Hypothetic question

We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that I've
been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the rest
drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?

Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.

Ian

--
Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com

 

Ian Walker wrote:
> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?

> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.

Heh! And the cagers would die out due to obesity and heart disease

--
Guy
===
I wonder if you wouldn't mind piecing out our imperfections with your thoughts; and while you're
about it perhaps you could think when we talk of bicycles, that you see them printing their proud
wheels i' the receiving earth; thanks awfully.

http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#103 http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/09.shtml#104

 

"Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...

> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.

And develop heads the shape of aero-helmets?

 

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
> "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
> > Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>
> And develop heads the shape of aero-helmets?

Padded palms and spd bones?

Colin

 

Ian Walker deftly scribbled:

> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>
> Ian

I reckon the drivers would probably get obese and lazy ..

The riders would possibly develop harder hand and bum tissue / muscle / bones to cope with the
discomfort ..

See, that's my problem. I'm not just a driver, I'm not just a cyclist, I do both. I love driving in
all it's forms, I love machinery, I love cycling, whether it's watching someone on a 'bent or
someone falling off a mountain.

I like to think I don't have quite such a 'polarised' view of either motorists or cyclists as some
on this ng (and on the other car ng's) seem to have.

--
...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

"Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?

This supposes a Lamarckian view of evolution, in which an organism adapts to meet the demands of its
environment. This isn't the way evolution works. Instead organisms change through genetic mutation
at conception and, if this change helps them adapt to their environment better, then they will
reproduce more easily and the genetic change will be passed on to more and more descendants.

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 03:59:32 -0500, Ian Walker wrote:

> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.

Does this mean you believe cyclists are some kind of insects?

 

Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>
> Ian

thick skin (hide?) on hands and thighs - to protect from road rash Huge rib cavity - for oxygen Huge
thighs and calves - obviously stooped - probably, but maybe not if we still selected for height some
sort of transparent membrane over the cornea - for road grit stiffer hamstrings means difficulties
moving off the bike Almost certainly some small change to the arrangement of the genitals /
reproductive organs Strong neck muscles - so head would be pulled back to see the sky when off the
bike. fewer toes - no need for those.

Oooo, all a bit depressing I think. Steve

 

In message <[email protected]>, FortyEight16
<[email protected]> writes
>
>"Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news[email protected]...
>> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
>> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and
>> the rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
>This supposes a Lamarckian view of evolution, in which an organism adapts to meet the demands of
>its environment. This isn't the way evolution works.

How can you spout 'scientific' garbage.

Everyone knows that God created the world.
--
Chris French, Leeds

 

In message <[email protected]>, Colin Blackburn
<[email protected]> writes
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>> "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news[email protected]...
>>
>> > Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>>
>> And develop heads the shape of aero-helmets?
>
>Padded palms and spd bones?
>
Built in bioluminescent lights in the forehead?

A third arm for drinking tea while rding?
--
Chris French, Leeds

 

..........................Eh?

"FortyEight16" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
> > We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently,
so
> > here's another that I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families
> > cycled everywhere and the rest drove, how would
the
> > two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> This supposes a Lamarckian view of evolution, in which an organism adapts
to
> meet the demands of its environment. This isn't the way evolution works. Instead organisms change
> through genetic mutation at conception and, if
this
> change helps them adapt to their environment better, then they will reproduce more easily and the
> genetic change will be passed on to more and more descendants.
>

 

Steve Watkin <[email protected]> wrote:
>..........................Eh? "FortyEight16" <[email protected]> wrote in message
[a reasonable explanation of why Lamarckian evolution isn't real.]

Do you suppose top posting makes people dumb, or dumbness makes people top post?
--
David Damerell <[email protected]> flcl?

 

In article <[email protected]>,
Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote:

> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and the
> rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>
> Ian

The last sentence of this post makes no sense at all.

Geoff.

