Why? Just because one life form developed a feature doesn't mean that other life forms will have it.
As the article mentioned, there are other solutions to the same problem that other insects evolved. Probably the gears solution is statistically less likely.
Then again, if this was just discovered, how hard have we really been looking?
Because evolution isn't planned, it involves selection from randomly[1]-occuring variations each of which has a extremely low probability. Certainly, we see some some traits that arise independently in different populations in different places with similar traits and are preserved and develop in similar ways, but the fact that a feature that contributes to fitness arises uniquely in one place is far from surprising.
[1] well, really, many of the processes are highly-chaotic more than random, but that's beside the point here.
I grant you all but a feature that contributes to fitness arises uniquely in one place is far from surprising. First, I'm not a biologist and have not studied evolution/evolutionary processes as much as I would like to, but it's hard to agree with that statement. Why exactly is it not surprising? In the over one-million insect species estimated to exist[1], of which some percentage (won't even try to guess) have some evolutionary jumping mechanism, it seems at least mildly surprising that we've never observed at least similarly structured creatures.
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect#Distribution_and_diversi...
Its not surprising that some survival-valuable features (especially when they fulfill a function for which there are other mechanisms) arise and are preserved and further developed only once, since them arising in a species in which they are survival-useful is a matter of chance, as is their preservation.
So, its not surprising that features we haven't seen in other species is continue to be discovered. Its remarkable enough to be newsworthy and interesting, but not something that fundamentally challenges the expectations and understandings we have from basic understanding of evolution.
Indeed. In fact, what I find more surprising is that some non-trivial adaptations have developed more than once. Flight for instance evolved four separate times (bugs, birds, bats, and now-extinct pterosaurs all fly[flew], but none of them share a common ancestor that could also fly.) I find that simply remarkable. Really drives home the massive timescales that are involved.
Surely, "now-extinct pterosaurs", not "non-extinct pterosaurs", unless I missed some very newsworthy discovery.
Because:
- the designer is not that clever,
- the designer likes to play with its creatures,
- the designer is not alone,
- the designer forgot to update its creations,
- or simply because she does not care.
Some designed Bengal Tigers, and others designed Aye Ayes.
Over time, mutations in those touching pieces interlocked more firmly until they resembled what we think of as gears.
If this were the case, would you not expect to observe these evolutionary steps in other organisms today? As noted in the article:
...there are many jumping insects like the issus... [though] most other bugs synchronize the quick jolt of their leaping legs through friction...
If there are "many jumping" insects, how does it come to be that only a single specie (that we know of, granted) that has evolved this feature, and why have we not observed others undergoing the evolutionary process that could/would yield them in others?