G
From an evolutionary standpoint, the sloth is... well.... slow. Why would such a creature like this evolve to be like this? It does have long claws which could potentially offer some defense, but the creature's muscles are next to nonexistent. It's muscles are reduced to thin ribbons" because it does so little. It moves ever so slow as to be completely inept at defending itself. It is "half deaf and half blind. . (according to the accompanying video) It has to do it's business on the ground which would invite any local predator an easy lunch.
Attenborough: Saying Boo to a Sloth! - BBC Earth - YouTube
So, how and why would such a creature evolve into this state?
In Christ, GB
How many of these "How does creature X fit into evolution" threads are you going to start? If a species thrives then it is adapted to its environment, regardless of how you think the species originated. This really seems pointless to me.From an evolutionary standpoint, the sloth is... well.... slow. Why would such a creature like this evolve to be like this? It does have long claws which could potentially offer some defense, but the creature's muscles are next to nonexistent. It's muscles are reduced to thin ribbons" because it does so little. It moves ever so slow as to be completely inept at defending itself. It is "half deaf and half blind. . (according to the accompanying video) It has to do it's business on the ground which would invite any local predator an easy lunch.
Attenborough: Saying Boo to a Sloth! - BBC Earth - YouTube
So, how and why would such a creature evolve into this state?
In Christ, GB
No creature is required to be a superfast, strong, smart killing machine in order to be fit for survival. It just has to be good enough to survive in a particular niche. Evidently sloths don't endure predation by fast predators as they survive and propagate.
If a species thrives then it is adapted to its environment, regardless of how you think the species originated.
Love the logic! "Since we know evolution is true, if an animal exists, obviously it evolved no matter how it's actions, lifestyle, diet, physique, defense, etc goes against the grain of evolution".
The really, really ironic part is your failure to determine the difference between the two stances.The really ironic part is that the same evolutionists that argue with that above logic will denounce and ridicule any creationist for saying something along the lines of "If a creature exists, obviously there's a Creator".
No predators? Huh. The following statement is from this page: Sloth at Animal CornerThe point is that there is no need to evolve to evade predators if there isn't predation. It's utterly needless, and a waste of critical resources. And I know of no predators for sloths nor is it apparent that sloths are on the verge of extinction due to predation, so there is hardly any reason to think it should have evolved to cope with such. If you think otherwise, then provide evidence.
You have two choices: either the sloth is well equipped to handle predation, or sloths have all been eaten. If they do just fine in their natural habitat, then they are by definition well adapted. (Note: for some reason, you interpreted "well adapted" to mean "got here by evolution".)No predators? Huh. The following statement is from this page: Sloth at Animal Corner"The main predators of sloths are the jaguar, the harpy eagle and humans."I would like you to take note that of the three known predators (not to mention any unknown predators):
1. None of the predators are limited to the ground so a sloth would not be safe in a tree.
2. All of the listed predators have better eyesight than the sloth.
3. All of the listed predators have better hearing than the sloth.
4. All of the listed predators are much faster than the sloth.
5. All of the listed predators are apex predators.
6. All of the listed predators can EASILY take down a sloth.
7. All of the listed predators exist in the sloth's environment.
Would you like more evidence of predators and predation? And HOW exactly is a sloth so fine tuned against predators again?
Love the logic! "Since we know evolution is true, if an animal exists, obviously it evolved no matter how it's actions, lifestyle, diet, physique, defense, etc goes against the grain of evolution". The really ironic part is that the same evolutionists that argue with that above logic will denounce and ridicule any creationist for saying something along the lines of "If a creature exists, obviously there's a Creator".
In Christ, GB
1. None of the predators are limited to the ground so a sloth would not be safe in a tree.
2. All of the listed predators have better eyesight than the sloth.
3. All of the listed predators have better hearing than the sloth.
4. All of the listed predators are much faster than the sloth.
5. All of the listed predators are apex predators.
6. All of the listed predators can EASILY take down a sloth.
7. All of the listed predators exist in the sloth's environment.
No predators? Huh. The following statement is from this page: Sloth at Animal Corner"The main predators of sloths are the jaguar, the harpy eagle and humans."
