What Darwin didn't know.

[Tiger Shark]

the birds wouldn't revert back to what they were

Since the example you have given implies an obligate nut eater a rapid decline in the population of it's food source would, indeed, cause a rapid decline in the population of the bird. A rapid extinction of the tree would similarly cause a rapid extinction of the bird which would preclude genetic evolution since that requires generational changes.

Taking your example we know that a nut eating bird has a very powerful bill - but if they were to be studies carefully variations in the size, density and mechanical strength, (the qualities required for the bill of an obligate nut eater), would most likely be quite apparent. The birds with the biggest, hardest and strongest bills and musculature to utilize the bill would be considered to be the best evolved - the fittest - while those with the smallest, softest and weakest bill the least well adapted. The second group is least likely to garner the lions share of the nuts because the better adapted specimens would be able to better harvest their food. In this case even the slow decline in the population of nut trees to the point of extinction would cause the extinction of the birds too.

This is the problem that any species that "forces itself into a corner" faces. They become so specialized that they become obligate and therefore rely entirely upon a single facet of their environment. Often only the smallest change in that environment would signal that species extinction. However, often the most successful species, (dietarily), are those that are omnivorous which, by definition, diversifies their diet and leaves them less susceptible to small environmental shifts.

[JewishIntent]

Natural selection in computer language does not exist.

I beg to differ on this tid bit o info.

Natural Selection - The process in nature by which only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.

If we were to bend this to consider computer languages

The process by which only the languages best adapted to the current technology demands tend to survive and be widly used and passed on to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to stop bieng used altogether.

So yes looking at it in this way i would have to say that there is natural selection in computer languagtes. The very idea of the "survival of the fitest" can fit with anything. We always want the strongest and the best products and ideas not inferrior ones, therefore whatever is best suited for the purpose intended will be used over something that is of a lesser quality.

[tyger_claw]

This is in no way anything near my expertise (hell I kinda understood some and had a blank stare on my face for the other part) but I do want to elaborate and ask a question on Tiger Shark's first post.

TS posted:

Why am I sat here at with red hair and blue eyes while Relyt sits there with dark hair and brown eyes? I thought that if there was a variation in the code then the organism dies.... That's a problem for your "scientist" you know.... Because it completely shoots down his theory of Adam and Eve because they would have had, at best two different characteristics.

I've heard before that the difference between humans and chimps is 0.5% of DNA info. So wouldn't that also shoot down the theory of A&E?

(Remember, this coming from someone who did not study in science and got a 55% in grade 12 chem )

Also>>

As an addition to JewishIntent's post:

So yes looking at it in this way i would have to say that there is natural selection in computer languagtes. The very idea of the "survival of the fitest" can fit with anything. We always want the strongest and the best products and ideas not inferrior ones, therefore whatever is best suited for the purpose intended will be used over something that is of a lesser quality.

Unless the price is right
Or it's on sale...

*joke*

[JewishIntent]

This is the problem that any species that "forces itself into a corner" faces. They become so specialized that they become obligate and therefore rely entirely upon a single facet of their environment. Often only the smallest change in that environment would signal that species extinction.

I can't remember what it is called when this happens, but an extremely specialized species not only runs the risk of going extinct due to a rather small enviromental change, but they also run the risk of becoming TOO good at what they do. Wether it be hunt too well and kill all the food, or create borrows too well and kill all the trees or whatever. i have always found that to be rather interesting since the very concept of survival of the fitest promotes the strong, yet the "fitest" can easily die from bieng too fit. Ironic ain't it?

[JewishIntent]

There are MANY things that shoot down the idea of A&E. Take for instance inbreeding. Wasn't Eve created from Adam's rib? that would mean that genetically speakign they are brother and sister. That means that EVERYONE that subsuquently came from thier mating would be inbreed. Within 10 generations of inbreeding the population would be so screwed up we would have never made it this far in life.

Unless the price is right
Or it's on sale...

But for a Jew price is part of the equation that makes up quality, so a normally inferior product has the potential to become better when its on sale if it makes it a now better buy than the normally better item 8-)

[tyger_claw]

And if that is basically the case, then there should be no reason for the bible to say "no" to inbreeding. Because we are all technically brother and sister.

Edit:
Woah! That sounds awful after rereading it.

Let me clear the Air... NO! I do not participate in inbreeding!

[JewishIntent]

I have always heard that in the bible somwhere while talking about noah's ark and all that water stuff that there was a bit o the incest going on on the boat. Can anyone confirm this or is it just another tall tale about the bible?

And tiger: If the religon you believe in also includes the belief of A&E, then yes you do my firend. But hey if you can't keep it in your pants keep it in your family right?

[tyger_claw]

Thankfully, no

And yes I have heard that saying...

But if you can't keep it in your pants, pay $50 for some assistance instead

Sorry for the off topic interruption....


...back to our regular forum conversation

[OverdueSpy]

Since we may have learned how to extract DNA from a jellyfish, inject it into a pig embryo, and make the new little piggies glow in the dark.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hea...ory?id=1498324

It makes me wonder... Why would a supreme being use evolution when that supreme being could just adjust the dna as seen fit?

I still believe that this all comes down to what each individual wants to put their faith in. My preference is a supreme being that has somehow always existed and always will, which created all living things to include the heavens and the earth. The antithesis to this belief is faith in a big collection of mindless gas and dust particles that somehow created itself, collected together, and blew up, resulting in the universe being created out of the chaos that ensued.

[JewishIntent]

One way i have often tried to explain the way i feel about god and the whole evolution thing is this. Its almost like trying to heat food. There is a bieng, God if you will, that has this plan. But within this plan there is room for acceptable deviation, such as as long as the food doesn't get too hot or too cold there is a range of 'hot' that is acceptable. This could be looked at as the rules of biology that we all have to follow. We can do what we want, free will and all, but since there are rules that we have to follow the supreme bieng is kinda still there making sure that we cannot do anything too drastic and burn the food or leave it too cold. This way of thinking leaves room for both evolution and religion.