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 Subject: Re: The birds and the beaks Message-ID: <28389@apple.Apple.COM> Date: 4 Apr 89 22:08:57 GMT Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA Lines: 33 In article <5656@xenna.Encore.COM> kaufman@maxzilla.UUCP (Lar Kaufman) writes: >The general tone of speculation on this topic has been tiresome and >given to uninformed speculation. It has included assertions of >opinion as fact, irrelevant analogies, and poor reasoning. How about >dropping it, OK? At least leave sci.bio out of it. Time to flame a flame: I am sorry this goes out to sci.bio, but I feel it's relevant. I see no reason not to pursue such questioning on sci.bio. I've not stated I'm any expert in ornithology -- quite to the contrary -- but I do not appreciate your flame concerning an interesting piece of evolutionary theory. If these discussions have really contained "assertions of opinion as fact, irrelevant analogies", etc., you must be qualified to bring more accurate information into this discussion. Good. I've wanted to hear some other people's ideas from the onset. Why *not* post such material on sci.bio? I don't believe for an instant that a group as such must remain the dry, ivory tower concept of Biology, whose only right to post/existance is to draw a line between Ph.D.'s and others interested in Biology. This is sci.bio; the discussion is a piece of evolutionary theory, with specific interest in the development of structures on a order-wide level. Discussing such theories as parallel evolution, concepts like environmental pressure, and others all are very much relevant to this discussion group. Such interesting theories are what prompted me to take my degree in Biology, too. Finally, if you really can't stand to see the discussion any more, you're more than free to "K" the articles (we've had less than a dozen in total!) -- don't rain on others' parades. bryan sabol