This speaks to my own experience. I have become increasingly crabby.
What on earth is that clause "in the last century alone" doing there? It is not the case that the crab godmother has shown up on five occasions since 1920 to turn pumpkins and mice into crabs. Maybe they mean that the five distinct evolutionary events were all recognized in the last century?--but given the history of evolutionary biology that doesn't seem very contentful either.
Studies into the evolutionary processes which led to a crab-like habitus can be traced as far back as the second half of the 19th century.
Maybe it was trying to say "and this has been studied for over a century".
Isn't evolution often coming back to similar plans? I'm not a biologist, but maybe like the basic fish shape. Or the bi-valve, clam, oyster, mussel thing?
Lobsters are more or less the same as a crab (has claws, you boil them and eat with butter). That would be six.
It looks like the linked paper was published 100 years after the first identification of the process in the scholarly literature, so I think that's where the "last century" idea came from ("alone" seems to be BoingBoing's misleading-to-inaccurate editorial gloss). Also the paper actually seems to be arguing against the idea that there's anything particularly remarkable about this example of convergent evolution.
||
Who among you loves books and uses Twitter? Nerd book auction for Hickenlooper. Share widely!
|>
We can only conclude that we're living in paradise, just it's paradise for crabs, and therefore, we must believe God exists and is a crab.
GOD HAS AN INORDINATE FONDNESS FOR BEETLES.
He has the exact right amount of fondness, thank you.
Crabs are evolutionarily desirable
Correct.