Join Us @:
Free email alerts!
Uh... the human eye?
I'm trying, I really am! I haven't even gotten to respond to your last comment further up because I run out of time for long posts as soon as I get that far down the page. I don't know much about the human eye, so I'm actually going to have to do some research to answer your question, and it might be a while before I have a chance to do that. Sorry!
When you get a chance.
You were having that conversation with Troglodyte, go bug him!
Here. I accidentally linked to the wrong comment. Sue me.
All I did was tell you to go bother the person the post actually applied to. If you linked the wrong one that's fine, but I was hardly being bitchy.
Well, I do. Thought we were having a decent back and forth. Guess I'll have to rethink that.
I can now see why the others see you as arrogant and condescending. Don't bother replying. It really doesn't matter anymore.
I'm sorry I upset you, I honestly didn't mean to. Being called bitchy really caught me by surprise, and suggesting that it had to do with the time of month was not polite. For my part, if "bug" is considered particularly inflammatory language here on NB, I'll try to tone it down!
As should be you. And it was troglodyt Idiot. No E. Can't get a tiny fact like that right despite it being posted in clear sight on this page but yeah, we are supposed to trust you being right on the big stuff. Huh? Idiot.
Now Shut Up and Go Away.
You said you'd get to it days ago; I was just reminding you. Please, keep calm- there's no need for exclamation marks. LOL
I don't usually just link, but that's a really good, quick summary. The important part is where they say that we have examples of all of those hypothesized early stages existing right now in living species. So while we are guessing at what specifically led to our eyes, we are basing those guesses on things we know exist now and so could have existed in the past and conferred a slight survival advantage on the individuals possessing them.
What's most interesting to me about eyes is the fact that there are so many different kinds, some of which are more effective than others. Evolutionarily that makes sense-- if a species doesn't need a better eye, then it wouldn't evolve one, but even if it could get an advantage from a better eye, it only happens if the species is lucky enough to get the mutations that lead to one. From a design perspective, though, that doesn't make sense. Why would a designer give some species great eyes and some crappy ones even though they could use better eyes?
You said above: "Amazing. I suggest that there could be infinite universes, some of which held life and some of which didn't, and you guys think that I can't imagine other universes which would hold life different from us, and that I am a narcissist for thinking that humans are the pinnacle."
Could God exist?
But I have no reason to think he does. I can't disprove God, anymore than you could prove him. According to D'Souza, the guy I'm supposed to be reading, this apparently makes me an agnostic, not a true atheist, but I consider myself an atheist. I am completely satisfied with the increasing sphere of knowledge that encompasses material explanations for life and the universe, so I don't believe in God. I follow Okham's razor, the simplest explanation is the best, and therefore I shouldn't assume God exists if I don't have to in order to explain the facts of the world.
But I think Okham's razor is actually at the heart of the debate between religious and secular explanations for life, because what constitutes "simplest" is a matter of perspective. For someone raised to consider the possibility of God, the explanation that religion offers sounds far simpler and more elegant than the scientific explanation. However, if you grow up without that assumption and tend to approach the world materially, then God is kind of the biggest, most egregious assumption you could possibly make, and material explanations are far simpler.
In the end, I think that's where these conversations always break down. Oh, and I'm not calling religious people stupid. Simple is good in this paradigm, I'm not trying to claim that religious people want life to be simple and scientists want it to be complex. If you are following Okham's razor, everyone should want it to be simple, and the difference is just which perspective seems simplest.
in my view, is inherently flawed in the application of historical research. It suits evolutionists fine though: A) Identify the hole, B) find something that might fit there, C) write a narrative that works, and D) voila! a new puzzle piece. Simple.
And yet that flies in the face of the claim that scientists are looking to find evidence that disproves, or doesn't fit the theory. You can't have it both ways.
Okham's razor should be used to discriminate between competing hypotheses, not to generate hypotheses. You should have some reason other than simplicity to propose an explanation. But when there are multiple theories that all fit the data and you can't tell between them any other way, you should go with the one that make the fewest assumptions, because assumptions are error risks. If you get new information that disqualifies a theory because it doesn't fit, Okham's Razor can't be used to rescue that theory.
