http://www.physorg.com/news99303729.html
Mainly, I think, because because unicorns were drawn to meet fantasy expectations.
To provide an evolutionary advantage, unicorns lack relevance.
Look at the base of a rhinocerous nose horn and you"ll get an idea of what I mean.
CactusCritter, could you elaborate more, I don't see what you mean.
Would a horse with a single horn be really all that different from the myriad of other evolutionarily derived traits? The varieties of structure in horns and antlers already in existence immediately comes to mind. I can actually think of several evolutionary pathways that could potentially develop a unicorn. Without the magical properties, a unicorn (a one horned horse) could easily exist. The simplest thing I can think of is through female sexual selection. A male horse is born with a knob-like protrusion and the female horses really like it. After that, you start seeing more and more horses with knobs on their head. After that, more female sexual selection leads to ever larger and stronger horns. As a secondary selection pressure, the males could use them for dueling, further refining the horn. I can think of more scenarios, but that works just off the top of my head.
Would a horse with a single horn be really all that different from the myriad of other evolutionarily derived traits? The varieties of structure in horns and antlers already in existence immediately comes to mind. I can actually think of several evolutionary pathways that could potentially develop a unicorn. Without the magical properties, a unicorn (a one horned horse) could easily exist. The simplest thing I can think of is through female sexual selection. A male horse is born with a knob-like protrusion and the female horses really like it. After that, you start seeing more and more horses with knobs on their head. After that, more female sexual selection leads to ever larger and stronger horns. As a secondary selection pressure, the males could use them for dueling, further refining the horn. I can think of more scenarios, but that works just off the top of my head.
A little research shows that Rhinos and Horses belong to the same order: PERISSODACTYLA.
The families in this order are
* Family Equidae: mostly horse like animals
* Family Tapiridae: tapirs
* Family Rhinocerotidae: rhinoceroses
It would not be completely unreasonable to expect to see horses with horns. But on the other hand, as the diagram below shows, over the past 60 million years, horses have been mostly selected for speed and strength at the same time. So if a horse version did arise with horns at some point (as it easily might have), another horse with better speed would still have stolen the selection process.
~~edit
A link to image:
I know the mods added the shrink picture feature to conserve the template, but it gets annoying when the whole picture is needed.
For those who use Firefox (as everyone should be), just right click and select 'View Image' in all cases to go to the URL of the pic itself, but that is still quite annoying.
The families in this order are
* Family Equidae: mostly horse like animals
* Family Tapiridae: tapirs
* Family Rhinocerotidae: rhinoceroses
It would not be completely unreasonable to expect to see horses with horns. But on the other hand, as the diagram below shows, over the past 60 million years, horses have been mostly selected for speed and strength at the same time. So if a horse version did arise with horns at some point (as it easily might have), another horse with better speed would still have stolen the selection process.
~~edit
A link to image:
I know the mods added the shrink picture feature to conserve the template, but it gets annoying when the whole picture is needed.
For those who use Firefox (as everyone should be), just right click and select 'View Image' in all cases to go to the URL of the pic itself, but that is still quite annoying.
The person who best hypothesized possible evolutionary developments was Gene Bylinsky who used the award winning illustrator Wayne McLoughlin in his book, "Life in Darwin's Universe: Evolution and the Cosmos." He wrote, "Given the many possibilities of evolution, it's not inconceivable that under certain circumstances, a marsupial could evolve into a highly intelligent biped." The accompanying illustration shows an upright humanoid with a little "joey" peering at you from its pouch! Had placental mammals faced an extinction event, this could have been "The Planet of the Marsupials!" 
And here was I thinking there were no unicorns for lack of bait.
QUOTE (CactusCritter+May 25 2007, 08:59 PM)
Mainly, I think, because because unicorns were drawn to meet fantasy expectations.
To provide an evolutionary advantage, unicorns lack relevance.
Look at the base of a rhinocerous nose horn and you"ll get an idea of what I mean.