Despite the sloths apparent defencelessness, predators do not pose special problems. In the trees sloths have good camouflage and moving only slowly, do not attract attention. Only during their rare visits to ground level do they become vulnerable.
Again, they survive, don't they? So their camouflage and infrequent trips to the ground level are working. They are adapted to their environment - including predators. (With the possible exception of humans, hunting etc, but that's always a bit more complex - although this wouldn't have been an issue when they evolved).I would like you to take note that of the three known predators (not to mention any unknown predators):
1. None of the predators are limited to the ground so a sloth would not be safe in a tree.
2. All of the listed predators have better eyesight than the sloth.
3. All of the listed predators have better hearing than the sloth.
4. All of the listed predators are much faster than the sloth.
5. All of the listed predators are apex predators.
6. All of the listed predators can EASILY take down a sloth.
7. All of the listed predators exist in the sloth's environment.
Would you like more evidence of predators and predation? And HOW exactly is a sloth so fine tuned against predators again?
So why hasn't the sloth gone extinct?
No predators? Huh. The following statement is from this page: Sloth at Animal Corner"The main predators of sloths are the jaguar, the harpy eagle and humans."I would like you to take note that of the three known predators (not to mention any unknown predators):
1. None of the predators are limited to the ground so a sloth would not be safe in a tree.
2. All of the listed predators have better eyesight than the sloth.
3. All of the listed predators have better hearing than the sloth.
4. All of the listed predators are much faster than the sloth.
5. All of the listed predators are apex predators.
6. All of the listed predators can EASILY take down a sloth.
7. All of the listed predators exist in the sloth's environment.
Would you like more evidence of predators and predation? And HOW exactly is a sloth so fine tuned against predators again?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? My point was that if the sloth is thriving (and it is since it isn't extinct) then logically it must be well adapted to its niche. Otherwise it would be exinct. This isn't evidence for or against evolution or creation.Love the logic! "Since we know evolution is true, if an animal exists, obviously it evolved no matter how it's actions, lifestyle, diet, physique, defense, etc goes against the grain of evolution". The really ironic part is that the same evolutionists that argue with that above logic will denounce and ridicule any creationist for saying something along the lines of "If a creature exists, obviously there's a Creator".
In Christ, GB
Exactly.You have two choices: either the sloth is well equipped to handle predation, or sloths have all been eaten. If they do just fine in their natural habitat, then they are by definition well adapted. (Note: for some reason, you interpreted "well adapted" to mean "got here by evolution".)
.
As is this.
Edit: Actually, this really is hilarious, you've posted a link that contains dozens of adaptations of the sloth to its environment yet still seem to think the existence of predators (no different to many other species) is the achilles heel for this one in particular. Fabulous.
Again, they survive, don't they? So their camouflage and infrequent trips to the ground level are working. They are adapted to their environment - including predators. (With the possible exception of humans, hunting etc, but that's always a bit more complex - although this wouldn't have been an issue when they evolved).
This is an incredibly feeble argument. We know that species can survive and continue to propagate despite the existence of predators. Why the sloth is so different to any other species of this kind is beyond me, but evidently my mind doesn't operate on creationist "logic".
NailsII said:What is more intersting, I think, is why does a sloth have to climb down from relative safety to defecate? This seems like a really odd behaviour, and counter to its evolutionary fitness.
As each successive 'how does x animal fit into evolution given y charactersitic' becomes more and more like a bad dream, is there any chance that you will take on board any of the comments that more than answer your questions?
It appears not, because mmost of the replies to you are being ignored, but you gleefully pounce on the odd one as if it validates your claim.
Seriously, every new thread you start down this line has already been answered in general terms by the first one - "its all the same, only the names have changed" if you like.
What is more intersting, I think, is why does a sloth have to climb down from relative safety to defecate? This seems like a really odd behaviour, and counter to its evolutionary fitness.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?