Wha, really? She’s fine.
because it was never vital to survival to have fewer bones. evolution is a term that does a ton of conceptual heavy lifting but has sadly been warped by ignorance and a lack of understanding of the nuance of what is really happening.
somehow, life existed. we dont really know how it got started but it did. due to the laws of physics and thermodynamics, some life died and some life lived. that went on for a long ass time until today we see the stuff that has survived to now. evolution just says life changes over time because some life dies without reproducing and some life reproduces before dieing. thats it. its a statement about the effect of survivorship bias over the long term existence of life.
so why didnt animals evolve to have fewer bones? because it never mattered enough to happen. things kept on surviving with the number of bones they have. we can look at them and say their body would function better with more or fewer bones, or different chemistry, or different soft tissue, or whatever you like. but none of those things mattered enough to happen, or if they did happen they werent better enough to change anything at the time. but also animals do have different numbers of bones, just not so different.
i wish i could describe this better, but evolution isnt an active process. if you have to think of it as a thing, keep in mind that it produces only what barely works. every adaptation we have was developed by the deaths of countless individuals, so we only have it because at some point it was necessary, or so benefitial it couldn’t help but propagate. having way less bones was never either of those things.
Tl:dr = Because they haven’t. Yet. Maybe. As far as we know.
I think you’ve described it quite well. That’s just evolutionary biology. Any adaptation requires some kind of pressure behind it.
Not pressure, just absence of negative effects. Pressure might help but is not required. And I use “absence” quite loosey-goosey.
Yes, and ‘pressure’ is used similarly. Think atmospheric pressure. It can lower and heighten, so a lack of pressure is low pressure, not the absence of it.