Stephen Jay Gould wrote a famous essay on the panda’s thumb, citing it as an example of the way evolution works: making do with what’s available rather than coming up with optimal design solutions, in this case by adapting a wrist bone so that it sticks out and acts as an opposable digit to grasp bamboo shoots with. A case of not-very-intelligent-design, in fact, and therefore a pretty good argument for evolution and against the Great Designer in the Sky.
The Telegraph has a report on the latest findings from Spain, a tree-climbing ancestor to the red panda – not, in fact, a close relation to the giant panda, but sharing the “false thumb”.
(Via Tim Worstall, who’s in a particularly pedantic mood, taking issue with the terminology whereby the false thumb “evolved for this use“: “Things evolve and are then put to certain uses but the entire point is that the appearance of the characteristics is not driven by their use.” Well yes, but they evolve because the use they’re put to helps the survival and propagation of individuals with that particular characteristic. Might as well do what everyone else does and say it evolved for that purpose. Yes, it’s a metaphor, but a very handy one. Thanks to Darwin we can now talk about purpose in evolution without implying the existence of a designer or an overall plan.)
Which is all by way of an introduction to Carl Zimmer’s excellent article on the subject.
Leave a Reply