Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1962 talk.origins:4835
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!sabol
From: sabol@Apple.COM (Bryan Sabol)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The birds and the beaks
Keywords: evolution, birds, beaks
Message-ID: <28379@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 4 Apr 89 19:09:41 GMT
References: <404@censor.UUCP> <27216@apple.Apple.COM> <464@corpane.UUCP> <27761@apple.Apple.COM> <454@censor.UUCP> <28330@apple.Apple.COM> <3561@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 48

In article <3561@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>I believe "Why does __________ have _________?" is a creationists issue.
>It is implying design FOR something.

	"Creationist's"?  Oh, PLEASE!  Let's not start that!


>The selection process, as I understand it, does not go FOR something but
>removes things that are less optimal for the immediate surroundings than
>other existant forms (unless that particular form is non-viable all on its
>own).  The evolutionists question would be "Why does ________ not have
>_______?".  This would be a search for why that feature was NOT selected.

	I think you're really mincing words here:  selection is
selection.  Try this:  environmental pressure upon a species will be
more beneficial towards certain individuals, due to an advantageous
trait.  For example:  a giraffe with a long neck can eat all the leaves
that a giraffe with a short neck can eat, plus more leaves out of the
latter's reach.  This pressure would give this giraffe a better chance
to survive and rear its young;  therefore adding "long-neckedness" to the
giraffe's gene pool.  
	Now, I could argue that the giraffes of today's time have long
necks due to intraspecies competition for leaves on trees:  the
longer-necked ones could eat more leaves.  This is a "Why does ______ have 
_______" statement.
	Or, I could say that giraffes don't have short necks due to the
intraspecies competition for leaves on tress:  the shorter-necked ones
had to eat the leaves lower-down on the trees, where all the individuals
could eat.  This is a "Why does _______ not have _______?" statement. 

	The two statements are equally valid;  they're just looking at
the same evolutionary process from a positive-attribute and
negative-attribute standpoint, respectively.

	Finally, I would caution you to take a look at your original
posting of "birds & beaks:

>In article <404@censor.UUCP> jeff@censor.UUCP (Jeff Hunter) writes:
	>>Hello there. I was having a conversation with a friend recently, and
>>the question came up "Why do all birds have beaks?".
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	("Ooops," I'd expect... :-b  )

Ever lovin'

bryan sabol
ousted reedie-at-large