News Article: Reptiles = Losers of evolution?

http://labspaces.net/98898/Naming_ev...ers_and_losers

Just thought this was mildly interesting, so I figured it might interest some of you too.

Sometimes scientists can be dim.

"These guys are the losers...we don't understand why they're still around!"

They're still around because they're NOT losers...obviously! <lol>

Species diversity and a high rate of change means that the animals aren't well adapted to their environment. If they were, they would not HAVE to change. Why is this obvious to me, but not to those guys?

Crocodiles evolved a design that allowed them to survive several MAJOR ecological disasters on this planet, including the one that wiped out the large reptiles prior to the rise of the dinosaurs, the ones that wiped out huge families of dinosaurs several times, the one that wiped out all of the dinosaurs except for the birds, and the ice age, and this guy wants to claim they are evolutionary losers? What is he on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Sometimes scientists can be dim.

"These guys are the losers...we don't understand why they're still around!"

They're still around because they're NOT losers...obviously! <lol>

Species diversity and a high rate of change means that the animals aren't well adapted to their environment. If they were, they would not HAVE to change. Why is this obvious to me, but not to those guys?

Crocodiles evolved a design that allowed them to survive several MAJOR ecological disasters on this planet, including the one that wiped out the large reptiles prior to the rise of the dinosaurs, the ones that wiped out huge families of dinosaurs several times, the one that wiped out all of the dinosaurs except for the birds, and the ice age, and this guy wants to claim they are evolutionary losers? What is he on?

---

exactly. reptiles got it right from the start so there was little need to change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Crocodiles evolved a design that allowed them to survive several MAJOR ecological disasters on this planet, including the one that wiped out the large reptiles prior to the rise of the dinosaurs, the ones that wiped out huge families of dinosaurs several times, the one that wiped out all of the dinosaurs except for the birds, and the ice age, and this guy wants to claim they are evolutionary losers? What is he on?

---

Not to mention no animal has been able to take there place are the water edge. Their nich in the food chain as been threatened several times by similarly adapted animals, including giant amphibans and phrehistoric whales, through out their history and they have managed to out compete every one of those animals and all of those animals are now extinct. They are perfect at what they do. Millions of years ago they were hunting dinosaurs, today they are hunting zebra, millions of years from now they will probably be hunting whatever is existing then. They arn't the losers, sure other animals evole quickly and diverse into many differnet species, but theres a simple reason why crocs haven't evoled while other animals must. The reason crocodile haven't evoled is simply because they don't have to!

The greatest threat to the american alligator was mankind.. and they rebounded unlike any other species we have ever threatened.

I believe the numbers discussed are for extant species, so there is something to be said for the diversification observed in mammals and the other groups. To me, it really highlights how impressive and adaptive some groups can be, and also the plasticity in the DNA of these groups.

Groups that haven't diversified much are also pretty impressive. The design of crocodillians hasn't really changed in forever; it flat out works for them and they've been able to persist.

Are these people retarded?

Lets see. Reptiles have been here millions of years. Very little change. Fits in just fine.

Mammals. Also millions of years. Has trouble fitting in so must adapt and evolve.

Looks like reptiles are the clear winners.

To quote my gramma, they're still around because "God don't make no junk!" :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by branson

I believe the numbers discussed are for extant species, so there is something to be said for the diversification observed in mammals and the other groups. To me, it really highlights how impressive and adaptive some groups can be, and also the plasticity in the DNA of these groups.

Groups that haven't diversified much are also pretty impressive. The design of crocodillians hasn't really changed in forever; it flat out works for them and they've been able to persist.

---

you hit the nail on the head here. they aren't saying that repitles are actual losers! they are saying that reptiles didn't have "species explosions" like other groups. other groups split up and made many, many species. coral reef fish are an excellent example!

you guys need to quit reading into things the worng way! they are simply saying that, evolutionarily speaking, reptiles didn't do all that well. they maintained but didn't split up like the other groups. they are talking in the now! not the past! don't forget that the world was once ruled by reptiles! that part was left out of the study as they are talking about animals today!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucas339

you hit the nail on the head here. they aren't saying that repitles are actual losers! they are saying that reptiles didn't have "species explosions" like other groups. other groups split up and made many, many species. coral reef fish are an excellent example!

you guys need to quit reading into things the worng way! they are simply saying that, evolutionarily speaking, reptiles didn't do all that well. they maintained but didn't split up like the other groups. they are talking in the now! not the past! don't forget that the world was once ruled by reptiles! that part was left out of the study as they are talking about animals today!!

