4 ms·

This makes sense for plants and cold-blooded animals, which rely on light/heat respectively in order to function well. This doesn't explain the huge number of

This makes sense for plants and cold-blooded animals, which rely on light/heat respectively in order to function well. This doesn't explain the huge number of nocturnal animals that sleep during the day and are active at night.

Udik 9y ago
If your life (hunting, mating) happens at night, why would you waste energy staying active during the day?
- polemic 9y ago
  whynotboth.gif Seriously though, the existence of nocturnal animals kinda puts that argument to bed. While there might be selection pressure to specialise within day or night cycles, it's simply not plausible that no animal, in the vastness of the biospehere, has not generalised to do both, without some critical and fundamental flaw.
  - pitcharoad 9y ago
    there might be a differential equation that describes a small part of beings (not a "huge number") benefitting from the free energy that diurnal animals might be at night. There's an equilibrium that's clearly preferential to daylight animals. Point in case, bats as my primary example seem to be pretty archaic, with highly developed specializations, but nothing really highly developed. Which I see as an expression of the low entropy in the dark (the signal to noise ratio for sound is rather good at night though). Deep see animals are mostly outliers inhabiting a niche, as well. Whereas people as the highest developed species, if I may say so myself, don't even quite get along with crossing the day-night boundaries, I don't see your argument at all. You are rather proving the point.
nub3 9y ago
We're talking about the most primitive specisms here which are thought to be the very beginning of multicell life itself. Predators which hunt at night occured later (another heretic thought).
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  "another heretic thought" I'm curious why you keep presenting your opinions as extreme outliers when they aren't particularly outside mainstream scientific thought?
peterburkimsher 9y ago
It also doesn't explain jellyfish, which are so far under the sea that they don't see direct sunlight.

Udik 9y ago

If your life (hunting, mating) happens at night, why would you waste energy staying active during the day?

polemic 9y ago
whynotboth.gif Seriously though, the existence of nocturnal animals kinda puts that argument to bed. While there might be selection pressure to specialise within day or night cycles, it's simply not plausible that no animal, in the vastness of the biospehere, has not generalised to do both, without some critical and fundamental flaw.
- pitcharoad 9y ago
  there might be a differential equation that describes a small part of beings (not a "huge number") benefitting from the free energy that diurnal animals might be at night. There's an equilibrium that's clearly preferential to daylight animals. Point in case, bats as my primary example seem to be pretty archaic, with highly developed specializations, but nothing really highly developed. Which I see as an expression of the low entropy in the dark (the signal to noise ratio for sound is rather good at night though). Deep see animals are mostly outliers inhabiting a niche, as well. Whereas people as the highest developed species, if I may say so myself, don't even quite get along with crossing the day-night boundaries, I don't see your argument at all. You are rather proving the point.

nub3 9y ago

We're talking about the most primitive specisms here which are thought to be the very beginning of multicell life itself. Predators which hunt at night occured later (another heretic thought).

SwellJoe 9y ago
"another heretic thought" I'm curious why you keep presenting your opinions as extreme outliers when they aren't particularly outside mainstream scientific thought?

peterburkimsher 9y ago

It also doesn't explain jellyfish, which are so far under the sea that they don't see direct sunlight.