"We see the same process of extermination among our domesticated productions, through the selection of improved forms by man"

-- Origin of Species

*sigh* If only America celebrated by carving the Thanksgiving po'ouli...

Death is a part of life. Extinction is a part of evolution.

Raoul:

But apparently not of Natural Selection.

OJ:

Please read the Scientific American Library book 'Fossils' (from back when SA was still a respected journal). I'll even send you my copy.

Then restate your claim that all extinction is due to catastrophe or humans.

If you can.

Jeff:

There are Fossils of extinct species. There is no evidence that anything ever becamne extinct due to its unfitness under Natural Selection. Everything we've ever seen become extinct and all the evidence we have suggests two possibilities: Man or catastrophe.

Hmmm. And the catastrophe that doomed the Irish elk was, what?

Sudden climactic transition.

"We shall best understand the probable course of natural selection by taking the case of a country undergoing some slight physical change, for instance, of climate. The proportional numbers of its inhabitants will almost immediately undergo a change, and some species will probably become extinct."

-- Origin of Species

OJ:

The rise of the Panama Isthmus was neither sudden, nor catastrophic.

Yet the result was significant extinctions on the Caribbean side.

BTW--in case you haven't checked your calendar, that was long before man.

Just one of many examples.

Such events are by definition sudden and catastrophic.

Dutch:

Exactly. The slight ones, in practice, do nothing though.

OJ:

Not if you are using those words with any respect to their actual meanings.

Had you been alive at the time, you would not have noticed any change throughout your alloted 3 score and 10.

Hardly sudden.

Perhaps you could describe for me which conditions on the Caribbean side are "catastrophically" different from the Pacific?

The change was catastrophic. Climate itself is never catastrophic, which is why climate never causes speciation or extinction and why the species that do exist are so uniform.

So this probable extinction has ocurred to "One of Earth's rarest birds..." - - - Wow,what an extraordinary coincidence.

Another hello to that esteemed BS'er (oj) who can "twist-the-English-language-to-whatever-it-takes" in order to make a claim(to "claim" that he's made a claim??) oj, the pretzel man!

Larry:

Are you aware of any common birds that are on the verge of extinction?

"The change was catastrophic."

Catastrophic how?

Perhaps you could describe for me which conditions on the Caribbean side are "catastrophically" different from the Pacific?

They aren't.

The passenger pigeon was common and then extinct within about 20 years.

By human agency, of course.

But common species, if by that you mean numerous, are generally (not always) not on the verge of extinction.

So what? Extinction always involves the death of the last fecund pair (or fertile individual in the case of plants).

SInce you are giving your idiosyncratic definitions to things, I can cheerfully admit all your arguments.

They don't touch darwinism, though, since darwinism defines things differently.

Harry:

Extinction always involves the death of the last fecund pair (or fertile individual in the case of plants).

meet

Larry:

So this probable extinction has ocurred to "One of Earth's rarest birds..." - - - Wow,what an extraordinary coincidence.

OJ:

So let me get this straight: suddenly over millions of years; a catastrophe that takes place over the same amount of time that, while changing the dance card, doesn't decimate the number of dancers.

I gave you an example of not just one, but hundreds of extinctions due to causes that are neither, and that is the best you can come up with?

What dancers?

It took a while to become clear, but I got it.

Orrin is using 'catastrophe' to mean what English-speakers mean by 'cataclysm.'