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 (1064)	10/8/1999 3:08:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

<<Even your guess as to how it could have happened is too far fetched, and it's not even necessarily true. >>Look Bob I'm not claiming that this is how it happened. This is just a possibility. Your chemist seems to think that no way is this possible....Not true at all . His argument only needs a possible explanation within the bounds of evolutionary theory to defeat it, not a proof. Remember he is trying to disprove a theory. <<how does a beetle start to produce another chemical that has never been produced by any of his parents??? (ie the anti inhibitor)>> Well here is another possibility: There are probability many chemicals that would act as a partial anti inhibitor. Perhaps the beetle had a like chemical in it's body used for other proposes. Mutation puts this chemical in right place at right time.................. It helps a little and subsequent mutations develop the sophisticated product that we have today. . Far fetched?.... Not if you consider 10,000,000,000 generations of beetles . This is a large gene pool to draw from. <<How do such large changes occur,>> The point is many small changes create large change.. We must not start with the finished product. The beetle starts with a relatively inefficient anti inhibitor......just good enough to be better than being with out one. pez