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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (132039)	5/7/2004 11:15:05 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

BS, just check out the Moths in England that changed colors in just a couple of generations, because of coal soot. It's evolution 101. PS you didn't post a link on the evolution of the brain, and I don't mean physical dimensions

To: Neocon who wrote (132039)	5/7/2004 9:42:30 PM
From: Tom C	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

OFF TOPIC It is fundamental tenet of evolutionary theory that the environment does not produce evolutionary change. The environment certainly influences natural selection. With a change in the environment certain traits (genes) give individuals with that trait a higher chance to survive and produce offspring. Over time that trait or combination of genes will be found in a higher percentage of the population (gene pool). The gene pool changes (change is the definition of evolution) because individuals with certain genes or combinations of genes have a higher probability to survive and produce offspring. In successive generations, the trait or gene becomes more common in the individuals of that species (that make up the gene pool). The environment certainly (according to the theory) has a major role in evolution and the formation of new species. When you say that environment does not produce evolutionary change, maybe you are referring to discredited Lamarkian theory that says that an individual adjusts to his environment by means of learning and improving. These individual adjustments according to Lamark, modify the genetic material passed to one’s offspring, so improvements to the gene pool were mainly a result of that process (e.g. a giraffe that stretched its neck to reach higher leaves would have offspring with longer necks). The opposite of Larmarkian theory is that individual giraffes with longer necks tended to survive better in their environment. Their offspring tended to survive better in their environment because they were statistically likely to have long necks, that made them more able to survive in their environment. That's prety much the college biology 101 I remember.