Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (41259)	6/20/1999 10:00:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<<I believe in evolution, but the increase in stature isn't due to evolution, it's due to nutrition. That one I am sure about.>> I think this is a little more complicated than you are making it. Once men were powerful and clever enough to hunt successfully, they rapidly got taller and brighter because of increased nutrition. However, prior to that point there are certainly lots of examples in the fossil record of intermediate "missing link" beings who were on an evolutionary path. The four-year-old boy who was found recently would certainly be an example of that. Does anyone have that link? It was in the news, but I cannot find it at the moment.

To: Ilaine who wrote (41259)	6/21/1999 1:45:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Blue, don't be so sure about height. As I recall (and I am hazy on this one), the average stature of adult male Egyptian mummies was around 5'. But even if you are correct, many other examples abound. Evoution does not require speciation -- simply changes that get fixed in the gene pool. The most striking example is industrial melanization in moths in England. By the way, this is the example that is generally used as proof of natural selection. TTFN, CTC