Talk:Rotating locomotion in living systems/Archive 1

Assumptions
I haven't yet read Gould's work, but in this statement (and mostly all the analysis) Given the apparent utility of the wheel in human technology, and the existence of other technologies with biological analogues (such as wings and lenses), it might seem odd that nothing like a wheel has evolved naturally, but there are several likely explanations for this phenomenon

Did the human ability to use and build tools evolved naturally? With this in mind the wheel did appeared naturally. Indeed, cultural pressure (like technological races and so on...) could be included as part of a fitness function. Isn't this kind of argumentation putting humanity outside nature?

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakila (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Rhodopsin
Does rhodopsin rotate? Please explain. -- Wavelength (talk) 08:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it rotates, but it doesn't provide torque for locomotion, so the flagellum remains unique in that regard. — Swpbτ • c 19:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Golden wheel spider
Do these count? Namib wheel spiders here, with fastest being the golden wheel spider. Putting this note here to follow up later. Julia Rossi (talk) 10:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * These spiders, like the organisms discussed in the second paragraph, roll. Because they roll their entire bodies, rather than rotating part of their body as a wheel while keeping the rest of their body fixed as an axis, they don't meet the strict definition of a wheel. — Swpbτ • c 00:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Flagella "only known example"
This isn't true. See ATP synthase and. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The flagellum is the only one that provides propulsive torque. ATP synthase rotates, but is not used for propulsion/locomotion (at least not directly; it provides energy to the cell). — Swpbτ • c 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If this article is only about "Rotatory propulsion in living systems" (and it does seem to be) then you don't need to discuss the ATP synthase but need to move the article to the new title. However, if it is about "Rotation in living systems" then it has to discuss both examples of rotatory proteins. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a sentence and reference for the ATP synthase, even if it is peripheral to the subject you're trying to focus on, I think it still needs to be mentioned. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the animal cells (e g keratinocytes ) move by rolling over a surface. Narayanese (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but rolling isn't really the topic here, which although ill-defined in the lead, seems to be "Rotatory propulsive systems in living organisms". Having the whole organism rotate is outside that scope. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article discusses the hoop snake and similar fictional animals which move by rolling. The article's scoop should be more consistent. Narayanese (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the core topic discussed here is "Why animals don't have wheels", but an article with a question for a title would be very close to an essay and might get deleted under WP:NOT. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Given that a large portion of the article discusses hypotheses regarding why rotating locomotion did not evolve in multicellular organisms, the article should also give voice to any hypotheses of other places that we may discover rotating locomotion on the molecular scale. If anyone knows of any articles that discuss such hypotheses they should be included in this section. Mcfall2016 (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Irreducible complexity
This section does not cite any sources that discuss wheels and their relation to irreducible complexity, it consequently looks like original research at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added quotes from Gould's and Dawkins' papers on the topic that discuss this aspect of why wheels haven't evolved. — Swpbτ • c 19:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't mention "Irreducible complexity". Why not rename this section "Evolutionary constraints" and discuss the limitations of natural selection as a creative force. Be careful however not to state that all evolutionary changes happen by natural selection, since genetic drift can drive neutral changes, or even harmful changes in small populations. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section and done some rewording. Dawkins and Gould are talking about the same concept that Behe is, they just don't use the same term, because of the meta-language it carries. "Irreducible complexity" is the term typically used by people who are trying to put a chink in evolutionary theory, who are using it to argue why specific structures that do exist should not. But the exact same principle works in the exact same way to explain why specific structures that don't exist should not, and that's what Gould and Dawkins are doing. — Swpbτ • c 19:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the problem I see is that irreducible complexity does try to argue that existing structures could not have evolved, due to the lack of adaptive intermediate forms, while the text at present applies this idea to the entirely different question of whether or not hypothetical structures could have had adaptive intermediate forms. This isn't a question that the literature on irreducible complexity deals with, so applying the idea in this novel way and "reading between the lines" of the Gould and Dawkins quotes is OR.


