Should I hold the sour cream?

 

Sure, but don't forget the mixed vegetables.

 

[QUOTE=matt_inva,Nov 29 2005, 09:55 PM] Geez Dean,

Right about now, I would be willing to bet that Rob feels like you drove a steak through his heart!

 

Thanks for the answer. It is hard for me to imagine how wings can evolve from gills, which serve completely different purposes. I would have thought the "extensions of the exoskeleton" theory would be more acceptable. But then what do I know.

 

Well, that's basically how evolution works - new structures from old - and in many cases those new structures have completely serve completely different functions and appear entirely different than the originals. As I mentioned before your jaw was originally a gill arch, as was your hyoid bone and the bones that comprise your inner ear.
The problem with imagining how that all came about is that humans think in a linear fashion, whereas evolution doesn't function linearly.

 

[QUOTE]We can't have that now. Punctuated equilibrium vs. neo Darwinistic gradualism: which is it? The Modern Synthesis: boon or bane? Feel free to Google the night away.

 

prey




fltsfshr

 

Good answer, I can see that you did your homework.

Also correct.

Darwin was wrong about a number of things. Most of his mistakes were caused by the lack of knowledge of during his day. The fundamental ideas behind his discoveries still hold true, however.

There you go getting all linear on me. Evolution only appears to be linear in hindsight. Mutations are random events, so the term degeneration doesn't apply, as mutations don't move in any particular direction. Most mutations are either directly or indirectly fatal, but in relatively rare instances a mutation will provide an organism with an advantage to survive within its environment. Those individuals will tend to be more successful at survival and reproduction, thereby passing on that trait to their offspring, who in turn will be better competitors. These "mutants", over time, will eventually out-compete and eliminate the "non mutant" individuals. That, in essence, is what is actually meant by the commonly misused phrase, "survival of the fittest".
One view, which is the one to which I subscribe, is the idea that the competition for survival occurs at the genetic level and those genotypes tend to build and improve upon their means of survival - the "machines" (phenotypes) - as those phenotypes are tested by their environments through natural selection. However, that isn't to say that the "losers" are degenerate or that the "winners" are gaining in complexity as they evolve. They're simply becoming better at staying in the game. For example, we humans are quite proud of our success as a species, but as a relative newcomer our success is nothing in comparison to the most successful species on the planet - the "lowly" bacteria.

I hope this has been at least a little clearer than mud.

 

I could make an argument for either. Which one do you want?

 

Why not both? I love a good debate.