---

I was about to post that.

Clearly very few in here so far read the article.

In a nutshell, all the article really says is, "Reptiles didn't branch out as much as mammals." The end.

The problem is that they're assuming that diversifying rapidly is better than not doing so. It DOES say 'losers' after all. Obviously the crocodilians are not losers, so their assumption that rapid diversification is better than slow diversification is inaccurate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The problem is that they're assuming that diversifying rapidly is better than not doing so. It DOES say 'losers' after all. Obviously the crocodilians are not losers, so their assumption that rapid diversification is better than slow diversification is inaccurate.

---

Yeah it says losers cause compared to birds and mammals they are losers. Sure they have been around for a long time but the point is for something that has been around for so long how come we mammals have a chance at all. Why is it that Reptiles are not a much bigger player. Why don't we see a species of alligator that can survive in New York. Birds and Mammals fill niches when they can, reptiles don't nearly as frequently. Not to say that they don't at all. There are snakes in the ocean and snakes in the extreme north but the diversity pales in comparison to other animals.

I too take offense to the term "loser" though. I like to think that reptiles are just playing a different game. A game that they are doing very very well at. The article is pretty clearly defining better as rapid diversification. If you don't think rapid diversification is better then we can argue about that but the article has a point and I think it makes it well, and that is that for how amazing reptiles are they sure suck at diversifying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

The problem is that they're assuming that diversifying rapidly is better than not doing so. It DOES say 'losers' after all. Obviously the crocodilians are not losers, so their assumption that rapid diversification is better than slow diversification is inaccurate.

---

sure.

The researchers are basing winning and losing on diversification. In that respect, crocs lose. Badly. They're not dissing them or saying that the group sucks; they mention how unique they are.

Quote from the article (referring to the tuatara, but also the crocodillians I would suspect):
"In species richness, these are losers, but in another sense, this highlights how unique they are."

One could make a case that failure to diversify isn't the best strategy should some rapid change occur (e.g., climate), but I don't want to get into that...

If anyone cares to read the manuscript, it can be found here.

They are saying they are losers because they have not changed much over the course of time such as birds and mammals, but in my book, that is BA since they were well equipped to live and kill on literally day one. Sure they were bigger back then, because there prey were bigger back then, now that there prey is much smaller, they need to get smaller so they won't kill off all their prey because they are hungry. Remember, from the start of the world and in present time, 99% of all animals that ever existed have gone extinct. That remaining 1% percent were sharks,crocodilians, and some other things not much of us care about:).

if they are losers or evolution then why have they not needed to change?
they limit their food intake and they are never overpopulate.
mammals do all of the overpopulation and have to migrate and change or starve

For the sake of the research, the game is diversification. In that sense, crocodillians lose. They haven't diversified very much. These researchers aren't saying that crocs have a bad evolutionary strategy (they mustn't because they're still around); they admit that the design has worked for that group and that it's pretty interesting. I think people have grasped the wrong part of this article.

That said, I personally think that the ability to diversify and invade new habitats/take advantage of different conditions is pretty dang nifty. :)

Good job scientists, you never let us down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by omnibus2

Good job scientists, you never let us down.

---

did you even read the entire paper? or the responses here?

those great scientist have made you life way easier!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by guambomb832

They are saying they are losers because they have not changed much over the course of time such as birds and mammals, but in my book, that is BA since they were well equipped to live and kill on literally day one. Sure they were bigger back then, because there prey were bigger back then, now that there prey is much smaller, they need to get smaller so they won't kill off all their prey because they are hungry. Remember, from the start of the world and in present time, 99% of all animals that ever existed have gone extinct. That remaining 1% percent were sharks,crocodilians, and some other things not much of us care about:).

---

WRONG. They are losers because they have not diversified. The point is where are my snow alligators? Where are the flying snakes. Mammals are better at invading new territory and changing into other species. Everyone needs to calm down. The scientists like the reptiles just fine, they are actually complimenting them in a way. If not for the fact that they got it so right the first time they may not be with us today, because they haven't adapted at even close to the pace of other animals.