 * You're right that the argument that there is no evolutionary pathway to wheels is an important one, but I feel that you've got the wrong end of the stick in a way, since this is an argument about how natural selection works in practice, not how some people believe that it can't work in theory. I'd rewrite this section a lot more, sticking to what the sources you have say on the subject and using the flagella as an example of how the one exception was produced. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll do some more work on it later, I have class right now. But how am I reading between the lines of those quotes? They both pertain specifically to wheels. They came up with the novel application, not me. — Swpbτ • c 20:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and rewritten this section for you. Please revert if you don't think this is an improvement. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That works. — Swpbτ • c 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Tim Vickers (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A spider...
There is a species of spider found in deserts which escapes for wasp, by rotating down the slope, I can't remember the name, can someone add this? Bluptr (talk) 07:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I found it here, Terrestrial_locomotion. Bluptr (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead section
The lead section of this article is inexcusable. It says nothing about what the article is about, but is, rather, a discussion on engineering the wheel. Please clean this up, as requested, before removing the tag. The reader should be able to read the opening sentence, much less the entire lead section, and know what the article is about. In no way does the lead section of this article tie in to the title and subject of the article. The lead section is an off-topic essay. --KP Botany (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I happen to disagree with you, and please try to be a bit more civil. » šᾦῥъτ • ¢ 00:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing uncivil about what I have now stated twice. I tagged the article because the introductory sentence and lead section do not discuss the topic.  In fact, the word "rotation" is not even used in the lead sentence or paragraph.  This is an encyclopedia, not a place to publish your personal essays, or to develop your personal essays.  The template I applied is because this article is abusing Wikipedia article space by using it as a personal sandbox.  The essay can go into user space until it becomes an article.  For now, if you cannot introduce or even use the title of the article in the opening sentence and lead paragraph, you and other editors are all way off base.  Good article?  It's not even an article yet.  --KP Botany (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Using words like "inexcusable", "personal essay", a "sandbox", "not even an article", and an "abuse of article space" to describe what a number have editors have confirmed to be a quality article? Threatening to userfy the article with no basis at all? Yeah, that's pretty uncivil and not the least bit constructive. But I figure you should know about that, having been blocked once for personal attacks. If its the lack of bolding in the first sentence that bothers you, read Lead_section. Otherwise, chill out or go on a wikibreak. » šᾦῥъτ • ¢ 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ignoring a legitimate concern in a good article, as you did above, when I first brought this to your attention,


 * "The introductory sentence is really bad. Encyclopedia articles should use the first sentence to introduce the topic, not to say something about what it isn't: "While the wheel has played an integral role in locomotion of vehicles designed by humans, wheels do not appear to play any role in the locomotion of biological systems." This article isn't about the wheel, or about the locomotion of vehicles, or about engineering, so, we've said what the article isn't about. Now, when are we going to say what the article is about? After you've firmly lost the user?"


 * when it is about something that adversely affects the ability of any user to understand, read, or use the article, as you did above lacks extremely in civility.
 * If you wish to discuss this article, this is the page to do so. However, if you wish to discuss me, please find a different forum, as this is an article talk page.
 * --KP Botany (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

←I agreee that the first sentence proposed by KP Botany and / or Hardyplants is not good, and also does not reflect the content of the article - "The rotation in living systems of a body or body part in the fashion of a wheel for use in locomotion is nonexistant in biological orginisms". However the lead is a problem. Normally I leave the lead until last, on the the grounds that, if one gets the main content right, the lead almost writes itself. That's worked well both in articles I've edited and in articles I've reviewed. I've looked at Lead and it says that the usual "{article title} is / was ..." beginning is not compulsory. However it also says "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence, answering two questions for the nonspecialist reader: "What (or who) is the subject?" and "Why is this subject notable?" Over the lasy couple o fdays I've been trying on and off to think of a decent first sentence myself, and the best I can think of is similar to the current final sentence of the first para, about scientists' being puzzled that wheels and rotational mechanisms are apparently rare in nature. --Philcha (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being the voice of reason. I agree that the lead isn't quite there yet. Do you think it would be an improvement to move the Gould sentence to the beginning? » šᾦῥъτ • ¢ 13:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like:

"'The lack of biological 'wheels' has been discussed among biologists, who have speculated about the reasons for their absence.'"


 * That would be fine if the article's title was "The lack of biological wheels". However the title is broader, "Rotation in living systems". I'd prefer something like "Rotational systems – including wheeels, transmission and power mechanisms – are common in engineering but apparently rare in atature. This contrast has been a topic of debate among biologists" - except that the article does not says much about rotational systems other than the wheel. --Philcha (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you disagree with the bolding, unbold, but don't say you disagree with it and change something else
Don't make the problem something no one else has said it is. You offered up bolding as a strawman that others ignored already.

This is a readable sentence, that functions well as the introductory sentence of an article:

"The rotation in living systems of a body or body part in the fashion of a wheel for use in locomotion is nonexistant in biological orginisms."

Take the bolding out of the first sentence and it's even better:

"The rotation in living systems of a body or body part in the fashion of a wheel for use in locomotion is nonexistant in biological orginisms."

This is neither a readable nor a functional sentence:

"While there are many examples of living systems which use rolling rotation as a means of locomotion, no multi-cellular organism known to science is able to spin part of its body freely relative to another part of its body, a requirement of a functional wheel and of related methods of propulsion, such as propellers."

