IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New And his 'case of use it or lose it?' is what . . .
. . makes sense in an evolutionary context - unless you can come up with a survival benefit from not being able to sense sweet for a hypothetically omnivirous proto-cat. I think that'd be hard.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Don't rule it out
I can imagine a situation where a proto-cat was omniverous but would be better off being a pure carnivore, and this was the adaptation that pushed it to be a pure carnivore.

Why might that happen? Inventing something off of the top of my head, what if the proto-cat lived in an environment with a sweet fruit around that was bad for cats. An adaptation to make them not be tempted could then be adaptive, with the side effect that they became purely carnivorous.

The odds are against this particular theory. Atrophying is more likely. (The fact that many other species have specialized in being carnivores without such an adaptation is evidence that my "just so" story is unlikely in the real world.) But the scientist is correct to say that we don't know whether we're looking at a cause or an effect.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
     Genetic defect found in cats. - (Andrew Grygus) - (6)
         Doesn't it make them sick? - (tjsinclair)
         You got it backwards - (broomberg) - (4)
             That doesn't make evolutionary sense. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                 Not according to this guy - (broomberg) - (2)
                     And his 'case of use it or lose it?' is what . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                         Don't rule it out - (ben_tilly)

Rather in the way of gilding the lily, and not to be encouraged.
32 ms