# Amazing Horseshoe Crab!   lol



## BANDERSNATCH (Jan 27, 2012)

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...are-one-of-natures-great-survivors107816.html

'Evidence for evolution is also found in past designs that endure to the present day. As long as the right habitat endures, then so will some of the creatures that inhabited the distant past.’


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 27, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/...are-one-of-natures-great-survivors107816.html



Have you ever held one of those things....they look like aliens, crazy looking.


----------



## bullethead (Jan 27, 2012)

Awesome creature.

I especially liked this part of the article:

"A strange evolution?
Evolution not only brings about ‘improvements’ in body shapes and design that help a species adapt better to its surroundings. It also allows some species to remain basically the same.
‘These creatures tell us that evolution does not move inevitably forwards towards new morphology and new designs,' comments Fortey. 
'Evidence for evolution is also found in past designs that endure to the present day. As long as the right habitat endures, then so will some of the creatures that inhabited the distant past.’


----------



## georgia_home (Jan 27, 2012)

i was born / raised / played on one of their prime breeding beaches on the coast. they are both amazing and annoying.

sort of a cross between a "german helmet" and "the predator", just knowing their history, millions of years of unchanging life is amazing.

but walking on the beach, or trying to swim, the combination of tails to step on, dead shells strewn across the beach and the associated smell were drawbacks. but that's life.

additionally, they made great fertilizer. a few companies would get contracts to come down and rake off the beach, selling the dead crabs to the local fertilizer company. some money to be made. don't know how much money these guys made, but at the end of breeding season, they would make several trips a day hauling out the shells.

like salmon spawning, other animals would meet the crabs, feasting on the dead and the eggs.

simply amazing!


----------



## Four (Jan 28, 2012)

So is this article also somehow disputing evolution?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 28, 2012)

Many people think Evolution has to do with something always progressing or changing for the better or improving or getting bigger/stronger/faster. Things evolve out of necessity and if there is no need to change things will not change.


----------



## pjmax (Jan 29, 2012)

First post. Been reading and enjoying. View evolution as fact.
Lately I've been concerned by "devolution". Not sure if thats a word.
I believe that the selection process, alterted by a well meaning enviroment, could create changes not beneficial overall. 
If this is ots, l will add, I hope God has a plan.


----------



## Four (Jan 29, 2012)

pjmax said:


> First post. Been reading and enjoying. View evolution as fact.
> Lately I've been concerned by "devolution". Not sure if thats a word.
> I believe that the selection process, alterted by a well meaning enviroment, could create changes not beneficial overall.
> If this is ots, l will add, I hope God has a plan.



I think devolution is a misnomer, evolution isn't ever good or bad, it might seem that way. But it's sole purpose is adaptation and survival, passing on useful genes etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 29, 2012)

pjmax said:


> First post. Been reading and enjoying. View evolution as fact.
> Lately I've been concerned by "devolution". Not sure if thats a word.
> I believe that the selection process, alterted by a well meaning enviroment, could create changes not beneficial overall.
> If this is ots, l will add, I hope God has a plan.



I read along for several months before I finally posted also.

I also believe evolution has occurred to get everything where it is today, but don't think that elliminates the God of the Bible from the equation at all, I also don't think it all began with one life form.

Where I get lost is how survival of the fittest has led to an entire food chain of critters.  Why would anything evolve to be the more perfect dinner for another animal.  What was the genetic benefit of a buffalo becoming a buffalo?  In context of their predators, they are slow and fat, and make a perfect meal.  

What I am saying is that if evolution were entirely responsible for where the food chain is today, it would seem that everything would be lean and fast, and predation would become impossible over time....or, everything would evolve to be the more perfect predator, wouldn't the killers be the more likely survivors, and as such, wouldn't beneficial mutations tip the scales in their favor?


----------



## bullethead (Jan 29, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I read along for several months before I finally posted also.
> 
> I also believe evolution has occurred to get everything where it is today, but don't think that elliminates the God of the Bible from the equation at all, I also don't think it all began with one life form.
> 
> ...



You leave out the concept of time and what has happened to the entire planet over and over and over, but over spans of time that are almost inconceivable. Severe climate changes, collisions with asteroids, temperature swings, internal eruptions, earthquakes, etc etc etc. Each time there are MASSIVE amounts of extinctions that result in evolutionary paths immediately ceasing to exist. Any advancements are wiped out completely. Survivors of other species might have to take on a whole new direction in order to survive the changes. We think humans are the most advanced of all species yet we are one traumatic event from cockraoches ruling the earth.
Buffaloes are probably where they need to be right now and any changes that they need might have been going on for a few hundred thousand years and might take a million more for one subtle little change to occur. Yes they are slow and fat but they rely on numbers to survive. They herd up in a large group to fend off predators. They run when necessary. The weak, sick, elderly, injured and very young that cannot fend off predators or keep up with the herd get taken. The strongest move on. When man decided to kill em all they didn't grow armor over the span of 20 years......more times than not one species will wipe out another simply because there is not enough time for adaptation.


----------



## pjmax (Jan 30, 2012)

Four says
"I think devolution is a misnomer"

...and I think it's not.


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Where I get lost is how survival of the fittest has led to an entire food chain of critters.  Why would anything evolve to be the more perfect dinner for another animal.  What was the genetic benefit of a buffalo becoming a buffalo?  In context of their predators, they are slow and fat, and make a perfect meal.