It's a run on sentence that has no meaning, much less as an introduction to your article.

And you did not remove the bolding, you reverted the entire edit for some reason, and made your edit summary appear as if you had only reverted the bolding. I'll just put Hardy's sentence back without the bolding, since that was all you disagreed with.

--KP Botany (talk) 04:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardy's sentence is far less readable (six prepositional phrases in a row, what a disaster), the exact repetition of the title is unnecessary and awkward, and you and your tag team buddy have no special right to dictate your preferences, no matter how angry that makes you. And I'm not sure you know what a run-on sentence is. » šᾦῥъτ • ¢ 04:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not twisting your words. You said bolding was the issue in your edit summary.
 * If it's not the issue, simply don't raise it as the issue in your edit summary.
 * Try, again, to discuss the article, rather than me. Or Hardy.  And, Hardy is also an editor at Wikipedia, as I am.  Or make accusations when others take your words at their value.
 * The Wikipedia policy you quote to me is a good one for you to read and take to heart: "Assume good faith, and keep in mind that in almost all cases it is better to address other editors' reasoning than it is to accuse them of being on a team."  I am editing here because the topic is interesting, and I would like the article to be good.
 * No one is ganging up on you. The introduction is poorly written and difficult to understand.  It badly needs rewritten, and probably by someone besides you, simply because you are strenuously protecting it in its poorly written and off target state.
 * --KP Botany (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Using the article title explicitly is an issue raised by User:swpb on User talk:Philcha and attributed to me. I have no problem with not using the title explicitly in the first sentence. It doesn't matter to me. --KP Botany (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "While many living systems move by means of rolling rotation, no known multi-cellular organism is able to spin part of its body freely relative to another part of its body, in the manner of a wheel or propeller." I just skimmed over the article and maybe missed this part, but what about the ball and socket joint of the human arm, cartwheels are a form of locomotion and I have seem some kids really spin that propeller like arm too, though its not a screw drive mechanism. Hardyplants (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the lead is improving, and thanks for the link about bolding, that makes sense. Hardyplants (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good observation Hardy. The key word is "freely" – while a ball and socket joint allows a limb to bend in a wide range of motion (like the eukaryotic flagellum), the limb is still firmly affixed to the body, by muscle, skin, etc., and doesn't spin relative to it—i.e., no matter how you bend it, you eventually have to "unbend" it to get back to a neutral position, something true wheels don't have to do. Thus, while you can pinwheel your arm in something close to a circle, you couldn't use an ordinary ball-and-socket joint to allow a wheel to spin. » šᾦῥъτ • ¢ 13:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Escher, Curl-up.jpg
The image File:Escher, Curl-up.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --15:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Mechanization-Decartism-I.D.?
Why are we supporting any theories of mechanization in nature? Might as well be doing the work for the I.D. crowd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.250.216 (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How does the article support ID arguments? Biologists readily acknowledge that some structures cannot be arrived at by evolution. The difference is that ID claims that there are structures in real animals which fall under that category, while mainstream biology does not. » Swpbτ • ¢ 17:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Sonic and Tails
This is not vandalism. This is adding something I consider relevant. Did any person say s/he considers it irrelevant? No. Did s/he say why? A fortiori no. Escher's Curl-up is mentioned, and even pictured. Nnemo (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

File:ATPsynthase labelled.png Nominated for Deletion
I have removed this image deletion request template from the image's description page. It was not done properly and I have notified that user that originally did so that it was not done properly. WTF? (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Traction
The Traction subsection fails to argue a disadvantage for wheels. Although wheels can sometimes slip or get stuck in mud, ice, and snow, limbs do too. It's common sense for those who venture into the countryside. Discussion comparing wheeled to tracked vehicles is irrelevant; living systems have neither. Concluding larger contact area reduces slipping just above a Mountain Goat photo (with small feet) is silly. Let's discard that entire subsection. Prari (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section of tracked vehicles is superfluous, and I've added a line on the advantages of limbs (stepping over stuff, directly gripping with feet). HCA (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Rolling resistance
The Rolling resistance subsection fails to argue limbs are more efficient than wheels. It compares larger wheels with smaller wheels, and firm surfaces with soft surfaces, but does not compare limbs. Deforming soft surfaces to leave footprints must consume energy. Prari (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added a bit about limbs to clarify. HCA (talk) 20:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