Why don't we see what you mean without looking at the base of a rhino nose horn?
Because we would be wrong. Here is Jonah, who was eaten by the whale and stayed in its belly for 3 days; the whale is by his feet:
>http://www.belezabrazil.com.br/FMG-ProfetaJonas-Cong.jpg<
Wait... that is not a whale! In fact this fish doesn't exist at all, because it was sculpted by someone who never saw a whale. The concept "whale" was ready when he tried to sculpt it and the sculpture didn't remotely resemble the real thing. He was trying to do rev-engineer a whale from a biblical description!
At the time Asimov wrote his best trilogy, the differences between "castrated", "impotent", and "barren" was highly technical knowledge. This lack of differentiation shows up glaringly in the most important scene of the trilogy. You can easily rev-engineer the meaning of the Mule's last words because we have more meanings for words. I am not pointing at a defect, mind you, it's one of the book's strengths that it is written as if by someone who just got to Earth (you MUST read the Foundation trilogy!)
There is an evolution of meanings, both for objects that already pre-existed their descriptions and for objects that we see as a jumble of meanings. "Be" and "have" are not two verbs in Latin languages. They are four verbs... however, we don't need 30 words for "ice", thankfully
All this to say that "unicorn" is "horse with single horn", an idea, a signifier whose existence we owe, directly, from a description of a RHINO in a signifier-poor and/or word-poor language. Evolutionarily it has as much validity as that "whale".
However, we have a huge misdirection in this article! Rev-engineering a horse horn from **plant sexual organs**? Come on, folks... Does "reproduction" remotely resemble "defensive weapon"?
There is no justification for it unless... someone is not telling us something or another!
In short, does anyone want to try to rev-engineer the article itself?
To provide an evolutionary advantage, unicorns lack relevance.
Look at the base of a rhinocerous nose horn and you"ll get an idea of what I mean.
Why don't we see what you mean without looking at the base of a rhino nose horn?
Because we would be wrong. Here is Jonah, who was eaten by the whale and stayed in its belly for 3 days; the whale is by his feet:
>http://www.belezabrazil.com.br/FMG-ProfetaJonas-Cong.jpg<
Wait... that is not a whale! In fact this fish doesn't exist at all, because it was sculpted by someone who never saw a whale. The concept "whale" was ready when he tried to sculpt it and the sculpture didn't remotely resemble the real thing. He was trying to do rev-engineer a whale from a biblical description!
At the time Asimov wrote his best trilogy, the differences between "castrated", "impotent", and "barren" was highly technical knowledge. This lack of differentiation shows up glaringly in the most important scene of the trilogy. You can easily rev-engineer the meaning of the Mule's last words because we have more meanings for words. I am not pointing at a defect, mind you, it's one of the book's strengths that it is written as if by someone who just got to Earth (you MUST read the Foundation trilogy!)
There is an evolution of meanings, both for objects that already pre-existed their descriptions and for objects that we see as a jumble of meanings. "Be" and "have" are not two verbs in Latin languages. They are four verbs... however, we don't need 30 words for "ice", thankfully
All this to say that "unicorn" is "horse with single horn", an idea, a signifier whose existence we owe, directly, from a description of a RHINO in a signifier-poor and/or word-poor language. Evolutionarily it has as much validity as that "whale".
However, we have a huge misdirection in this article! Rev-engineering a horse horn from **plant sexual organs**? Come on, folks... Does "reproduction" remotely resemble "defensive weapon"?
There is no justification for it unless... someone is not telling us something or another!
In short, does anyone want to try to rev-engineer the article itself?
Rusty Shackleford,
Your suggestion of sexual selection as anevlutionary push for unicorn development was clever, IMHO.
I am elderly man which probably explains why I thought of the unicorn horn as an offensive or defensive weapon. If there had been such a critter, I felt that its horn would have been massive just as the rhinocerus's horn is.
There is, as I hope all know, a whale-like artic sea creature, call the Narwhal IIRC, which does feature a horn or tusk in it's snout, directed forward.
