[boldfield]

It's easy to imagine a couple of touching pieces in the ancestor of the issid that aided in synchronizing the jumping mechanics.

Over time, mutations in those touching pieces interlocked more firmly until they resembled what we think of as gears.

If this were the case, would you not expect to observe these evolutionary steps in other organisms today? As noted in the article:

...there are many jumping insects like the issus... [though] most other bugs synchronize the quick jolt of their leaping legs through friction...

If there are "many jumping" insects, how does it come to be that only a single specie (that we know of, granted) that has evolved this feature, and why have we not observed others undergoing the evolutionary process that could/would yield them in others?

[crusso]

If this were the case, would you not expect to observe these evolutionary steps in other organisms today?

Why? Just because one life form developed a feature doesn't mean that other life forms will have it.

As the article mentioned, there are other solutions to the same problem that other insects evolved. Probably the gears solution is statistically less likely.

Then again, if this was just discovered, how hard have we really been looking?

[dragonwriter]

> If there are "many jumping" insects, how does it come to be that only a single specie (that we know of, granted) that has evolved this feature, and why have we not observed others undergoing the evolutionary process that could/would yield them in others?

Because evolution isn't planned, it involves selection from randomly[1]-occuring variations each of which has a extremely low probability. Certainly, we see some some traits that arise independently in different populations in different places with similar traits and are preserved and develop in similar ways, but the fact that a feature that contributes to fitness arises uniquely in one place is far from surprising.

[1] well, really, many of the processes are highly-chaotic more than random, but that's beside the point here.

[boldfield]

Certainly, we see some some traits that arise independently in different populations in different places with similar traits and are preserved and develop in similar ways, but the fact that a feature that contributes to fitness arises uniquely in one place is far from surprising.

I grant you all but a feature that contributes to fitness arises uniquely in one place is far from surprising. First, I'm not a biologist and have not studied evolution/evolutionary processes as much as I would like to, but it's hard to agree with that statement. Why exactly is it not surprising? In the over one-million insect species estimated to exist[1], of which some percentage (won't even try to guess) have some evolutionary jumping mechanism, it seems at least mildly surprising that we've never observed at least similarly structured creatures.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect#Distribution_and_diversi...

[dragonwriter]

> it seems at least mildly surprising that we've never observed at least similarly structured creatures.

Its not surprising that some survival-valuable features (especially when they fulfill a function for which there are other mechanisms) arise and are preserved and further developed only once, since them arising in a species in which they are survival-useful is a matter of chance, as is their preservation.

So, its not surprising that features we haven't seen in other species is continue to be discovered. Its remarkable enough to be newsworthy and interesting, but not something that fundamentally challenges the expectations and understandings we have from basic understanding of evolution.

[jlgreco]

"Its not surprising that some survival-valuable features (especially when they fulfill a function for which there are other mechanisms) arise and are preserved and further developed only once"

Indeed. In fact, what I find more surprising is that some non-trivial adaptations have developed more than once. Flight for instance evolved four separate times (bugs, birds, bats, and now-extinct pterosaurs all fly[flew], but none of them share a common ancestor that could also fly.) I find that simply remarkable. Really drives home the massive timescales that are involved.

[dragonwriter]

> Flight for instance evolved four separate times (bugs, birds, bats, and non-extinct pterosaurs all fly[flew], but none of them share a common ancestor that could also fly.)

Surely, "now-extinct pterosaurs", not "non-extinct pterosaurs", unless I missed some very newsworthy discovery.

[jlgreco]

Whoops, thanks for the correction.

[itsybitsycoder]

Because mutations are random. Evolution doesn't result in the ideal designs for everything, just the best (or good enough) of the random mutations that happen. OTOH, if we were designed by something, why would the designer not use the optimal leg designs for all the jumping bugs?

[biomecha]

> if we were designed by something, why would the designer not use the optimal leg designs for all the jumping bugs?

Because:

- the designer is not that clever,

- the designer likes to play with its creatures,

- the designer is not alone,

- the designer forgot to update its creations,

- or simply because she does not care.

[swamp40]

Yes, my personal pet theory is that something really smart made a 3D printer-like life machine, and then gave it to thousands of other not-so-smart individuals - who then came up with all these crazy and inconsistent life forms on Earth.

Some designed Bengal Tigers, and others designed Aye Ayes.

[biomecha]

I guess everyone would like to have a chat with the one who came up with the monkey idea.

[vdaniuk]

Statistically, it is very likely that at any given point in time there will be only one species with the trait that humans consider significant.

[boldfield]

I'm about to commit an HN faux pax here, but, citation? Off the top of my head I can think of traits which do not fit your assertion: vision in the 390-700nm wavelengths, hair/fur, eye placement (think predator v. prey), etc, etc.

[dragonwriter]

I think GP used significant in a sense more like "newsworthy", in that, ceteris paribus, the perceived significance of a trait is inversely related to the frequency with which it has been seen in the past.

[vdaniuk]

Yes, thanks, that's exactly what I meant.