crystalline style
Should the crystalline style of molluscs be included? From : "The complex stomach contains the only rotating structure found in animals, the crystalline style, which is unique to ciliary-feeding molluscs. It is continuously formed in a blind-ending sac from which it protrudes into the stomach, and cilia in the style sac keep it rotating so that strings of mucus wrap around it.  In the acid medium of the stomach, the end of the style slowly liquefies releasing enzymes that digest starch, glycogen and in some species, cellulose..." It may not be locomotive per se but it is moved, and it seems to stand out in my mind as a rare example. Wnt (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, I had no idea these even existed. I've done some googling around, and I found this paper http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jorgen_Hylleberg/publication/256498977_1972_(10)_91-108_Ophelia_OCR_opti/links/0046352328c53d6ea4000000.pdf which seems somewhat ambivalent about the rotation and its nature, but nothing that shows how it moves in vivo. We can certainly mention it, though. HCA (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a description of the style from the sources you provided—fascinating! I think it certainly bears mentioning, even if the nature of its operation is a bit mysterious. Thanks for the awesome find! —Swpbtalk 20:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"Power transmission to driven wheels" section
From the text in this section it's not clear why a mechanism like this diagram could not work? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It still has the same axle problem - both the wheel axle and the pin where the shaft connects undergo continuous rotation, preventing transmission of blood etc. HCA (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct. — swpb T 19:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"This environment-specific disadvantage also explains why some historical civilizations have abandoned wheels."
As an unqualified assertion, I feel this statement is in need of support. 0leckh (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the comment. The statement is supported by the S. J. Gould reference at the end of the section "Rolling resistance"; per WP:LEADCITE, statements in the lead do not need to be cited there if they are cited later in the article. — swpb T go beyond 13:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, but how is a reader supposed to know that? I was under the impression that any inline citation had to IMMEDIATELY follow what needed support, not 'placed' paragraphs or sections "later."
 * If this was a research paper or a paper submitted for publishing in almost any kind of journal, the "later" citation would not pass editorial review. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * With the key exception of lead sections, your impression is correct. With respect to leads, which should not include information that is not discussed elsewhere in the article, clutter becomes a consideration. There is a case to be made for citations in the lead in some instances, but the consensus of this community, expressed in WP:LEADCITE, is that they are not generally necessary. — swpb T go beyond 19:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's please have more than one example. The intro says "some ... civilizations" and, honestly, I'd love to see other examples. Zaslav (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Me too. --John (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Really? I'd say the whole civilizations aspect is straying off-topic, should almost certainly not be in the lead, and be mentioned in the text (if at all) only in a footnote or possibly a 'cultural analogies' section though even that seems unlikely to be justifiable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment it doesn't seem to pass WP:V. --John (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no doubt that it passes WP:V, as it is cited in the body. The disagreement is to whether it should be cited in the lead as well. WP:LEADCITE suggests it's not necessary, but I'm open to the case that it should be there. — swpb T go beyond 19:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It fails WP:V as it is not cited in the body. --John (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The Gould and Lienhard citations are there – is this just a question of saying "some civilizations"? I'd be amenable to changing it to "at least one" pending a source for another (the Gould source may support that; I don't have it front of me at this moment). — swpb T go beyond 19:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's sloppy writing, is what it is. I think that proposed change would make it even worse. --John (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok. I don't believe it's "sloppy", and I don't think the many reviewers who read it in GAN and FAC did either, but you're certainly entitled to that position. — swpb T go beyond 19:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rolling creatures
An additional example of rolling creatures is found in several of the the short stories and novels that make up the Sector General series by James White. The Drambons are intelligent doughnut- (or bagel-) shaped underwater creatures who evolved on the seafloor in continuous underwater eddy currents, and lacking any analogy to a heart must continually roll in order to circulate blood around their body. The technological adaptations necessary for them to co-operate with non-rolling peers (including humans) are ingenious. I refrain from adding them to the article as the referencing (given the series' nature) might be complex, but someone else might care to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for commenting! For the most part, fictional examples are listed on the spin-off article Rolling and wheeled creatures in fiction and legend. I'll look into adding this example there when I have a chance, or you can be WP:BOLD and add it yourself! Just make sure you have reliable sources. I've added the example there. — swpb T go beyond 23:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, swbp ! I was short on time when I looked at this article, and didn't think to click through to the spin-off (heh!) and read that as well. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.27 (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Omission of Giant Panda?
I notice that the Giant panda is not included in the section on "Rolling." It has been established that pandas in sloping bamboo thickets routinely use the slope to roll short distances from grazed to ungrazed areas of foliage, this being energetically more economic than limb-supported movement. While many people will have seen this mode of locomotion depicted humorously in Kung Fu Panda 2, I have also seen a serious science documentary describing the behaviour. Google searches for this are however unfortunately swamped by cute videos of captive pandas, and textual material aimed at children, which characterise the behaviour as "play." {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.42 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)