I doubt that it is decorative and have never read any fact or speculation that it might be an element of sexual selection for female Narwhals. Anyone know?
Your suggestion of sexual selection as anevlutionary push for unicorn development was clever, IMHO.
I am elderly man which probably explains why I thought of the unicorn horn as an offensive or defensive weapon. If there had been such a critter, I felt that its horn would have been massive just as the rhinocerus's horn is.
There is, as I hope all know, a whale-like artic sea creature, call the Narwhal IIRC, which does feature a horn or tusk in it's snout, directed forward.
I doubt that it is decorative and have never read any fact or speculation that it might be an element of sexual selection for female Narwhals. Anyone know?
Thank you CactusCritter, never count out the influence of sexual selection, it has given us so much.
I am so glad you mentioned the narwhal. I have no doubt that sexual selection has played a role in narwhal tusks (actually a tooth). Especially since it is mostly males that have them, although an occasional female grows one. However, I also feel that multiple factors have influenced the amazing organ that is the narwhals tusk. It is still poorly understood, but you can read more about it in this excellent blog article.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/20..._bend_30_cm.php
I see your point, but I think you are ignoring the powerful force that sexual selection can be. The animal world is full of males that have been handicapped by sexual selection. Male peacocks would be much better off if they had the drab colors of the female in order to help hide from predators. Males that stand out get more girls, and pass on more genes. Thus we end up with flashy male peacocks. In a way, females are selecting for stronger males by handicapping them in this way. The flashy male that is still able to avoid predation despite sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously a fit mate.
Though, I readily admit that a unicorn species would likely have to live in an isolated environment in order to avoid competition with other horse species. Perhaps this hypothetical species had already begun to move away from the main thrust of equine evolution by living in a novel habitat for horses.
I am so glad you mentioned the narwhal. I have no doubt that sexual selection has played a role in narwhal tusks (actually a tooth). Especially since it is mostly males that have them, although an occasional female grows one. However, I also feel that multiple factors have influenced the amazing organ that is the narwhals tusk. It is still poorly understood, but you can read more about it in this excellent blog article.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/20..._bend_30_cm.php
QUOTE
It would not be completely unreasonable to expect to see horses with horns. But on the other hand, as the diagram below shows, over the past 60 million years, horses have been mostly selected for speed and strength at the same time. So if a horse version did arise with horns at some point (as it easily might have), another horse with better speed would still have stolen the selection process.
I see your point, but I think you are ignoring the powerful force that sexual selection can be. The animal world is full of males that have been handicapped by sexual selection. Male peacocks would be much better off if they had the drab colors of the female in order to help hide from predators. Males that stand out get more girls, and pass on more genes. Thus we end up with flashy male peacocks. In a way, females are selecting for stronger males by handicapping them in this way. The flashy male that is still able to avoid predation despite sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously a fit mate.
Though, I readily admit that a unicorn species would likely have to live in an isolated environment in order to avoid competition with other horse species. Perhaps this hypothetical species had already begun to move away from the main thrust of equine evolution by living in a novel habitat for horses.
The bible mentiones unicorns a number of times. Also dragons, cockatrices, sea monsters, etc. Just like any book of fairy tales.
QUOTE (Rusty Shackleford+May 26 2007, 04:11 AM)
I see your point, but I think you are ignoring the powerful force that sexual selection can be. The animal world is full of males that have been handicapped by sexual selection. Male peacocks would be much better off if they had the drab colors of the female in order to help hide from predators. Males that stand out get more girls, and pass on more genes. Thus we end up with flashy male peacocks. In a way, females are selecting for stronger males by handicapping them in this way. The flashy male that is still able to avoid predation despite sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously a fit mate.
Though, I readily admit that a unicorn species would likely have to live in an isolated environment in order to avoid competition with other horse species. Perhaps this hypothetical species had already begun to move away from the main thrust of equine evolution by living in a novel habitat for horses.
