How does the sloth fit into evolution?

[good brother]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndMKTnSRsKM


So, how and why would such a creature evolve into this state?


In Christ, GB

 

[OllieFranz]

Why do "trust fund babies" exist? Not for any evolutionary reason of their own. There is no benefit to society or the environment either. The reason they exist is that their grandfathers were overacheivers in their lifetimes, and accumulated wealth far in excess of what they and their immediate offspring could exhaust.

It's the same with the modern sloths. Look up information about their ancestor, the great Ground Sloth, and you will see a real king of the heap of his time.

All change is evolution. Not all evolution is adaptive. It may take a long time for non-adaptive changes to be weeded out, but eventually they will be.

 

[Eldalar]

There are 2 reasons I know of:

1. Energy efficiency, the slow movement, low body temperature and overall energy efficiency of their body enable them to survive with far less or rather far more inefficient food then normally, they are living on trees and eating mostly leaves that are not very efficient when it comes to the energy they give. But they don't run away and most of the time there should be quite a few of those, so the sloth doesn't have to go far or fast to catch his food.

2. The slow movement actually is their tactic against predators, most if not all predators are attracted to sound, motion etc. so something that doesn't make much sound and moves slowly isn't going to be as likely to provoke an attack or even be noticed. Also since they live on trees they are safe from most ground dwelling predators.

At the moment they seem to be rather successful, with 4 of the 6 sloth species being on the "least concern"-list of endangered species, only 2 being on the "endangered" and "critical endagered"-list.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

Edit: nevermind, I see this level of ignorance of evolution has been the starting point for several threads of this kind.

 

[Amber Bird]

"How does the sloth fit into Evolution?"

Easy. On the 71/2 day God said, let there be adoreableness. And it was so.


[youtube]http://youtu.be/ffNvnaXg47k[/youtube]

 

[Split Rock]

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.

 

[good brother]

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 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

 

[Gadarene]

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".

Love the strawman. The point is not that we assume it evolved, therefore it must have evolved.

The 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.

Of course if you confronted a sloth with a predator in a different niche, it'd be slaughtered. But this is no more proof against evolution than dropping a fish on dry land and observing that it dies. Evolution states that creatures evolve to their environment, not some other speculative one.

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".

The really, really ironic part is your failure to determine the difference between the two stances.

Ah well - ignorance more frequently begets confidence than it does knowledge, and all that.

 

[good brother]

The 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.

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?


Thank you for your input in the conversation.


In Christ, GB

 

[sfs]

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?

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".)

Your overall point is still confusing. Are you claiming that a creator is more likely to produce a poorly designed creature than evolution, and that these allegedly maladapted animals are evidence for creation? That appears to be the logical conclusion you're heading toward, but I kind of doubt that's what you really have in mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

That is not what was said. We OBSERVE that the species thrives, so it is adapted to its environment. Whether that species evolved or not we can still conclude that it is well adapted. Your arguments boil down to a claim that these species are not well adapted to their environment. The ongoing existence of these species refutes your argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

So why hasn't the sloth gone extinct?

 

[Gadarene]

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."

​

As is this.

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.

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.

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?

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".

 

[Gadarene]

So why hasn't the sloth gone extinct?

Because every time a jaguar lurks nearby a flock of angels descend from on high, and sign a Hallelujah chorus to scare it away so the sloths can survive to sloth another day.

 

[Golden Yak]

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?

Re.: these points about sloth predator attributes:

Do you see how a predator without these attributes would be hard pressed to predate on sloths in the first place, especially 1 & 7? The sloth's 'enemies list' is pretty low given how many animals there are in the world that could take one - it hasn't gone extinct, so it must be doing something right.

An animal doesn't have to be invulnerable, it just has to survive well enough to maintain a breeding population. There's a few bits in that video that talk about why they behave the way they do - a great saving on energy and an easily accessible diet are two big advantages. The payoff may be vulnerability, but if it wasn't worth it, the sloth would be extinct already.

It may be that we'll find numerous animal species in this day and age that aren't doing so well and are trending towards extinction - but that's a part of natural selection too.

 

[Split Rock]

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

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.

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".)
.

Exactly.

 

[NailsII]

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.

 

[freezerman2000]

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".

Infrequent trips to the ground..They have to poop only once a week..and they only mate once a year..sometimes longer,and on the ground..
The rest of the time, they are in their tree,hidden.

 

[Gadarene]

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.

I don't know, if it hits a passing jaguar on its head then its fate is sealed. Best to do a stealth dump.

 

[freezerman2000]

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.

I agree with the first part of your post.
The second one I can answer, I just looked up the subject in Wiki, and they poop on the ground to avoid having the noise of the poop hitting the ground calling attention to their location.
They dig a hole, poop,and cover it up in the process, fertilizing "their"tree. Apparently, they search for a tree, and when one is found to it's liking, it rarely leaves it for another.