--

http://www.sputnik-one.com

 

On 11 Feb 2003 10:27:58 -0800, [email protected] (stephen pridgeon) wrote:

>Almost certainly some small change to the arrangement of the genitals / reproductive organs Strong
>neck muscles - so head would be pulled back to see the sky when off the bike.

I thought were talking about a superior evolutionary form? Clearly they would be riding recumbents!

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003, FortyEight16 wrote:
> "Ian Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
> > I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and
> > the rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>
> This supposes a Lamarckian view of evolution, in which an organism adapts to meet the demands of
> its environment. This isn't the way evolution works. Instead organisms change through genetic
> mutation at conception and, if this change helps them adapt to their environment better, then they
> will reproduce more easily and the genetic change will be passed on to more and more descendants.

I think Ian is assuming that the cyclists and drivers form two separate populations breeding only
among themselves, which is not entirely a far-fetched idea. Clearly the pressures of natural
selection differ between the two groups: they die on the roads in different ways, for one thing. In
which case you expect differential evolution, whether or not you are a Lamarckian.

 

stephen pridgeon deftly scribbled:

> Ian Walker <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> We've had a couple of interesting hypothetical questions here recently, so here's another that
>> I've been pondering for a long time: If a certain proportion of families cycled everywhere and
>> the rest drove, how would the two groups evolve differently over time?
>>
>> Personally, I like to think that the cyclists would evolve compound eyes.
>>
>> Ian
>
> thick skin (hide?) on hands and thighs - to protect from road rash Huge rib cavity - for oxygen
> Huge thighs and calves - obviously stooped - probably, but maybe not if we still selected for
> height some sort of transparent membrane over the cornea - for road grit stiffer hamstrings means
> difficulties moving off the bike Almost certainly some small change to the arrangement of the
> genitals / reproductive organs Strong neck muscles - so head would be pulled back to see the sky
> when off the bike. fewer toes - no need for those.
>
> Oooo, all a bit depressing I think. Steve

Why would I need all that just to drive a car ?



--
...................................Paul-xxx Seti 1411 wu in 10202 hours
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ http://graffiti.virgin.net/ar.sole/Index.htm

 

Henry Braun <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think Ian is assuming that the cyclists and drivers form two separate populations breeding only
> among themselves, which is not entirely a far-fetched idea.

Are you suggesting that there would be little or no chance of the occasional impressionable child of
the death greenhouse tribe being seduced by the bronzed thighs of a cyclist?

(Well, it worked for me...)

 

Henry Braun <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think Ian is assuming that the cyclists and drivers form two separate populations breeding only
> among themselves, which is not entirely a far-fetched idea.

Don't forget the bicycle was one of the main factors in greater genetic diversity. Before the
bicycle the general population married within the distance they could walk. The bicycle allowed them
to visit communities further afield. Now powered transport is taking that to the global scale.

Tony

--
http://www.raven-family.com

"I don't want any yes-men around me. I want everybody to tell me the truth even if it costs them
their job."

Samuel Goldwyn

 

On Tue, 11 Feb 2003 21:24:40 +0000, Henry Braun <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I think Ian is assuming that the cyclists and drivers form two separate populations breeding only
> among themselves, which is not entirely a far-fetched idea. Clearly the pressures of natural
> selection differ between the two groups: they die on the roads in different ways, for one thing.
> In which case you expect differential evolution, whether or not you are a Lamarckian.
>

Thankyou, Henry. That's exactly what I meant.

And I think we can leave God out of this; no perfect being would have allowed the Range Rover to be
developed. (runs for cover).

--
Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com

 

"chris French" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> >This supposes a Lamarckian view of evolution, in which an organism adapts
to
> >meet the demands of its environment. This isn't the way evolution works.
>
> How can you spout 'scientific' garbage.
>
> Everyone knows that God created the world.

A question I've always wanted answered by a creationist: "Given that Eve was only created after god
saw that Adam needed a partner, were Adam's genitals retro-fitted?"