Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1969 talk.origins:4845
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!aplvax.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The birds and the beaks
Keywords: evolution, birds, beaks
Message-ID: <3566@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 5 Apr 89 10:28:57 GMT
References: <28330@apple.Apple.COM> <3561@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <28379@apple.Apple.COM>
Sender: news@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Reply-To: jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jim Meritt)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 49

In article <28379@apple.Apple.COM> sabol@Apple.COM (Bryan Sabol) writes:
}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!

Then why did you cross-post to talk.origins?
 
}>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.

I don't thinkI am mincing words.  I am using words in a manner that matches
the process.  The original mutations are not selective.  At least _I_ don't
think that the organism mutates itself towards a goal. (Mary?  I read that
some bacteria do this?)  The filter that does the selection removes things.
Therefore, the filter selects "why not". A trait that is not selected against
continues.  example: Do you have blue, brown, green,, or other eyes?

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

Yes, but one better describes the processes concerned and the other merely
observes the results.

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

I suggest that you read attributes.  My posting was the first that I have
done on what I consider an odd topic.

}>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?".

Answer: "Why not?  Non-birds also have beaks."

Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck