• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

If riding on wheels is better than walking...

B

Brackis

Banned
🙂...
Discuss

edit: "Best" answer by 11pm CST gets a mystery prize that sells on eBay for $10+ that I can PM you. Whether technical, humorous etc... give me a good reply.

Congratulations to our two winners...

JSFLY for shooting down the assumption proposed in the title
Eeezee for his clear Biological analysis
 
It's not, unless there are places to use wheels.
Wheels are good on reasonably smooth ground, but not on very variable terrain, such as the terrain most animals live on.
You can't go up a mountain on wheels as easily as you can on foot.
You can't catch prey with wheels as easily as you can with legs and paws.
etc etc.

Wheels are only better than walking for humans because we have changed our environment so that it is so.
 
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Because it would be physically impossible.
Click to expand...

exactly. wheels are a man-made invention, not something that occurs nature.

man, just when you think people can't get any more stupid, they always surprise you.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Because it would be physically impossible.
Click to expand...

exactly. wheels are a man-made invention, not something that occurs nature.

man, just when you think people can't get any more stupid, they always surprise you.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that wheels aren't a man-made invention that only work within a narrow context which would make it pointless for animals to begin with, how would something like that even evolve?

I don't see how a half-leg, half-wheel apparatus would do anything other than make you die.
 
The intermediate steps towards evolving wheels would have to be advantageous to have natural selection act to passing on those characteristics.

I can see how fins/legs or arms/wings happened... but there's nothing close to wheel/axle that provides improvement before you get to the final working product.
 
this isn't a stupid question at all, I'm fairly certain I've read an article on this that some guys at MIT did a study on this. I think it said that using wheels actually requires more information collection/processing since there are many more points of contacts than just feet per unit distance. It uses more energy and there is more obvious limitations against obstacles.

 
B/c then you'd have the jackals of the animal world with spare wheels all over the lawn in front of their dens. You'd have the Puma's of the world evolving spinners on their legs/wheels. And the elephants would be bragging to everyone else about their "22s". Meanwhile the asian lemur would have low-profile legs but would be sure to slap "NOS" stickers on them to make them appear faster.
 
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Because it would be physically impossible.
Click to expand...

exactly. wheels are a man-made invention, not something that occurs nature.

man, just when you think people can't get any more stupid, they always surprise you.
Click to expand...

but, but, god created man. why didn't he give us WHEEEEELS!

stupid god, and his "legs".
 
Originally posted by: swtethan
Originally posted by: Brackis
🙂...
Discuss


edit: Best answer by 11pm gets a a certain devilish p to p invitation.
Click to expand...

devilish? wtf?
Click to expand...

he's giving out invites to a torrent site. i believe there's one that has the word demon in it or something.
 
From a biological standpoint, wheels would never work.

1) Won't work on most types of terrain
2) Bones would wear down badly, could only work on creatures with a VERY short life
3) Occam's Razor, wheels are much more complex to evolve then a pair of legs or a flipper. There is a progression from nubs to legs, how would one evolve a wheel?

So basically even if some creature went through all of the impractical steps toward creating wheels instead of legs, it would have died out because it would be horribly disadvantaged, essentially unable to travel and easily injured by rocks that would break its wheels.
 
Not surprisingly, this has been addressed">http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0...3)121%3A3%3C395%3AWTWWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X</a> by academics.

The scarcity of rotating systems in nature is a function primarily of the limited utility of such systems in natural environments; constraints intrinsic to biological systems (such as physiological problems of nutrient supply) are of secondary importance. In aquatic environments, rotating systems are advantageous only at low Reynolds numbers; in terrestrial environments, rotating systems are feasible as a form of transportation only on relatively flat, open terrain and become less useful as the size of the rotating element decreases. Prokaryotic flagella are popularly believed to be the only rotating system in nature, but dung beetles and tumbleweeds also use such systems for transportation. Whenever rotating systems are a feasible mode of transportation, organisms have evolved that use these systems.
 
Originally posted by: theprodigalrebel
When was the last time a cat hit an oil slick and lost traction?
It's all about the pounce.
Click to expand...

You should see my cat try to run on linoleum when she gets scared 😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top