Except that for evolutionists, there are no competing hypothesis. It's accepted as fact, so any find that remotely supports this accepted science is then wedged into place.
Oh, one scientist may claim that such an event occurred in a different time frame or manner than another, but the overriding principle is not challenged. Again, it's the same as AGW; everything proves it according to advocates.
Impugning the methods and motives of a whole field of scientists based on your mistaken impression of what "evolutionists" are like. I don't think that's what happens. It takes momentum for ideas that are outside the norm to get accepted, but that's just human nature. I could argue that you are doing the exact same kind of dismissal and shoehorning in your attempts to avoid having to accept that evolution is a valid explanation for life. You grasp at every possible alternate explanation and ignore things that don't fit your viewpoint. It's what people do.
And that's why we have the scientific method, and the peer review system, and the concept of replicability, and all manner of other cultural aspects of science that are designed to safeguard against pet theories. If evolution is in fact the wrong theory, I believe in that process, and I think that the truth will out. If it hasn't yet, that doesn't mean it won't, but it does mean that I'm going to continue operating under the current reigning champion in the field of ideas. And I'm going to keep teaching it, because it is the current best thinking.
Sorry to do this, but I am in the middle of moving. Sometime next week I will probably go dark for a few days while internet access is switched over. I promise I am not copping out, trying to escape from the inexorable logical trap of my untenable beliefs and opinions, or trying to piss anyone off. I am even likely to be in a much better mood when I get back :P
Babies. Soft, chubby, cooing babies. Warm peanut butter cookies fresh out of the oven. Sunsets. The sound of the tide coming in. The ecstatic chorus of birds at sunrise. Snowy mountain peaks. The Milky Way. Music. Aspen leaves quivering. The way an apple tastes when you pull it off the tree on a warm autumn afternoon. The way you hang in the air for a moment when you slip off a swing at full height. The touch of the man you love. The feel of the warm, sweet earth beneath your toes in spring. The patter of rain on leaves in a summer shower. A baby's laugh. Little children splashing in rain puddles. Baby chicks. Lunch with a good friend. Laughing till you cry. Riding down a turbulent river with a raft, a paddle, and your wits. Rainbows. The smell of a freshly washed baby. Chicken and dumplings on a cold winter night. Snow. Heather blooming on the hills. The smell of pine needles in the sun. A cool breeze on a hot day. The way the earth crumbles in your hands when you're planting a garden. The smell of rosemary and thyme when you brush against them. Finding out that eyebrows are for keeping the sweat out of your eyes. The sound of a lawnmower in the distance on a dewy morning. The sweet scent of freshly cut grass. The way ocean waves suck the sand from under your feet. The feel of a salty wave washing over you. Slipping between crisp, lavender-scented sheets at the end of a long day. Honeysuckle. Roses. Fresh peaches. The smell of bacon cooking when you wake up in the morning. Curly-headed toddlers with peanut butter faces. Fireworks. Flying. Your baby's first cry.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? Declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? Or who hath stretched the line upon it? Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb? When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,
And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,
And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?
Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days began; and caused the dayspring to know his place; That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? --God
Would your mother be offended if I said I wanted to adopt you?
Me first please!
Butterflies. Telling stories around a campfire. Brain freeze from eating ice cream too fast. Babies peeing while you're changing them. Catching fireflies until your mom yells at you to come in the house right now before the mosquitoes eat you alive, for goodness sake. The aurora borealis. Kittens. That incredibly rare and elusive feeling you have right after you've cleaned the whole house and right before the kids come back in it. That all too common feeling of relief right after the baby stops biting you with his new teeth. Mommy kissing your hurts and making them better. Being the Mommy who kisses the hurts and makes them better. Air conditioning. The scent of freshly cut wood. The crack of a bat making contact with the ball after two strikes. The triumphant chatter of a squirrel that just escaped death by the hair of his teeth. The flick of a wren's tail. Puppy breath. Flying a kite you made yourself. Horses. Building something with your hands. The wind in your face. A hot cup of tea, a good book, and a comfortable chair.
