Your referenced item on the moths has been an admitted fraud, same as the current "flying dinosaur" mentioned a few months ago in National Geographic. Also, were it true, it would have only accounted for the population density of existing characteristics, not vertical evolution. Both black and white moths of that type have the genes for both colors, and interbreed. Not evolution whatsoever. Andy David VanHorn on 04/03/2000 12:06:08 AM Please respond to pic microcontroller discussion list To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU cc: (bcc: Andrew Kunz/TDI_NOTES) Subject: Re: [OT] Personal Optical Resolution -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >>Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and >>state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of >>the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based >>on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more >>clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few >>million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal. >>Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face >>that evolution is a farce? Actually, that's not what the theory of evolution proposes at all. The theory is that all organisms have slightly different charachteristics at any given moment in time. This part is borne out by observation of any group of organisms. People are taller, shorter, faster, slower.... The theory states that these variations will cause some to do better in life, mostly by surviving and having more (or more successful) children. Those children would then face the test again during there lives. A case in point, (pardon me that I don't have the details at hand, I'm not a biologist) A certain type of moth in england was known to be mostly white, but after the industrial revolution began, it was observed that these moths began turning black. (Not any individual moth, but as a group, each successive generation had more black coloration) The presumption is that the darker moths were better able to hide from their predators in the sooty environment. OTOH, I wonder why predatory birds do not have light blue undersides, instead of dark colors. Then again, I do not share the same visual system as their prey, so I can't be sure that to the prey, the bird dosen't look much like the sky. There are examples, if you open your eyes to see them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.2 for non-commercial use iQA/AwUBOOgYsIFlGDz1l6VWEQJc4wCgteGaYx/nN0nnQSGo66dRY7d9sv4AoMNj wmUQoV3lLXmsKOaY9d2kIGBv =iBuM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----