I’m not a creationist, but a few things about evolution puzzle me. Perhaps someone can help me out. For example, on a recent barge trip we passed through some canals where the water was really disgustingly filthy. Ducks on the canals, if they felt thirsty, just dipped their heads and drank. No problem. If I did that, I’d get VERY ill (and could possibly catch something fatal). Now, we are supposed to be more highly evolved than ducks. So tell me, where is the evolutionary ADVANTAGE in LOSING the ability to just drink water anywhere, without filtering or cleaning it first? Why can a duck do it but we can’t?
Think of it this way, evolution doesn’t do what’s best. It does what works. Ducks don’t evolve to become human. If anything they evolve to be better at being a ducks. Because being a duck is what works for them.
Humans never lost that ability. Only recently have we filtered and cleaned our water before drinking it. Look back 100 years ago and see all the people getting water from lakes or rivers in buckets. There are still people in countries that do not have the luxary of purified water. But saying we have lost the ability to drink water anywhere, just because we clean our water now, is like saying we have lost the ability to crap in the woods just because we have toilets.
Total tangent:
Today I ran across an article in a medical journal from 1910. The researchers were following patients with confirmed thalamic lesions (from infarct, cancer, etc.) and detailing the neurological manifestations of the injuries. It was a honkin’ long article, and they presented the entire case histories of most of their patients to include any other possibly significant medical information. Fascinating to see the other injuries the majority of the patients had suffered, from amputated limbs to eyes that had been put out to horrible burns to falls that had led to extended loss of consciousness.
From cleaner water to safety measures that make it less likely that I’ll suffer mutilation, I’m feeling a renewed sense of gratitude for living in the developed world. As a human, not as a duck. Quack!
You are assuming that ducks don’t die from diseases they get from drinking filthy water. Not a good bet. Humans would die, and so do ducks. But not every duck and not every human would die. Those who survive would have the opportunity to pass on the genetic keys to surviving living in and drinking filthy water.
Individuals participate in evolution by either procreating before they die, or not. You don’t develop the ability, those with a tendency to be able to exhibit the behavior, or characteristic which survives are likely to have more offspring. The next generation will have less competition from ducks, or humans who have low resistance to environmental filth. Because more of them have that resistance, they will thrive as a group. Many individuals will still die. The tendency to be able to resist the poisons will become even more common.
Evolution does not happen by individuals changing. It happens because each individual procreates and passes his genes to his offspring. Differences develop among the many individuals in large populations, inconsequential variations. When some factor begins to matter more, those who have that factor die faster or slower than before. That changes the conservation of those factors, and alters the species very gradually.
Tris
Vultures have stomachs of steel, they can ingest cholera bacterium contained in the carrion they eat and not suffer in the least. Other animals, man included would die if they did this. Does this make us less evolved than a vulture?
We can’t breathe underwater as fish do… does this make fish more evolved?
We can test our foods for contamination and treat people when they ingest toxins. We have developed technology so that we can operate underwater, fly, and burrow. I think we are up a step on the old evolutionary ladder.
Just wanted to point out a couple of faulty initial assumptions that may have kept you from getting to the answer easily:
We are? Says who? And what does “more highly evolved” mean? Is that some synonym for “more like human beings”?
Although the previous posters have answered the question well, why did you assume that humans lost some ability? Maybe ducks gained some ability, and are thus more “highly evolved” than we are.
Being able to drink untreated water is more of a developed immunity to any buggies in it. American tourists complain of diarrhea (sp?) from local water and automatically associate it with the third-world status of the country they’re in. It’s mainly because they’re vulnerable to the fauna that the natives have an immunity to. (There was once a Pepto commercial that had an American complaining about Mexican water, then in the epilog had a Mexican complaining about American water.)
Not to reiterate too much, but I agree with the other responses…
(1) humans are not more “highly” evolved (although evolution has given us a “higher” intellect). evolution has no goal, it just keeps what works and gets rid of what doesn’t at that particular time/environment
(2) developed immunity - some humans can stomach dirtier water than others
(3) natural immunity - perhaps the duck’s stomach is capable of handling pathogens that we cannot
(4) perhaps the ducks do get sick now and then…you just didn’t see it because it doesn’t happen instantaneously and the sick duck aren’t the ones you see frollacking about
I would guess that ducks are pretty good at dealing with natural pathogens in the water but do get sick from chemical or sewage pollution from humans.
