Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 19:52, omniverse wrote:
> >
> > And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
> > presented.
> >
>
> Me too. :)
> But they'll come up with another excuse. I bet you a pound to a penny on
> it. (Odds of 240:1) Eh! Out of interest do you have any similar type
> sayings?

Heh, I'm sure you know the American sayings are fairly humdrum compared to
others. You had me thinking of "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
when I saw the next thing said.

> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>
> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058

Don't get me started on evolution. I've wondered a lot why there aren't more
inbetween animals, instead of only things like the occasional Platypus
creatures. Such as, since there are air-breathing sea-going animals like seals,
where's the ones that only swim sometimes and mostly stay on land? Certainly not
the polar bears, I wouldn't think. But instead there's simply one kind and then
another entirely different kind.

Or in other words, the way evolution seems to be mostly finished. You don't see
a creature becoming future whales or dolphins anymore. What happened to their
land-based counterparts? How could they only be 100% water-borne since they
began taking to the ocean, why not half and half, like seals and walruses?
Somehow I doubt those are each others distant relatives, being more like
separate animals entirely.

It's just that there are huge gaps from one thing to another. Maybe that's the
way it is, some freaky biological dead zones. I just can't believe that doesn't
mean all sorts of other creatures shouldn't also exist today. I've never really
been convinced of a string of lineages over time from one thing to the next
either. It's like the infamous human missing link idea, I guess only because of
sudden change?

I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!

Post a reply to this message

On 29-11-2017 4:08, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>>
>> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
> 
> Don't get me started on evolution. I've wondered a lot why there aren't more
> inbetween animals, instead of only things like the occasional Platypus
> creatures. Such as, since there are air-breathing sea-going animals like seals,
> where's the ones that only swim sometimes and mostly stay on land? Certainly not
> the polar bears, I wouldn't think. But instead there's simply one kind and then
> another entirely different kind.

Darwin's finches are exactly the examples you are looking for, and 
particularly that news item Stephen posted. Otherwise, "intermediate" 
animals are present in the fossil record but rarely to be found. Browse 
the scientific literature and you will see that the record abounds in 
all kind of intermediates.

> 
> Or in other words, the way evolution seems to be mostly finished. You don't see
> a creature becoming future whales or dolphins anymore. What happened to their
> land-based counterparts? How could they only be 100% water-borne since they
> began taking to the ocean, why not half and half, like seals and walruses?
> Somehow I doubt those are each others distant relatives, being more like
> separate animals entirely.

Not true (see the finches) and look at our own species for instance: we 
were on our way to speciation (black, white, yellow) when we thought it 
more smart to travel extensively and visit our cousins. This slowed down 
(obvious) evolution but did not stop it. Only, you do not see it happen 
in your life time. But compare skulls and skeletons from different ages 
and specialists will tell you the differences.

And don't forget our own little job of evolutionary tinkering: dogs, 
cats... what do you think those are? They are the product of controlled 
evolution, only not nature but man is the agent.

> 
> It's just that there are huge gaps from one thing to another. Maybe that's the
> way it is, some freaky biological dead zones. I just can't believe that doesn't
> mean all sorts of other creatures shouldn't also exist today. I've never really
> been convinced of a string of lineages over time from one thing to the next
> either. It's like the infamous human missing link idea, I guess only because of
> sudden change?

It is a matter of extinction and extinction rates. When you adapt to a 
particular (new) situation, there is no reason to keep the old ways so 
those traits are rapidly lost. Evolution goes very fast in most cases on 
a geological time scale, even in a matter of a few dozen generations as 
survival is often involved, and that is why most in-between changes are 
lost forever and not preserved.

> 
> I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!
> 

Keep on thinking!

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I forgot: The evolution of horses is one of the best documented in science.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2017 03:08, omniverse wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>> On 28/11/2017 19:52, omniverse wrote:
>>>
>>> And I was wanting to see how the flat Earth evidence would be gathered and
>>> presented.
>>>
>>
>> Me too. :)
>> But they'll come up with another excuse. I bet you a pound to a penny on
>> it. (Odds of 240:1) Eh! Out of interest do you have any similar type
>> sayings?
> 
> Heh, I'm sure you know the American sayings are fairly humdrum compared to
> others. 

Not really.
How about "many a mickle maks a muckle"? I bet Sven has heard it.

> You had me thinking of "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."

Oh! the temptation to paraphrase that in the style of Mr Trump. But I am 
strong and I will resist. ;)


> when I saw the next thing said.
> 
>> Evolution in progress. Another entry for the Darwin Awards. ;)
>>
>> Talking about Darwin (and his finches).
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42103058
> 
> Don't get me started on evolution. 

[Snip]

> 
> I don't know, like I said, I get to thinking on that subject and it doesn't end!
> 

I'm glad I waited. Thomas has filled me in on things I had a gut feeling 
of but did not know.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html

Talking about head bangers. I just saw this. O_O

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane
>
> --
>
> Regards
>      Stephen

Bah.  That's old hat.
Pierce Brosnan did that way back in 1995 on the Goldeneye mission.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2017 um 04:08 schrieb omniverse:

> Or in other words, the way evolution seems to be mostly finished. You don't see
> a creature becoming future whales or dolphins anymore. What happened to their
> land-based counterparts? How could they only be 100% water-borne since they
> began taking to the ocean, why not half and half, like seals and walruses?

... or maybe like hippos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whippomorpha
(Spolier Alert!)


The most common phenomenon in evolution is that you have some animal
developing a trait that is of benefit in its natural environment, and
such traits tend to get passed on until they are prevalent throughout
the species' population. In such a manner, species may change as a whole
in response to their environment.

But now and again you have populations being separated, and one develops
in another direction than the other (because their natural environments
differ somewhat, or just because one beneficial mutation arises in one
population but not the other). As each population undergoes its own
changes from the original form, they become so different that if they
ever meet again later they can't (or won't) interbreed anymore, and have
thus become different species -- each differing from the original
species in its own way. The original species isn't gone -- it has been
absorbed into the two new species, each of which is better adapted to
its respective habitat than the original form.

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Stephen:
> On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
>> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>>
>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
> 
> Talking about head bangers. I just saw this. O_O
> 
>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane

Folks, don't try this at home ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2017 15:08, Bald Eagle wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> 
>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane
>>
>> --
>>
>> Regards
>>       Stephen
> 
> Bah.  That's old hat.

:-(



-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 29/11/2017 15:22, clipka wrote:
> Am 29.11.2017 um 15:57 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 28/11/2017 17:56, omniverse wrote:
>>> I'm definitely not a "flat-earther", unlike some:
>>>
>>> https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-hopes-prove-earth-flat-230622888.html
>>
>> Talking about head bangers. I just saw this. O_O
>>
>>
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-42167619/daredevils-jump-from-a-mountain-into-a-plane
> 
> Folks, don't try this at home ;)
> 

For those that are rich enough to do it. Please do. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message