By Henry Vaughn (excerpt)
I saw Eternity the other night,
Like a great ring of pure and endless light,
All calm, as it was bright;
And round beneath it, Time in hours, days, years
Driv'n by the spheres
Like a vast shadow mov'd ; in which the world
And all her train were hurl'd.
For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. --Isaiah 55:12
How could we have love without God?
The triumphant chatter of a squirrel that just escaped death by the hair of his teeth.
I remember it has something to do with a rabid squirrel, a woman with a bolo in one hand and a shotgun in the other, and a pile of gummy bears. Or suntin. Oh, and Uncle Jer driving a rented Dodge Dart with an extension cord for an antenna and a radio that could only tune in Rush Limbaugh. Or, no, I am mixing up my stories. Ok, I do remember somebody kicked himself in his own butt. Man, that was a night of wild drunken stories.
I am convinced
They loves teh womens.
Perhaps you could stop wasting time with all the whining about The Vet and how outnumbered you are and just answer a serious post. Like this one. You haven't corrected the fallacy I point out here yet, either.
I've been really busy lately and haven't had enough time to devote to this thread- but I'm not out yet. So, a couple comments relative to what I've missed over the last couple of days:
Bru is much better at presenting God's case than am I; I'm simply not schooled well enough. I do know this though- one can bone up on science; you can learn a lot by having a basic understanding of scientific principles and access to the internet. But God, on the other hand, takes a more pure and devoted approach. You must first have faith, not only in God's existence, but in His divine power over all things. Nothing is untenable for God. Just because whales seemingly had a bone or two they don't readily use, doesn't mean there isn't a reason God put it there. Humans have an appendix- that does nothing too. At least in present day. We can't say for sure if it didn't help save us from diseases long before modern medicine. Think about it- for all bugs that continue to shorten our lives, even with medical science as sophisticated as it is- how could we possibly have survived even 2000 years ago? Maybe with the help of a functioning appendix; I don't know. The point here is that just because we can't conceive it, doesn't mean that God couldn't as well. Just because we can't imagine a use for certain creatures or understand how they can survive given what appears to be substantial deficiencies, doesn't mean that God didn't have purpose for them. It is without a doubt the inability to accept God that continues to drive the Evolution parade.
Richard Dawkins once said: An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. -- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6
Now, Dawkins can't disprove God, yet he knows God isn't a good explanation (at least he agrees with a theoretical pre-Darwin atheist's supposition). He knows? How does he know? Answer: He doesn't. He's just simply unwilling to accept God as a possible explanation. So what does he do? He latches onto an alternate theory and sets about proving it. This flies in the face of the claim that evolutionary science is looking for evidence that disproves it; certainly that's demonstrably false. Just as Global Warming scientists aren't looking to disprove that theory, evolutionists aren't looking to disprove theirs. In fact, given the atheist position held by most evolutionists, disproving the theory of evolution -in their mind- is as impossible as proving God. So while it's fair to suggest that the science has made discoveries that would seem to advance the theory, it is ludicrous to suggest that unearthed evidence discrediting the theory would ever see the light of day.
I also asked about the human eye- not sure if it was addressed. Maybe I missed it. Anybody have a theory on how the human eye came to be?
I'm afraid it isn't true that you can understand science fully with a couple of hours and access to google, but religious understanding takes years of study. I'm sure spiritual depth takes lots of time and effort, but so does deep scientific understanding. People spend their lives studying this stuff, and they aren't just twiddling their thumbs. It is irksome to try and have an earnest conversation with someone who apparently thinks my side of the debate is light-weight. You don't have what I would consider a basic understanding of evolution, you've proven that through your comments here. I don't have what I would consider a deep understanding of evolution because it isn't the primary focus of my teaching, so I haven't kept completely up to date with the field. It takes work and thought to know this stuff, same as it takes work and reflection to develop religious understanding.
I still think you vastly overestimate the number of atheist scientists. Look up the book Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think by Dr. Ecklund. She surveyed and interviewed 1700 scientists, and found that 50% of them identified with a religion, and 20% actively attend houses of worship. That's lower than the general population, but it isn't like there is an overwhelming majority of atheist scientists out there.