There has been a lot of talk lately about how we as a race are doing ourselves no favours from separating ourselves from bacteria and germs .
From Let Them Eat Dirt : from the New Scientiest
to reiterate, we are not more highly evolved but rather evolved differently. we cannot swim or are not as buoyant as ducks whereas they ducks cannot type stuff on keyboards. we certainly cannot claim to be more evolved simply because we have different faculties.
as previously mentioned, ducks evolved in way that best suits their niche.
m 2 pennies
Well, they can, but it’s illegible.
…And, of course, chickens can type, but it’s all hunt and peck. :rolleyes:
The question is:
If a million ducks were at a million keyboards, would one of them produce one of Cecil’s columns?
Sorry to hijack your hijack, but your eminded me of something I saw at The Brunching Shuttlecocks website (home of the C.Y.B.O.R.G. name generator):
By the way, I think that is the funniest website I have ever seen.
Actually, this is not the case. Vultures do, in fact, get sick. Their immune systems are not necessarily any stronger than ours. However, what they do possess is a very rapid immune system. That is, their immune system will not prevent them from getting sick any more than ours does; however, it operates such that when they do get sick, whatever illness they catch runs its course in a matter of hours, rather than the days or weeks it might take for a human to recover.
It could very well be that the observed ducks from the OP have a limited form of this sort of immune system, allowing them to drink what could be tainted water.
i think triskadecamus was onto something. perhaps the ducks that couldn’t stomach the water were ‘evolutioned’ out. animals for the most part have continued to naturally select since their inception. humans on the other hand, invent ways of coping with the environment, allowing the less ‘hardy’ members of our species to survive and reproduce with the more hardy members. as we make more advances in medicine and comfort technology, it’ll be less likely for an adapatable mutation to out-survive the rest of the species.
Thanks to all who replied to my original post. Being relatively new to the forum, I don’t know if it is discouraged to take a second shot at the same question (too boring?) but perhaps you’ll excuse me this time.
Some respondents took issue with the ‘more highly evolved’ aspect of my OP. Well, I think I could make a pretty good case, but it’s not essential to the nub of my question. Aslo, some of you too issue with my assertion that the ducks don’t get ill, or that we (humans) do. So let me re-phrase.
Granted that some human societies can tolerate muckier water than we generally can here in comfy old Western Industrialised Heaven, and granted some wildlife suffer for their reliance on non-purified water, I still feel safe asserting that most human societies try to purify or cleanse water (even if only by boiling it) where they can, and take more care over this than wildlife, which do not. Also, some posters miss the point of the huge water purification systems + technology which we have developed over the past century or so: they were developed BECAUSE of humankind’s notorious susceptibility to water-borne disease.
And so to the nub of the question. One factor in evolutionary development is the selection for traits which confer survival advantage. I cannot think of ANY advantage in NOT being able to just drink water (which is essential to life) in its natural non-purified condition. I can think of numerous advantages in being ABLE to do this. All wild creatures, covering every branch of the evolutionary tree, can make do with untreated water. We humans are noriously poor at doing this. Wouldn’t evolution select FOR this ability, rather than for its absence? I think so, yet in homo sapiens (and homo sapiens ALONE) this seems not to have been the case.
That’s an interesting way of looking at the question, Chalice; the converse would be “Has our penchant for purifying water to eliminate or control water-borne illness made us more susceptible to some of the ill effects of unpurified water?” George Carlin often jokes about how people his age from New York are immune to everything, since as kids they swam in the polluted East River. We are, afer all, often our own worst enemy.
Another interesting point of duck evolution is that their quacks don’t echo, which has been documented numerous times in various Internet Factoid Lists. That is very important if you don’t want to give your location away to some hungry fox while you’re having the time of your life splashing away in the pond.
(Hey, we raised ducks–I KNOW the truth.)