Posted on 03/14/2013 6:43:48 PM PDT by Dysart
That idea has been laid to rest ~
Let us forget large breasts for a minute. If that be a dead end it means some scientists’ thinking on that line of thought turned out to be wrong in that instance. Not that sexual selection theory on the whole has been shattered. Someone took a wrong turn- maybe. Happens all the time. Still waiting to read of a qualified scientist who explicitly agrees with you. Is there one you can point to?
Perhaps the better question is: why -not- parrots?
And maybe the answer to two wings instead of four was just because two was all it took?
The genes failed to respond appropriately and did their own thing for their own purposes whatever they were.
I have uncovered a certain Joan Roughgarden who attacks sexual selection in a 2004 book, but her premise is awful weak and narrow. And she has not appeared to set the scientific community abuzz with her views. Maybe in time her views will be accepted, but that isnt the case yet.
But also, this from someone who agrees with her fwiw:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-adair-gowaty/was-darwin-wrong-about-se_b_2672827.html
Did I tell you about Darwin's trip to the Gallapagos islands? Alone in his cabin, at sea for months, nothing to do but think about.......... well, sexual selection was one of his first topics .......... BTW, he didn't know about DNA!
And you know how the Torah isn't a work of fiction, how?
|
|
GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
Thanks Dysart. |
|
|
You came around for the large breasts, did you not? It wasn’t really the the wings. Fess up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.