There are a handful of scientists who are out to attack religion. Dawkins is the most vocal of them. Most scientists, and most evolutionists, are not out to attack religion. They want to pursue knowledge in the way that makes sense to them, and teach kids about science in school. No one is demanding that Sunday schools teach evolution. You came to our house and started rearranging the furniture, not the other way around! This debate is much more about religion attacking science than it is the other way around.
I have never told anyone on this website, for instance, not to believe in God. I have not told anyone that religious belief is wrong or harmful or stupid. I have said that I think evolution is real, and I can't justify pretending it isn't when talking to students. I HAVE been told by religious people here that my belief system is wrong, and harmful, and stupid. Not every belief that is different from yours is an attack, and you dish out much more than I see you taking!
This is off topic, but I want to ask you something. You said somewhere in this thread that parents come in and try to tell you what to teach, or basically what not to teach, meaning evolution. As a parent of college age children this struck me. The college or university you teach at, do you mind if I ask if it has a religious affiliation? Is questioning the profs on their teaching a norm, or is it something that occurs infrequently? Does this occur in other disciplines at your school? I ask out of personal curiosity. Thanks.
That particular incident happened during an informal educational talk on domestication of animals. I do most of my teaching in college, but I also do environmental education and other outreach types of work in informal and non-formal settings.
In college, my students are more than happy to question their professors. I know everyone thinks they have the best students, but ours are really no-nonsense, down-to-earth, practical kids who aren't afraid to share their opinions. It makes teaching very enjoyable.
We really have communication difficulties. I assume your students would question you. My curiosity is the involvement of the parents. This has nothing to do with the thread or you personally. It is the involvement of parents in the day to day lives of college age students that I am interested in. If you don't mind, do the parents of the students at your college question your (or other teacher's) material, style, or grading practices? Again, I'm only interested as a parent.
Grading sometimes, but there are very strict privacy laws regarding what we can tell parents. If you want to be able to question your kids' teachers about their progress, etc, make sure your child signs a FERPA waiver. Otherwise professors are not allowed to tell you ANYTHING.
Generally, we only hear from parents when their kids do badly, and it can be very stressful to fail someone with an overprotective parent! In general, the school will back up the professor, but the professor should be able to justify each grade given and show exactly why the student failed.
You gotta love FERPA. Once in a while it comes up as a joke in our classes. Someone will ask about the class average and I'll joke that I need a signed statement from each student in the class saying it's OK for me to share that information to the class.
OK, that doesn't seem so funny now that I write it, but I've gotten a few laughs out of it.
About a year ago, a parent emailed me asking how their kid was doing and I had to, somewhat apologetically, tell them that unless their kid specifically authorizes me, in writing, to tell his parents about his grades, I couldn't tell them anything. It seemed strange doing that but that's the rule.
Oddly, I never heard back from them.
but PitA regulations require a sense of humor sometimes. I've turned down several parents. I understand the need for it, but in the end I don't think it serves the students most of the time. I had one student lie about her poor grade to her parents and accidentally include me in the email-- nothing I could do about it.
If by the time their child is college bound, if the parent is paying for the education, but can't trust their child enough to discuss grades as adults, these parents really need to reconsider if their child should even be at college.
I don't ask my kids about their grades, and they end up telling me. I cannot imagine how parent's think their child will ever become independent if they don't let the (adult) child fall down and pick themselves up once in awhile.
My two cents.
I don't have what I would consider a deep understanding of evolution because it isn't the primary focus of my teaching, so I haven't kept completely up to date with the field.
But yet here we are, some years later acting as an authority anyway?
Next your gonna tell us, you dont know any Gay folks
So... everyone here spends their lives studying every subject they comment on? Wow, I had no idea I was in the presence of such luminaries!
Maybe instead of criticizing my credentials in a way you wouldn't dream of applying to the conservatives here (how many of my opponents in this debate are ministers or priests, or ID scientists? And yet I let them tell me things about religion and creation... ), you could just evaluate the information I'm bringing. It is either good information or bad information. Coming form an expert or an amateur doesn't change that.
