FAKE. The truth is that giant pandas went extinct in 1977 and they've been covering it up with polar bears and hair dye ever since. Want to know the real reason that baby looks so tiny? Because they've been forcing its mother to eat bamboo instead of seals.
How the hell did this awful reproduction system get selected for? Was there panda overpopulation for ten thousand years?
Evolution: Because it doesn't have to be an ideal system, it just has to work often enough.
That does, however, explain why they got an 'F' in Animal Review.
Wouldn't you love to talk this over with a creationist?
I was a kid in DC when a panda baby was born - some time in the 70s, I think maybe the first ever in captivity, at least for the National Zoo. The hoopla was amazing, it was like the Redskins won the Super Bowl or something.
Next year, the pandas can compete in the Superbowl and a major NFL football team can all reproduce. That seems easier.
Wait wait no at least one of those things is impossible!
Yeah. I know. It just seems that with all these hurdles to reproduction, pandas would have died out already. But I guess that as long as on average a female has two cubs or more over the course of her life, statistically pandas should be reproductively stable.
The Intelligent Designer's not looking so intelligent in this particular case, huh?
They eat a very low-energy food source, if they were too effective at reproduction, they'd end up with cycling population explosions until something adapted. It's not approach I'd have picked, but nature's wacky like that.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.