 | | Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Ben Roller
|
| | | (...) Ok everyone, raise your hand if these guys are making you feel dumb too. It amazes me that you all knew which moths were being talked about. Man, some people are just too smart. :) Ben Roller (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden
|
| | | | | (...) *blinks* I was almost about to post about the difference between Lamarkian and Darwinian evolution until it was cleared up by the later poster. But, for the fun of it, the example of Lamarkian evolution would be that the giraffe's neck grew (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | | (...) sorry :) I was an evolutionary ecology major in college, this stuff was drilled into my head. my wife says I talk about in my sleep. :) (...) Finches in the Galapagos. For a good pop science book on this, read "The Beak of the Finch." -Chris (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Ack! >_<;; I took "The evolution of human nature" (aka intro to sociobiology) which the first third of the class focused on "real" evolution. Then in my "history of anthropology" (aka anthro theory) class, we started out with some of the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) We did, but it didn't necessarily help--the Lysenko variant of Lamarckian genetics was eagerly taken up by Stalin and his totalitarian regime--"New Socialist Man" ring any bells? It was something that appealed to him because it implied that (...) (24 years ago, 7-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | | (...) I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?" Darwin and some of his contemporaries did create the theory of evolution through natural selection, one of the first (...) (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —John J. Ladasky, Jr.
|
| | | | | | | (...) Well, the fittest *individuals* don't survive forever, obviously. What really survives, past one lifetime, are the fittest *genotypes*. -- John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D. Department of Structural Biology Stanford University Medical Center Stanford, (...) (24 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Kya Morden
|
| | | | | | (...) And, I must jump in, cause, well, I do, but if I remember my History of Anthropology course (if only I could find my notes!) it was actually Herbert Spencer (a wild and wacky social darwinist) coined that term. (24 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | (...) This moth story is the standard subject under evolution chapter of high school biology books here. I don't think too much people remembers it though..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