My understanding of evolution is decently advanced. I teach it as a side subject in any class that uses evolution as a basis, so basically, every college biology class, but I spend most of my effort keeping up with the main subject of study. I feel pretty confident that I know more about evolution than most people here (although I would be delighted to find someone who knew more), but my point was that even with all of that knowledge, I don't consider myself to be truly well versed in every aspect of modern evolutionary thought. It is a full time job to be a true expert.
Also, knowing gay people does not make me an expert on gay people. BEING a gay person would make me an expert on gay people! I take up a point of view that I see no one else defending, because these issues affect people I care about. I don't comment because I'm an expert. Again, I have some biological knowledge that I think most people don't. I like sharing knowledge, it's what I do with my life. I don't need to be an expert to do that.
"It is irksome to try and have an earnest conversation with someone who apparently thinks my side of the debate is light-weight. You don't have what I would consider a basic understanding of evolution, you've proven that through your comments here."
I haven't called you a lightweight, nor implied it purposefully, but apparently, I'm a dummy.
"I don't have what I would consider a deep understanding of evolution because it isn't the primary focus of my teaching, so I haven't kept completely up to date with the field."
"No one is demanding that Sunday schools teach evolution. You came to our house and started rearranging the furniture, not the other way around!"
Our house? That would be... the public school system? That's your house? See, I imagine a country where middle-school science teachers could say to their students, "Science has made great advances in the study of human history, and history of the earth in general. In fact, many scientists believe that humans evolved on earth over many millions of years, purely by chance and in conjunction with something called "natural selection". There are other people, however, who believe that humans, and the earth itself was the result of some divine intervention, or possibly not from pure chance, rather that we were designed to be this way. These people largely base their opinions on various religious teachings, and as such, it is impossible to prove them true short of actual physical evidence of a supernatural being. Since this is a science class, we'll be focusing on what the scientific community has learned and theorized about the origins of the species on planet earth. This is not to say that you should disregard any religious beliefs you may have, however, it's best to study them in a religious environment."
"Also, knowing gay people does not make me an expert on gay people. BEING a gay person would make me an expert on gay people!"
Actually, being a gay person would make you an expert on you. Being a gay person might afford you a unique perspective on gay people, but that's not the same as being an expert. I'm a Marine veteran and that affords me a unique perspective on certain things jarhead, but that by no means makes me an expert on the Marine Corps.
But back to the topic at hand: I think that since you keep claiming I'm some kind of idiot regarding what evolution actually is, maybe you should include in your next comment your definition. I have been referring to Darwin's definition: "It is interesting to contemplate an entangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent on each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with Reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the external conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less-improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."
Our house? That would be... the public school system? That's your house?
The Cub gets bonked on the head, again. And still, he/she/it never learns anything and keeps coming back for more.
- Shy Vinyl
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
I don't think you are an idiot! Not knowing something is not the same as being stupid. I don't know lots of things, that doesn't make me an idiot! When Bru corrects me about the content of the Bible, I don't get huffy, I just take the information. I'm telling you that there is lots more you could learn about evolution, and that you need more than just the internet to "bone up" on the subject. If you don't believe me, then ignore me.
It's hilarious-- what you describe as the perfect scenario is EXACTLY what I I think most teachers say in their science classrooms. I use Wallace as my vehicle, and I tell the story about how he broke with Darwin and believed that humans were divinely created. I make Wallace the sympathetic character by pointing out Darwin's racism, and then I ask students if maybe they agree with Wallace. Several always say yes. I give the current scientific thinking on the questions Wallace couldn't answer, but then I tell my students that they don't have to believe in evolution in my classroom. They have to learn and understand it, because it is the only scientific context we have to explain all of biology, but they don't have to believe it. And that's it. From that point forward, I teach about evolution, and what I don't want is someone dictating based on their religious beliefs how I do that.
The whole public school system is not my house, the science classroom is. You can teach whatever you want in the rest of the school, and I think comparative religion classes are really useful for older kids. But the science classroom isn't the place for those discussions. There is too much actual science to cram into a semester or school year already!
I wish scientists still wrote like they did in the 1800's, there's some beautiful prose in the work of 19th century naturalists.
