If riding on wheels is better than walking...

[So]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

"wheels" are more common in nature than legs.

http://www.bms.ed.ac.uk/research/others...Cell%20biol.topics/Cell_Locomotion.htm

 

[bobdelt]

i'd rather have 4 legs than wheels....

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Brackis
...
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.

Well....birds originally were going to go the wheeled route but changed their minds and went with wings instead.

 

[Lorax]

my theory and entry to win the prize:

because evolution of a wheel would have to go through various iterations before reaching a working model, during which the species in question would not be able to move, and thus rendering it unfit to survive.

 

[SoulAssassin]

Maybe animals have grown wheels, they just rolled downhill and couldn't get back up to procreate.

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: Lorax
my theory and entry to win the prize:

because evolution of a wheel would have to go through various iterations before reaching a working model, during which the species in question would not be able to move, and thus rendering it unfit to survive.

From a scientific perspective that uses common wording and appears to be drawn up from thought alone, you are in the lead. I have, however, LOL'ed already while in a lecture from some of these replies.

 

[vi edit]

Wheels aren't power sources. They are essentially useless on their own without some force pushing or pulling them.

I would make the assumption that organic matter simply does not posess the ability to replicate them and as efficiently as legs currently provide.

Plus as stated, you have obvious disadvantages such as evasion, wear and tear, and environment adaptability.

Also, with 4 legs, you have some sort of failover if you lose one (or two) of them and still can propel yourself. With wheels if you lose whatever it is that is powering them, you are screwed. You have no "limp mode" propel you.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Lorax
my theory and entry to win the prize:

because evolution of a wheel would have to go through various iterations before reaching a working model, during which the species in question would not be able to move, and thus rendering it unfit to survive.

From a scientific perspective that uses common wording and appears to be drawn up from thought alone, you are in the lead. I have, however, LOL'ed already while in a lecture from some of these replies.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

 

[VTHodge]

For a wheel to work, you have to have a body part totally isolated from the rest of your body with a low-friction connection. Look at any complex animal. Everything is connected. You wouldn't be able to get blood to your "wheels" or get nerve data back from them.

Bad idea in general.

 

[Vegitto]

Really easy. You know how gazelle's get chased by lions?

Well, what if gazelles had evolved wheels instead of legs? That means that lions would also have to evolve wheels, because if they didn't, the gazelles would win a 'race' every time, and the lions would die. So, let's assume that now, gazelles and lions have wheels instead of legs. Now that the lions have wheels, they are faster than every other animal. Let's call in the zebra, also an animal hunted by the lion. To not get hunted to the point of extinction, zebras would also need wheels. Since zebras are related to horses, it would be normal to assume that if zebras had wheels, horses would also have wheels instead of legs.

So, there we go, a horse with wheels. What next? A class-action suit against Ferrari for plagiarizing the horses' invention. And nobody wants that, especially God, so he said:"Fsck dem wheels!" :laugh:

 

[Brackis]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Lorax
my theory and entry to win the prize:

because evolution of a wheel would have to go through various iterations before reaching a working model, during which the species in question would not be able to move, and thus rendering it unfit to survive.

From a scientific perspective that uses common wording and appears to be drawn up from thought alone, you are in the lead. I have, however, LOL'ed already while in a lecture from some of these replies.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Yes, but I hate you, remember? I honestly must have glanced over yours or it was his wording. The final judgement will be at 11pm to determine the greatest replies and immortalize an ATOTer.

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello

Originally posted by: Brackis

Originally posted by: Lorax
my theory and entry to win the prize:

because evolution of a wheel would have to go through various iterations before reaching a working model, during which the species in question would not be able to move, and thus rendering it unfit to survive.

From a scientific perspective that uses common wording and appears to be drawn up from thought alone, you are in the lead. I have, however, LOL'ed already while in a lecture from some of these replies.

Isn't that pretty much what I said?

Yes, but I hate you, remember? I honestly must have glanced over yours or it was his wording. The final judgement will be at 11pm to determine the greatest replies and immortalize an ATOTer.

Sqube essentially said the same thing too.

I posted before I saw your prize comment, and I don't like the sounds of it, so feel free to not even consider mine

 

[Brackis]

Hmm... Squbes does seem to make the argument. It wasn't clear on the first read, but will now make my decision more difficult.

 

[JulesMaximus]

They say there's no such thing as a stupid question...but clearly there is.

 

[aidanjm]

the main problem with the question is the assumption that riding on wheels IS actually better than walking in all situations - in many situations it isn't better, for example on rugged, steep or unpredictable terrain, or when you are trying to climb a tree (we are descendants from monkeys afterall - our ancestors were apes swinging from branch to branch, I doubt wheels would have been much of an advantage in those conditions).

 

[aidanjm]

.

 

[Unheard]

Because evolving to wheels would also require evolving some sort of brakes.

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: YOyoYOhowsDAjello
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.

Oooohhh careful with that kind of thinking, Jello. You sound just like that Michael Behe!

 

[Cuda1447]

Cheetahs and four legs run faster than crappy cars with crappy engines. And MUCH faster than bikes or other devices with wheels and no engine.


Cheetah > wheels

 

[everman]

They did but the brakes never quite got there and that was the end of it.

 

[brxndxn]

I challenge the idea that the wheel is superior to walking.

Walking causes wear and tear on parts of cartilage and bone (knees, ankles, hips) that are made for walking. A wheel requires a small axle and large diameter compared to the size of the axle for useful amplification of force which leads to efficient movement. Nature, in life, has not been able to form materials that can sustain the heat, friction, and forces that appear in a wheel and axle. And, if you made a wheel out of nature's parts (ie. wood), then it would not be able to jump.. Ahh.. jumping.. A wheel and axle would also require an elaborate suspension mechanism. Landing from any small distance would require the same elaborate suspension mechanism as jumping, or risk putting too high of forces on the wheel. A transmission system would be required for efficient use of different speeds whereas walking and running are merely changes in the length of strides. So, simply, nature made best use of the parts available.

Or, we could just simplify the entire analysis and say that 'Nature did not invent the wheel since there were no roads.'

 

[Trevelyan]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
Cheetahs and four legs run faster than crappy cars with crappy engines. And MUCH faster than bikes or other devices with wheels and no engine.


Cheetah on wheels > Cheetah > wheels

Fixed

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: brxndxn
I challenge the idea that the wheel is superior to walking.

...

Or, we could just simplify the entire analysis and say that 'Nature did not invent the wheel since there were no roads.'

I wonder how the wheel would have served our purposes when we were apes swinging from branch to branch, wheels aren't that useful for climbing trees

 

[B00ne]

 

[Ktulu]

Animals may not be able to evolve wheels as we know them but I remember hearing about a salamander ( or maybe a lizard) that curls up into a wheel and rolls down hill when in danger.

Wheels occuring naturally in nature.