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.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bob_the_ignoramus who wrote (1063)	10/7/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

Fossil Gaps. This seems to be a big topic with the religous fundamentalists and the only reason I can see is that it was a reasonable critisism in Darwin's day, well over 100 years ago. Well the obvious answer is that they have found a lot more fossils since then. Ignoring that, there has been a lot more attention paid to why gaps would appear in the theory of Natural Selection. This has led to the modification theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. In short, species which are surviving just fine don't change much. Any changes are quickly overwhelmed by the large group of "normal" animals which breed with and dilute the genes of any minor advantage. (Just as we see today, the son of a great man is usually more like the average man than the father). After all, even the greatest person has to mate with someone less than greatest and even then the gene mix will bring in many earlier traits. In short (part 2). It is when a group becomes isolated that the gene mixing slows or stops and the unusual traits have a great advantage. There is no "survival of the fittest" when almost anyone can survive. It is only in times of great stress that a characteristic can really make much of a difference as to who really lives to reproduce, and who dies much too early. In this case, those who have the trait which makes the difference between life and death or not likely to be widespread. The new and improved version is going to be somewhere local, in a small area. It is only when they have evolved to the point of true success that they will begin to dominate surrounding regions. This will appear in all places except the actual area where they evolved as a sudden and complete change. The new species conquer more than they sit in place and change. It is no wonder that catching creatures in the act of change is a rare occurrance. TP (still waiting for your alternate explanation, which will include such details as why humans have an appendix and such a weak back and poorer eye design than a squid)

To: bob_the_ignoramus who wrote (1063)	10/7/1999 8:53:00 PM
From: Akula	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

RE: bird-reptile evolution, there has been found an order of bird-like reptiles and reptile-like birds. Until recently, many creationists had contested this due to the fact that that the evolution of the feather had not been shown. Archaeopteryx was a dinosaur found with evidence of primordial feathers. It is just another "missing" link. The Galapogos finches I was referring to actually show more than a simple lengthening of the beak. The beaks are specialized for the type of insect/plant they feed upon. They are not in fact examples of micro evolution as they belong to different genera. Fossil and genetic evidence suggest a common ancestor at some time in the distant past. I cannot verify the point about the horse any more than you can, it seems, so I won't try to make a point based on something I'm not sure of. It is very refreshing to be able to receive posts from a person such as yourself. You are being very honest in your evidence and you don't try to bluff your way thru evidence you're not familiar with. Thank you for your contributions. ;-)