The Dink Network

How did a scorpions tail evolve?

Now there's a good question.

I feel the need to answer it since my favorite subject is Biology.

Thing is scorpions eat smaller creatures like bugs and tiny mammals...the stinger isnt necessary for this. What it does is cripple/kill large animals that it cant hide/fight.

I have no idea how it could gain it since it couldnt serve a purpose before being poisonous.

I'm stumped.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

Well, pre stinnger, it could have just had a sharp jab attack. Pre that, it may have been a detactchable tale.

Or, it could have been detachable more recently, just being poisionus in the long run, so that if the pred. caught the tail, it died.

This an interesting topic. However, it is impossible for us to know how it evolved. We might get lucky (and I mean lucky) and guess why, but even that is unlikely.

Well, they need it, they got it... somehow...

Maybe it was glued on?

What a scientific viewpoint metatarasal, you may of made a breakthrough there

However, it is impossible for us to know how it evolved.

Its possible for us (meaning people as a whole, not us irrational board members) to come up with some pretty good explanations. For example, the evolution of the eye was unexplainable for some time (i.e. several parts seemed to be codependent), but several recent theories have been made that make sense.

I'd provide a link, but I prefer making sweeping statements for people to argue with.

Oh redink, don't loose hope, and don't sacrafice the high ground for a moment of pettiness. We only have a small bit that lets us realize that we suffer others, don't make the differences disappear, and don't take the easy path because it is easy.

but several recent theories have been made that make sense

Exactly. They are theories. By their very nature, theories are not neccessarily correct. Admittedly there are some good theories out there (excluding Intelligent Design). However, theories are not knowledge, they are guesses.

No link needed by the way, redink1, because I know what you're refuring to.

It wasn't petty. I was the one it was aimed at I even I'm not bothered by it.

------
Sincerly, DragonMaci

I have to give a presentation tommorow on the evolution of human "language ability." (That is, the way kids can learn a language with very little instruction/negative feedback.) Basically, they think this evolved to help deal with social situations. The chiefs of primitive tribes (please excuse the anecdotal evidence) are often both extremely eloquent and reproductively successful. Some hunter-gatherer societies spend enormous amounts of time talking, arguing, gossipping etc., so being good at these things is probably selected for.

The scorpion's tail seemed a hell of a lot harder to explain.

The chiefs of primitive tribes (please excuse the anecdotal evidence) are often both extremely eloquent and reproductively successful. Some hunter-gatherer societies spend enormous amounts of time talking, arguing, gossipping etc., so being good at these things is probably selected for.

We covered that extremely briefly in my Communication Skills paper.

------
Sincerly, DragonMaci.

"I'd provide a link, but I prefer making sweeping statements for people to argue with."

Keeps the subjects killing each other instead of those in charge doesnt it?

,
The Vault Dweller

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can't be falsified.

"Newton was wrong! His laws only work because god makes them work!"

Intelligent design is not a theory because it can't be falsified.

Here's my dictionary's relevant definition of theory: "A proposed explanation or hypothesis designed to account for any phenomenon." Also: "Loosely,, mere speculation, conjecture, or guesswork." ID fits into both definitions, so therefore is a theory

------
Sincerly, DraconicMaci

The Science of Discworld II: The Globe and The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch are good and entertaining books to read about evolutuion.

A theory is only a theory to a scientist if it can be proved wrong, according to my 9th grade physics prof.

Well then they aren't being consistent with the definition of the word. I hate the way politicians and scientists feel the need to do that so often.

A theory is only a theory to a scientist if it can be proved wrong, according to my 9th grade physics prof.

A theory is only a good scientific theory if it can be falsified. Evolution can't really be falsified so that means that it isn't a good scientific theory. (atleast I never heard of an experiment that could proof that evolution is wrong)

The difference between ID and evolution is that it's easier to study evolution then it is to study ID, in spite of the fact that it isn't really a good scientific theory.