While I don’t blame you for arguing your point considering Alex’s misleading intro, it appears that you didn’t read the article at the link. The researchers actually considered this by creating a theory that incorporates how different variables may have contributed to the giraffe’s long neck as an alternative to the current popular “strict adaptationism” theory. They even used an exaptation example of the giraffes’ ancestors initially developing longer necks to reach higher leaves, but then taking on more of a sexual selection role.
Regardless, there are some examples where “strict adaptationism” makes perfectly logical sense, such as the guts of ruminants being suited to digest cellulose.
I hope you still find it acceptable to at least speculate and develop possible theories (while making allowing for error) as to how certain physical features may have evolved in organisms rather than just give up because we will never know for sure.
Okay I made the mistake of commenting before reading the actual article. They pretty much also said that it was probably a combination of natural and sexual selection, stating that the necks may have legthened initially as a means to reach higher leaves, before playing a larger role in fighting for and selecting mates.
So what's with the misleading intro, Alex? "Have you ever been told that the reason giraffes have such long neck is that they evolved to eat leaves on tall trees? Well, you’ve been lied to. The real reason (surprise, surprise) is sex and mating."
...may I just add, generally sexual selection results in elaborate physical features in just the males, as females tend to be the more choosy ones considering the larger investment they place in their offspring through gestation and often feeding.
So the fact that both sexes have such long necks makes me inclined to think that it is for reasons that benefit both sexes such as being able to reach the leaves on trees. However I wouldn't be surprised if sexual selection is also a major factor considering the way the males fight each other by "necking".
There doesn't only have to be 1 reason. It could always be a combination of sexual selection for mating purposes, and natural selection for high-up-leaf-eating purposes.
@ Ted I don't believe Kryptonian's comment was racist. Even if it were, it certainly wasn't overtly so. An overtly racist comment would be straight up saying something about non-white people being "inherently flawed". It seems rather he/she was saying that anyone in that situation might make similar choices, regardless of race.
Agreed!
It's a step below pushing empty prams into the paths of oncoming cars.
While I don’t blame you for arguing your point considering Alex’s misleading intro, it appears that you didn’t read the article at the link. The researchers actually considered this by creating a theory that incorporates how different variables may have contributed to the giraffe’s long neck as an alternative to the current popular “strict adaptationism” theory. They even used an exaptation example of the giraffes’ ancestors initially developing longer necks to reach higher leaves, but then taking on more of a sexual selection role.
Regardless, there are some examples where “strict adaptationism” makes perfectly logical sense, such as the guts of ruminants being suited to digest cellulose.
I hope you still find it acceptable to at least speculate and develop possible theories (while making allowing for error) as to how certain physical features may have evolved in organisms rather than just give up because we will never know for sure.
The null hypothesis in action.
So what's with the misleading intro, Alex?
"Have you ever been told that the reason giraffes have such long neck is that they evolved to eat leaves on tall trees? Well, you’ve been lied to. The real reason (surprise, surprise) is sex and mating."
So the fact that both sexes have such long necks makes me inclined to think that it is for reasons that benefit both sexes such as being able to reach the leaves on trees. However I wouldn't be surprised if sexual selection is also a major factor considering the way the males fight each other by "necking".
I don't believe Kryptonian's comment was racist. Even if it were, it certainly wasn't overtly so. An overtly racist comment would be straight up saying something about non-white people being "inherently flawed". It seems rather he/she was saying that anyone in that situation might make similar choices, regardless of race.
@ted, that's what I thought too ;)