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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (371719)	2/23/2008 6:54:07 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574102

"Continuous evolution has so far only been observed in rather tiny incremental steps" Right. That is how evolution operates. "The big changes just come down on earth like a bomb and so far nobody can explain that." There isn't a case where sudden, big changes are made. The killer example for the creationists used to be birds. The argument went that any intermediate form would be inferior to the either the precursor or the result, so how did they evolve flight? However, after those fossils in China were found, it turns out that those intermediate forms were not inferior and that the evolution of flight in birds was pretty natural with incremental changes. If that can easily be explained through incremental changes, likely most anything can. Is this proof? Well, no. But it does give reason to reject an argument that some particular characteristic is so complex that it couldn't evolve through incremental changes.

To: Taro who wrote (371719)	2/23/2008 6:54:10 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574102

"Continuous evolution has so far only been observed in rather tiny incremental steps" Right. That is how evolution operates. "The big changes just come down on earth like a bomb and so far nobody can explain that." There isn't a case where sudden, big changes are made. The killer example for the creationists used to be birds. The argument went that any intermediate form would be inferior to the either the precursor or the result, so how did they evolve flight? However, after those fossils in China were found, it turns out that those intermediate forms were not inferior and that the evolution of flight in birds was pretty natural with incremental changes. If that can easily be explained through incremental changes, likely most anything can. Is this proof? Well, no. But it does give reason to reject an argument that some particular characteristic is so complex that it couldn't evolve through incremental changes.