Daggone, theres that “jolly fun” we heard about in Goulds essay. Any chance you kids can stop horsing around long enough to make us understand your ideas about evolution?
Stewart poses a question (page 41): On the face of it, a flying cat would appear fitter to survive than one without wings. Explain why the nonexistence of flying cats in the real world is not inconsistent with Darwinian evolution. [End Stewart.] Hmmm, I wonder what he’s after here. I can only imagine Gould and the internet evolutionists wondering with deeply furrowed brows how anyone could even ask such a question. “Evolution is true; flying cats are nonexistent; therefore, the nonexistence of flying cats is perfectly consistent with evolution.” Others might put a microscopically thin coat of shellac on the tautology: “Although it might appear that there is a niche for flying cats, there really isn’t.” Stewart gives the answer (page 48): Here are three answers. A. A flying cat might not be fitter than one without wings. Although wings would help it to catch birds and escape from dogs, they would hamper it when the cat climbs trees and add extra weight when it chases mice. B. The necess
Related Questions
- Daggone, theres that "jolly fun" we heard about in Goulds essay. Any chance you kids can stop horsing around long enough to make us understand your ideas about evolution?
- Has anyone ever heard of someone having problems with getting pregnant after shes had an abortion?
- What is the youngest age you have heard of kids having sex or getting pregnant?
