News Article: Reptiles = Losers of evolution?

[knott00]

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.

[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?

[771subliminal]

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.

[Brewster320]

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!

[mainbutter]

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

[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.

[Darkice]

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.

[MasonC2K]

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

[Lucas339]

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!!

[Soterios]

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.