Um..what's not what i said. I said i find the lack of intermediate species difficult for me to accept. Anying you infer beyond that is your own assumptions. Just to give you a little more info, so you dont have to ASS-U-ME, here's my issue restated:
I'm not saying their aren't any, i'm saying they're not abundent, and why not?
Then that raises other questions for me... I buy into what you're saying, but it seems to mean there must be fewer and fewer nitches for a new species to develop and become sucessful. Any intermediate species would not be as good at doing whatever (hunting, gathering, building shelter, whatever) as the established species, and would die out. Then evolution should essentialy stop at some point. Is that what happens?
You could conclude they're religious fanatics who refuse to accept current scientific understanding...
But if I were asked this question, I may appear also in the 'no' or 'not sure' category. I find the lack of 'intermediate' species, (like fish who are starting to grow legs, or whatever) difficult for me to accept. I'm asking myself why these species are not common in nature. Does that mean I cannot accept scientific understanding, or does it mean I'm observent enough to have more questions?
I find it sad that this has to be explained. What kind of idiot cant seem to figure out the difference between a communicable cancer and a communical virus that causes cancer. Do your f*ing homework people.
Slashdot Mirror
"Social factor" my butt. Lets get real:
n e_together_.html
http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2006/02/alo
Um..what's not what i said. I said i find the lack of intermediate species difficult for me to accept. Anying you infer beyond that is your own assumptions. Just to give you a little more info, so you dont have to ASS-U-ME, here's my issue restated:
I'm not saying their aren't any, i'm saying they're not abundent, and why not?
Then that raises other questions for me... I buy into what you're saying, but it seems to mean there must be fewer and fewer nitches for a new species to develop and become sucessful. Any intermediate species would not be as good at doing whatever (hunting, gathering, building shelter, whatever) as the established species, and would die out. Then evolution should essentialy stop at some point. Is that what happens?
You could conclude they're religious fanatics who refuse to accept current scientific understanding...
But if I were asked this question, I may appear also in the 'no' or 'not sure' category. I find the lack of 'intermediate' species, (like fish who are starting to grow legs, or whatever) difficult for me to accept. I'm asking myself why these species are not common in nature. Does that mean I cannot accept scientific understanding, or does it mean I'm observent enough to have more questions?
I find it sad that this has to be explained. What kind of idiot cant seem to figure out the difference between a communicable cancer and a communical virus that causes cancer. Do your f*ing homework people.
This just in, 40% of game addiction specialists need more clients. Story at 11.
Would it make you feel better to know that whoever thought up the system is paid at least triple your salary? :)