By virtue that it's a species that still exists it must not have led to the perfect dinner, i guess the counter point might be the modern cow, but that's artificial selection 

Buffalo are fat, but hardly slow, they use there size, as well as herding as defense mechanisms against predators.



JB0704 said:


> What I am saying is that if evolution were entirely responsible for where the food chain is today, it would seem that everything would be lean and fast, and predation would become impossible over time....or, everything would evolve to be the more perfect predator, wouldn't the killers be the more likely survivors, and as such, wouldn't beneficial mutations tip the scales in their favor?



Certain traits have a higher metabolic cost than other's, so not everything is lean and fast because its not always helpfull enough in the enviroment. If you took a pride of lions and moved them to an enviroment were speed / size wasnt as important, odds are they'd get smaller and slower, or just die off, but w.e.

It's all about competition not everything can be a perfect predator because something has to win out. It might be far more metabolically easy, as well as giving a higher chance of surviving,  if a species filled a different niche. That's why generally you'll see far more diverse species of prey than preditor, they're easier niches to fill.



pjmax said:


> Four says
> "I think devolution is a misnomer"
> 
> ...and I think it's not.



Compelling!


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 30, 2012)

Four said:


> By virtue that it's a species that still exists it must not have led to the perfect dinner, i guess the counter point might be the modern cow, but that's artificial selection .



I initially typed cows, but thought better of it.....



Four said:


> It's all about competition not everything can be a perfect predator because something has to win out. It might be far more metabolically easy, as well as giving a higher chance of surviving,  if a species filled a different niche. That's why generally you'll see far more diverse species of prey than preditor, they're easier niches to fill.



I know the evolution debate is very old on this forum, and I apologize if I am re-hashing old arguments.  But, the idea that a species fills a niche would fit more into my worldview than yours, wouldn't it?  

I got my undergrad at a Christian college (just for full disclosure purposes).  While there, my biology professor says "all the rabbits today are fast because all the slow rabbits got eaten."  That makes sense to me.  Where I get confused is why that rabbit didn't evolve some killer claws and teeth along with a disposition similar to the honey badger.  The rabbit is on the bottom of the food chain, and has apparently evolved to that status. Yet, in the same environment, you have predators evolving to greater efficiency.  Why one and not the other?

This is all for informational purposes, I don't think any of us are biologists, but it is fun discussion.


----------



## Four (Jan 30, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I know the evolution debate is very old on this forum, and I apologize if I am re-hashing old arguments.  But, the idea that a species fills a niche would fit more into my worldview than yours, wouldn't it?



I dont know why it would 



JB0704 said:


> I got my undergrad at a Christian college (just for full disclosure purposes).  While there, my biology professor says "all the rabbits today are fast because all the slow rabbits got eaten."  That makes sense to me.  Where I get confused is why that rabbit didn't evolve some killer claws and teeth along with a disposition similar to the honey badger.  The rabbit is on the bottom of the food chain, and has apparently evolved to that status. Yet, in the same environment, you have predators evolving to greater efficiency.  Why one and not the other?



Killer claws etc cost more metabolically than just getting faster. The rabbit is a herbivore, so it doesn't need to kill it's predators, just escape. It 'costs' less to just get faster, or blend in, or climb or w.e. than it does to develop strength and claws and fangs or w.e.

Predators and prey drive each others's evolution greatly. Lets say a bobcat vs. a rabbit. If rabbits get faster (because only the slow rabbits die) then that would cause the slow bobcats to get weeded out of the gene pool, thus making the bobcats in that environment faster as well. If rabbits started blending in better to the environment, then only the bobcats with good eyes would survive.

OR the predator dies out, because it cant find any rabbits, at which point generally a new predator would fill the niche (eventually)


----------



## JB0704 (Jan 30, 2012)

Four said:


> I dont know why it would



Because filling niches would indicate organization.  Such as, an ecosystem has too many predators and not enough prey....either more prey needs to develop, or this ecosystem will die.  Under a chance scenario, them all dieing is a larger possibility.  I would assume that is the rational conclusion of evolution....the fittest would survive to their own detriment.

In our world, you have humans on top of the food chain through intelligence, and as such, we manipulate the environment on purpose to our benefit.  What if we were dumb?  Look at the environmental impact of humans on North America before the conservation movement. Buffalo, deer, all kinds of things were going extinct fast.

It seems that if humans can wipe out a continent, other species would have eventually evolved to such ability as well.



Four said:


> Killer claws etc cost more metabolically than just getting faster. The rabbit is a herbivore, so it doesn't need to kill it's predators, just escape. It 'costs' less to just get faster, or blend in, or climb or w.e. than it does to develop strength and claws and fangs or w.e.
> 
> Predators and prey drive each others's evolution greatly. Lets say a bobcat vs. a rabbit. If rabbits get faster (because only the slow rabbits die) then that would cause the slow bobcats to get weeded out of the gene pool, thus making the bobcats in that environment faster as well. If rabbits started blending in better to the environment, then only the bobcats with good eyes would survive.
> 
> OR the predator dies out, because it cant find any rabbits, at which point generally a new predator would fill the niche (eventually)



I see your logic here, but view my thoughts above.  Wouldn't the natural conclusion of evolution be extinction?  Eventually somebody has to stand on top of the hill.  Without intelligence to conserve resources, one species should grow to dominate all others.

It just seems organized to me.  The niches being nicely filled by one critter or the other.

I do not dispute that evolution has occurred, I just think it is one mechanism used to organize the food chain.  Like a wheel put in motion.


----------

