Re:Evolution’s Worst Mistake? How About External Testicles?
by bambax on Friday June 01, 2018 @01:43PM
(#17207948)
If you want to talk about external testicles in mammals you should mention elephants. Did you ever see an elephant ball sack? Yes? Then you're a liar, 'cause they don't have one.
Elephants have internal testicles, which seems proof enough that any utilitarian explanation about why it's necessary or useful is flawed. Many, or most evolution features are just accidents. Anything that "kind of works" is good enough for evolution.
Truest part of the article:
> Far too often we repeat refrains like “Well, it must do something important or natural selection would have eliminated it,” or “Living things are perfectly suited for their habitats,” or “Evolution doesn’t tolerate inefficiency.” We haven’t really moved on from the creationist mindset that expects to see perfection in nature.
Elephants have internal testicles, which seems proof enough that any utilitarian explanation about why it's necessary or useful is flawed. Many, or most evolution features are just accidents. Anything that "kind of works" is good enough for evolution.
Truest part of the article:
> Far too often we repeat refrains like “Well, it must do something important or natural selection would have eliminated it,” or “Living things are perfectly suited for their habitats,” or “Evolution doesn’t tolerate inefficiency.” We haven’t really moved on from the creationist mindset that expects to see perfection in nature.