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 (1077)	10/8/1999 9:48:00 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

I wonder if Africans would be different looking enough to Swedes to justify a new species, The common definition of species revolves around whether the animals can mate and have fertile offspring. Swedes and Africans have no problem making babies. (Usuall disclaimer, - There are RH incompatibilities that make it slightly less likely for people of different blood groups to have children, this is an indication that if world travel had not progressed humans may have become distinct species). TP

To: bob_the_ignoramus who wrote (1077)	10/8/1999 9:00:00 PM
From: Akula	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

I often wonder what the threshhold for macro evolution is. What amount of differentiation is necessary for an animal to be a different "kind?" Most evolutionists would use the definition of species for "kind" (i.e. any organisms that can interbreed to produce a viable offspring.) Using such a definition, humans have created different "kinds" artificially (a chihuahua and a Great Dane cannot breed.) The finches must, by the above definition, constitute macro evolution. I therefore have two questions for you: 1) What is the definition of a "kind?" Or what constitutes marco evolution? 2) How do you explain the progression of fossils not only in characteristics, but how those characteristics change in time? (If Homo sapiens and Australopithicus were created at the same time, why are all the Australopithicus skeletons older?)