SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Akula who wrote (1073)10/8/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: bob_the_ignoramus  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 69300
 
re: galapogos finches, after a bit of research I find that I have probably confused these finches with something else. 13 species of finch although some are interbreedable. I often wonder if we examined humans in the same way we examine animal species that we might not have more than one species, I wonder if Africans would be different looking enough to Swedes to justify a new species, I think they probably would, different skin colour, different facial features, different diets. resistance to different diseases, different rates of absorbtion of fat. etc etc etc.

You make the point that it is not an example of micro evolution, however I would suggest it is only a very small change, the shape of the beak, there aren't any new species without a beak, or with 2 beaks, or any new organs. To describe them now, as before would be the same, except for details about the beak. I know evolution is supposed to consists of billions of tiny changes, but at some stage there must be something big, you can't just evolve a liver gradually. Maybe you can, I doubt it though.

as for the birds and reptiles, same complaint as usual... I don't dispute that there is fossil evidence, but I do think that evolution is a poor way to explain the fossils. hmm, oh well. I've almost caught up on all the threads, have visited almost 50 websites and read 800 posts in a week, hehe. I think I am reaching bursting point. :-)