You're right of course, but I was just pointing out that a male with a long horn would not necessarily be sexually selected since horse females are more attracted by strength and speed. We can't envision it, but maybe a unicorn may seem somewhat freakish to a regular female horse.
In the case of peacocks and the birds of paradise, it is their colours that make them more attractive, not large protrusions from their bodies.
I think it could go either way.
Though, I readily admit that a unicorn species would likely have to live in an isolated environment in order to avoid competition with other horse species. Perhaps this hypothetical species had already begun to move away from the main thrust of equine evolution by living in a novel habitat for horses.
You're right of course, but I was just pointing out that a male with a long horn would not necessarily be sexually selected since horse females are more attracted by strength and speed. We can't envision it, but maybe a unicorn may seem somewhat freakish to a regular female horse.
In the case of peacocks and the birds of paradise, it is their colours that make them more attractive, not large protrusions from their bodies.
I think it could go either way.
QUOTE
I have no doubt that sexual selection has played a role in narwhal tusks (actually a tooth)
Now we are talking then: sexual selection. Except that people think selectivity is a free-will thingie. It's not. It's a sense. You don't reaaaally chose your mate, it's the mating that choses you.
It's a bit complicated to invert the usual view that we have of thing in order to give them the liberty to develop, even if only in our own vision and understanding of them. This is one of those cases, if only to get to our answer: unicorns didn't "evolve" from horses because horses didn't develop the specific *senses* that goes with that appendage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have no doubt that sexual selection has played a role in narwhal tusks (actually a tooth) |
Now we are talking then: sexual selection. Except that people think selectivity is a free-will thingie. It's not. It's a sense. You don't reaaaally chose your mate, it's the mating that choses you.
It's a bit complicated to invert the usual view that we have of thing in order to give them the liberty to develop, even if only in our own vision and understanding of them. This is one of those cases, if only to get to our answer: unicorns didn't "evolve" from horses because horses didn't develop the specific *senses* that goes with that appendage.
However, I also feel that multiple factors have influenced the amazing organ that is the narwhals tusk. It is still poorly understood, but you can read more about it in this excellent blog article.
http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/20..._bend_30_cm.php
Very good link. It does suggest that the tusk is a sense organ, say, an appendage of the sense of smell or hearing.
Pretend that all of you is an eye. You still wouldn't be able to see with your arms, but only because the frequencies that your seeing arm would sense would be significantly different than the frequencies that the eye processes, and there would be no reason to pack them up in your actual eye because then your seeing arm would no longer see. The frequencies that would be "presenting" themselves to your arms would be the mates that would "present" themselves to you if all of you were a sexual organ instead of an eye. I am sure some people would develop "aberrant" sexual organs if reproduction were the only thing we were as they would develop seeing arms if the meaning of being human were only "seeing". Flowers do develop in "aberrant" patterns because they evolve (as in "respond to stimuli") much faster than we do, being are they are the apex of achievement of an individual plant's lives. So we can safely say that plants, which are essentially eyes, are also essentially sex organs!
QUOTE
you are ignoring the powerful force that sexual selection can be. The animal world is full of males that have been handicapped by sexual selection. Male peacocks would be much better off if they had the drab colors of the female in order to help hide from predators. Males that stand out get more girls, and pass on more genes.
Yep, we are now turned around (for this reading, for God's sake!), and it's the ideal of sexual reproduction that chose the animals. If you are *chosen* by an idea then it's up to it to express itself into your behavior. You may have the illusion of choice, but you are actually tied at the hip to it as the peacock is tied to living dangerously
in order to embody the idea that is now in command:QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| you are ignoring the powerful force that sexual selection can be. The animal world is full of males that have been handicapped by sexual selection. Male peacocks would be much better off if they had the drab colors of the female in order to help hide from predators. Males that stand out get more girls, and pass on more genes. |
Yep, we are now turned around (for this reading, for God's sake!), and it's the ideal of sexual reproduction that chose the animals. If you are *chosen* by an idea then it's up to it to express itself into your behavior. You may have the illusion of choice, but you are actually tied at the hip to it as the peacock is tied to living dangerously
in order to embody the idea that is now in command:Thus we end up with flashy male peacocks. In a way, females are selecting for stronger males by handicapping them in this way. The flashy male that is still able to avoid predation despite sticking out like a sore thumb, is obviously a fit mate.