Evolution is just change over time. There were evolutionists before Darwin, they just didn't have a mechanism for how the change happened. Darwin's real contribution was not evolution, but the mechanism of natural selection, which he is describing in the Tangled Bank analogy, a very famous passage. Natural selection has five parts:
1) Populations outgrow their resources
2) There is variation within populations
3) That variation is heritable
4) The lack of resources creates competition among organisms for those resources
5) Those individuals with variations that improve their competitive ability will produce more offspring, and thus pass those beneficial traits to the next generation
"Evolution is just change over time."
Whoa. I don't know enough about science but evolution is just change over time? So when a newspaper sits outside in the sun and the ink fades, that's evolution. When an apple stays on the tree until it turns shriveled and black and falls off, that's evolution. When my hair went gray, I was evolving.
You know, when the evolution debate is framed this way, it's hard to argue against it.
Natural Selection - or as most people call it "adaptation"- may certainly play a role in the survival or decline of a species. But that in no way proves: "Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows." The finches actually belie that point; the birds with the longer beaks survive better during the drier seasons while their shorter-beaked counterparts all but die off. Yet, when the rainy seasons return, and food is abundant, the weaker, less adaptive shorter-beaked versions reappear in abundance. The argument from your side of the debate in this case seems to be, "Oh yeah. Evolution goes backwards too." Which, I guess if you consider evolution to be nothing more than change over time, would seem logical.
And then of course, there's the Natural Selection argument relative to homosexuality...
By the way, I wasn't huffy about you insinuating my ignorance- nor was I suggesting that internet access makes me equivalent to a science professor. What I was saying is that I do, in fact, have a fairly significant background in the sciences -especially as they relate to strengths of materials and their dynamic physical properties- and internet access is a way to remain current without taking a position as a lifetime student. So please, try to not be so haughty. (Notice, I respectfully refrained from using the word "condescending", though it might have worked equally well in this case.)
But evolution, in biology, is just change over time. Microevolution is the change in allele frequencies within a population over time. That's the finches, fluctuating as the climate changes. Macroevolution is change above the species level, the type of change that many people disbelieve could happen. But they are linked.
So let's say you have those finches, fluctuating on their island with their beaks changing sizes over generations in repsonse to climate variables. Other things probably fluctuate without making directed change too- their coloration, the character of their songs, and their size. A little smaller and browner one year, a little larger and whiter the next, no big deal.
Now imagine a small group of them is blown to the mainland during a storm. Suddenly they live in a very different environment, with different food, different climate, and new competitors to deal with. There are many more bird species on the island, and so the finches end up specializing on really tiny seeds, and their beaks get smaller than they ever did on the island. In order to find those seeds, they spend their time on the floor of the jungle, where there is very little light. Their coloration slowly changes to help them blend in with the shadows, and they start to use their song more heavily for mate attraction because the sound carries better in the jungle. But there are so many other bird species, that they also have to change the frequency of their song-- too much interference on the band they were using. So over time the same genetic basis for the random fluctuations lets those with lower and lower frequency songs produce more offspring because they are better at attracting mates.
At the point at which those birds have changed the shape of their beaks so that they can't eat any of the seeds on their own island, and changed their song and coloration such that no one in their original population would recognize them and mate with them, you have a new species. Nothing dramatic or special has to happen. For the point at which they become reproductively isolated, those same random fluctuations that you discount in your description will cause them to slowly drift apart in characters. One may get huge and become a different genus of bird, maybe someone else will become nocturnal. THey will be subject to different pressures in different niches, and they will slowly accumulate changes until they get to the point where, looking at the end, humans can't imagine a link between them.
That's it, that's all it takes for evolution to happen.
You're a good man. I for one appreciate your 'tude.
Iz how manee tinez is klicken on meeses when thumb iz in azzes?
iz trollie konfuze. Big trollie thumb iz in azzez and meese get squozen. iz no put in azzez?
I don't need to be an expert to do that.
How many words did you type there? I only read the last 10, and all ready knew that much anyway.
How about retracting your slander on the other thread?
Media Research Center
L. Brent Bozell III, President
Editor at Large
P. J. Gladnick
Julia A. Seymour
Stop the Propaganda!
Copyright © 2005-2014 NewsBusters.