Seeing blindfolded

Why didn't wolves and other predators evolve hunting rifles as part of their anatomy?

I've always assumed evolution operates within the limits of biology.

I contacted Professor Conte through ResearchGate and he replied very quickly but briefly. As I'm a stranger to him, I assume he won't mind my quoting his reply here:
"I did some probes not without defects not depending from my will and they were never published."

[Laird]

I contacted Professor Conte through ResearchGate and he replied very quickly but briefly. As I'm a stranger to him, I assume he won't mind my quoting his reply here:
"I did some probes not without defects not depending from my will and they were never published."

Hmm. I struggle to parse and understand that reply. What do you understand it to mean? (And, if you don't mind sharing it, what exactly was he responding to? i.e., What message did you send him?)

Hmm. I struggle to parse and understand that reply. What do you understand it to mean? (And, if you don't mind sharing it, what exactly was he responding to? i.e., What message did you send him?)

My enquiry read:
"I recently saw a video about the claims of Mark Komissarov about the ability of people to see while blindfolded. The video included a section showing your experiments on the phenomenon, and I wondered whether the results had been published. I did see a reference to the work having been presented at a scientific meeting in Pescara in 2015, but I wasn't able to discover any more information.
I'd be very grateful for any more information you could give me."


I agree it's a bit difficult to interpret. I think it obviously means his experiment wasn't without defects. I assume "not depending from my will" means he would like to have avoided them but wasn't able to.

[Laird]

Thanks, Chris.

I would mostly be interested to know how serious those "defects" were. Were they so serious as to invalidate the results, or were they just minor-to-moderate anomalies given otherwise successful results?

[Laird]

Also: were the defects with the experimental procedure, or with the performance of the subjects?

Yes. Obviously my enquiry was essentially directed at whether the results had been published. At least this tells us they haven't, although not exactly why they haven't.

I've always assumed evolution operates within the limits of biology.

There's literally zero reason why a rifle barrel appendage couldn't evolve and that ammo and gunpowder couldn't be synthesized metabolically. Unless you're going to argue that guns aren't real. So why didn't they evolve when we know how incredibly effective they are at hunting?

There's literally zero reason why a rifle barrel appendage couldn't evolve and that ammo and gunpowder couldn't be synthesized metabolically. Unless you're going to argue that guns aren't real. So why didn't they evolve when we know how incredibly effective they are at hunting?

Well if you insist it’s biologically possible (although you’ve provided no evidence), I guess biology hasn’t been around long enough.

Are you ok?

Well if you insist it’s biologically possible (although you’ve provided no evidence), I guess biology hasn’t been around long enough.

Are you ok?

What evidence even needs to be presented? With all the crazy intricate things that have evolved, what rationality is there to say that a hollow etched metal tube and a couple chemical combinations are beyond biology? Biology that itself, already does use metals and other such materials in other areas like haemoglobin, and does generate disposable anatomy like children's teeth? And that other aspects of nature show that the idea of being able to hit prey at range is adaptable, like archer fish.

More than likely the reason you don't see "bioguns", among other things that we know exist and thus could have evolved, is because they're not as efficient for pure survival. Whether in terms of needing to eat resources high in metals, the metabolic energy required to mould it all together and thus the amount and types of food that would need to be eaten to do that, etc.

Thus age old skeptic argument against psi that "well if it exists, why don't we see it all over nature" can  be explained thusly. That's probably why eyes evolved even if the ability to perceive without them was possible and could potentially be even better. Eyes were more efficient for pure survival, including genetic survival, even with their limitations. They were, in effect, "good enough", so that's what got refined.