【問題】熊貓原理???

[狩楓阿Ben 10]

最近再看考古題發現一題問答題:

試敘述熊貓原理?

可是我都找不到相關的資料，請神人解答吧!!!

[rick08565 10]

我有找到一篇是這個...

The panda bear has no thumbs. Rather, it has ten fingers and a

fleshy lump on the side of each hand. It uses these lumps as

opposing digits to grip its meals. These ‘thumbs’ are not very good

at their jobs. The panda would do much better if it had real thumbs,

with bones and joints. The problem is, some quirk of evolution has

never given the panda this option. Its ‘fifth fingers’ are loafing

about on the end of each hand, while a poor cousin does their dirty

work. Why hasn’t evolution forced the lazy fingers to locate

themselves more efficiently? The answer is the Panda Principle.

Ecologist Stephen Jay Gould, who identified the concept,6 argues

that the ‘survival of the fittest’ is not a universal principle. An

inefficient organism (or a part of it) can survive if it can prevent

competing organisms gaining access to key resources. His

favourite analogy is the QWERTY keyboard – the one we all use.

This was designed to slow typists to prevent the jamming of

mechanical typewriters. A faster keyboard has been designed –

the Dvorak. But can it gain a foothold? Not while the QWERTY

board hogs all the resources (such as manufacturing and

distribution systems and our training).

Isn’t it odd that we know of a better way but will not implement it?

What other inefficient systems are in operation because they were

‘first’ and currently hog the resources? Before you get too excited,

ask whether is it ‘right’ to remove these inefficiencies. Consider

that the Panda Principle applies to New Zealand’s fauna.

Introduced animals that gained access to resources so much more

effectively than the locals caused numerous extinctions. The trick

is, an ecosystem can operate very happily at a local optimum.

Bring in a new set of creatures that operate at, perhaps, a global

optimum (mice are globally more effective than our local weta),

and look at what gets lost.

全部都英文我看不懂= =

請高手翻譯一下..

我問學長是有學長跟我說

他有點像是在反適者生存,不知道是不是

來自:http://tw.knowledge.yahoo.com/question/question?qid=1106102500048

[_Egg_ 11]

這是一段愛與手指頭的故事

關於貓熊遊手好閒的大拇指

以及其他忙碌的指頭們

既然貓熊的其它指頭們這麼忙碌

為什麼不要迫使那根游手好閒的大拇指

進化為勤奮好青年有路用指呢?

難道適者生存的理論是唬爛的嗎?

如果適者生存理論沒有欺騙我們純真的感情,

又怎麼會縱容大拇指這麼遊手好閒呢?

又怎麼會縱容大拇指們繼續遊手好閒呢?

紐西蘭的生物族群也有這樣的現象,

我們還能繼續這麼無怨無悔地相信適者生存的論調嗎?

↑這是大意

補充:歹勢啦~第一次會扯到轉換食性是因為有這樣的研究指出,後來看了一下內文才發現是在講另一件事XD

[白鹿 11]

Panda Principle不反對適者生存，也不是在說熊貓原來是肉食者後來發現竹子很好吃。

根據上面那串，Panda Principle是演化學家古爾德提出的概念，以熊貓為例，說明演化是隨機且有很多外在限制的，所以有很多動物身上會出現在人看來不夠完美的特徵，例如熊貓的掌，上面五根手指都長在同一邊，熊貓必須利用另一邊的肉瘤充當大拇指才能抓握東西。

如果熊貓擁有貨真價實的大拇指，他們的行動會方便且有效率得多，但是這樣的拇指沒有出現，因為演化是隨機且有很多限制的，例如說，如果熊貓沒什麼天敵，食物也很充足，使得他們在進食的效率上沒有壓力，手掌比較好的熊貓可能就不會特別被天擇青睞，因此完整的手掌也就不會演化出來。

我看過的另一個更明顯的例子是，獵槍有助於狩獵羚羊，為什麼獵豹沒有演化出長在肩膀上的獵槍？因為演化需要很多條件，演化不是百寶袋，要什麼就有什麼。

我記得古爾德就有一本書叫做"熊貓的大拇指"談演化。

[月殘追風 10]

太強啦....

謝謝各位大大

獲益匪淺!!