People get paid to do this am I missing something
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34944735
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34944735
People get paid to do this am I missing something
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34944735
People get paid to do this am I missing something
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34944735
The observation has been looked at in a wider context, which has led the researchers to their conclusion. What would be your conclusion? And have you read the paper, or just the BBC news article?They imagine that just because an organism can produce a variant it is Evolution. The observation is science, the conclusions aren't.
Don't sleep on your back with your mouth open. Spiders like to bungee jump. Just saying.
I'm complaining because this thread could have been an interesting discussion about convergent evolution of colour in the absence of sexual selection, and also about why scientists choose to study what they do (which is actually more relevant to the OP). Instead it's become a tedious argument about the validity of the theory of evolution, and indeed the very definition of the word evolution. You are not disagreeing with only me, you are disagreeing with pretty much the entire scientific community and calling into question a theory which has become accepted as being as close to a fact as it's possible to get, within the bounds of rigorous scientific enquiry. You are either scientifically ignorant, or trolling. Possibly both.Is that a no? Or are you complaining because I disagree with you?
How they didn't report that finding I'll never know. They ought to put you in charge of peer-review.If the Tarantula species have evolved this blue colour 8 separate times, that'll be once for each leg.
I'm complaining because this thread could have been an interesting discussion about convergent evolution of colour in the absence of sexual selection, and also about why scientists choose to study what they do (which is actually more relevant to the OP). Instead it's become a tedious argument about the validity of the theory of evolution, and indeed the very definition of the word evolution. You are not disagreeing with only me, you are disagreeing with pretty much the entire scientific community and calling into question a theory which has become accepted as being as close to a fact as it's possible to get, within the bounds of rigorous scientific enquiry. You are either scientifically ignorant, or trolling. Possibly both.
Have you read the research paper under discussion? It's linked to in the BBC article. And what is your opinion about the value of this type of research to society?
Why not? It's perfectly possible to discuss serious issues in a lighthearted cafe style without playing silly buggers. Once again, have you read the paper and would you like to chat about it, or the point raised in the OP?In Cafe?
but what if it was this little chapIf the Tarantula species have evolved this blue colour 8 separate times, that'll be once for each leg.