Xref: utzoo sci.bio:1990 talk.origins:4917
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!haven!uvaarpa!virginia!uvacs!dsr
From: dsr@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Dana S. Richards)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: The birds and the beaks
Keywords: evolution, birds, beaks
Message-ID: <3079@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 11 Apr 89 17:26:01 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> <28379@apple.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: dsr@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu.UUCP (Dana S. Richards)
Organization: U.Va. CS dept.  Charlottesville, VA
Lines: 40

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!
<

<<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:  ...

<	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.

i think you may have missed the point.
to someone who understands what is going on the two are interchangeable;
in fact the positive-attribute approach is the most common because it
seems to be the simplest and most direct version.

unfortunately, if you do not know what is going on then the positive version
is very easy to misinterpret as implying a directedness to the process.
therefore i agree the negative version should be used more often to
force your audience to realize they are equivalent (not rival) statements.

dana