Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1972 talk.origins:4850
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!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: <28434@apple.Apple.COM>
Date: 5 Apr 89 18:22:49 GMT
References: <28330@apple.Apple.COM> <3561@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> <28379@apple.Apple.COM> <3566@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Organization: Apple Computer Inc, Cupertino, CA
Lines: 47

In article <3566@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
In article <28379@apple.Apple.COM> sabol@Apple.COM (Bryan Sabol) writes:
>}	"Creationist's"?  Oh, PLEASE!  Let's not start that!
>
>Then why did you cross-post to talk.origins?
 
	Whoops.  'twasn't intentional.  I was responding via sci.bio,
and, due to the course of the dialog, was hoping to keep it to the
developmental realm.

>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?

	I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Mutations are much more
commonly deleterious than advantageous.  If a mutation is deleterious,
then an organism will have a lesser chance of survival than a 'normal'
organism, and one could gather that the same mutated organism would have
a much less chance of survival than one who had an advantageous
mutation.  
	It is true that "a trait that is not selected against
continues", but neither does it change.  Without the advantageous 
mutations, the population/species would never change, and therefore no 
new species would develop at all (such as modern birds from _archeoptyrx_).
So, if you really wanted to be specific about how you phrase the process, it
would be more accurate to say that the filter that "does the selection"
removes the deleterious mutations, but the manner (at least for this
arguement) in which new species develop would be from advantageous
mutations.  Therefore, one should say "why does ___ have ___", and not
"why doesn't ___ have ___".


>}	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:
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Mmmmmrphhh (Trans:  "oops", with my foot in my mouth  :-b )

bryan sabol
ousted reedie-at-large