But if reproduction of plants has the same value of mammal reproduction, the question remains, why didn't horses develop horns?
Because the horn sense is not present. Someone is not telling something in that article and I am not going to be the one to say it.
Curiously, in the narwhal, an extension of the sense of smell (or an extension of the sense of taste, since in some interpretations it's a *tooth*) turned into a sense we don't have, a mostly-scifi "sonic lance".
Sound, taste, and hearing are all different interpretations of the same thing: vision. Which means that the sound of a molecule vibrating is also the smell of a molecule vibrating and the taste of a molecule vibrating. A higher frequency of taste is a smell, and higher still, a taste, higher still, an image. This sensorial unit (as a perception, not as a gene) is what horses lack.
So the males rub tusks because they are communicating in a language we can only dream of, beyond any of our sensorial capacity (and not, I repeat, NOT because some of them are, like, funny around males with long appendages
In this interpretation then, the tusks' "spiraling" are, evolutionarily, a convenient think because they are *light* inputs (as the perceptual unit described two graphs ago) that become *electric* outputs to the narwhal brain. I am aware that this is post hoc, but I have posted so much hoc lately that one more won't make a difference.
(Mods: sorry for posting external links, they are needed here)
(Research: the indicated blog as well as
>http://the-arc.wikispaces.com/<
>http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/02/the_sonic_lance_hypothesis.php<
>http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=58470629101<
They exist or xisted but are hard to find. You have to know where to look.
Karkadann,
If you know where to look or if you find out where to look, please share that information with us.
If you know where to look or if you find out where to look, please share that information with us.
http://www.physorg.com/news99303729.html link is full of B.S.
The reason I say so, is that once shown on the Johnny Carson Show, there was a man who had raised, I guess genetically engineered miniature unicorns on his ranch, in California.
This small horse, was about as big as a German Shepard and he led him on stage.
So I guess you need to go to www.nbc.johnnycarsonarchives.com and request a copy of that show.
I don't know how he did it, but the horse and the horn were for real.
*The other piece of mythology is, that if there are centaurs, and this is said to happen in south America, how do the captured wimen give birth, to such a big baby, if their gate is only so wide, to deliver?
The second I would suppose elves, that know how to give C-sections?
The second one, I'm supposing.
The reason I say so, is that once shown on the Johnny Carson Show, there was a man who had raised, I guess genetically engineered miniature unicorns on his ranch, in California.
This small horse, was about as big as a German Shepard and he led him on stage.
So I guess you need to go to www.nbc.johnnycarsonarchives.com and request a copy of that show.
I don't know how he did it, but the horse and the horn were for real.
*The other piece of mythology is, that if there are centaurs, and this is said to happen in south America, how do the captured wimen give birth, to such a big baby, if their gate is only so wide, to deliver?
The second I would suppose elves, that know how to give C-sections?
The second one, I'm supposing.
Karkadann does know and does have the information, most of it, not all, never available previously; however, as you may appreciate, it can not be posted on a public forum for a number of reasons. If you wish to pursue the question further or even go to the areas (expeditions are a possibility - areas are relatively remote), you must give Karkadann an email or other means to contact you privately. Karkadann has spent 10 years on this...but there is as yet no living or scientific proof, such as remains, etc. However the amount of information could be called considerable; some of it could even qualify as scientific investigation depending on the definition.
okayy, so i tried to go to that site www.nbc.johnnycarsonarchives.com to request a copy of that video. the one about the man who created unicorns... and the site wont work. will you please repost a site that WILL work! thanks. 
and when was it??
and when was it??
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.