"Sean Houtman" wrote in message
3...
"Peter Jason" wrote in
:

...........uh, just like our never-serious Cereus. Guess he is,
after all, just a randy little furry frigid midget running in
circles 'round the newsgroups with his tiny rigid digit.
And a Darwinian to boot!
Why has generational time spans have no effect on evolution?
That is why does a bacterium with a life span of minutes evolve at
the same rate as human with one of 80years?
It's impossible. Darwin is wrong and so are you.


Eh, bacteria can adapt to a different food source, or very different
growing conditions in a few generations. Humans are already adapted
for a variety of food sources, as well as conditions, but that
appendix is still there, even after more than 10 generations have
passed since it became useless. Can a human change body chemistry
sufficiently to adapt to higher altitude or different temperatures
in the same few minutes that the bacteria can change its response to
its environment? No, humans can't do that, it takes weeks for blood
cell counts to change. Your claim that generational time spans have
no affect (you said effect) is not supported by this simple test.

Sean


Wot??!! Even as I speak Peruvian Indians are swanning about on Lake Titicaca
which is many kilometres above sea level where the atmosphere is rather
thin.
These worthies have adapted rapidly to the thin atmosphere in a generation
or so. Indeed a lady friend of mine disgraced herself recently by fainting
profusely at Match Picher which is numerous kilometres above sea level, but
many of her friends didn't so it can be put down to 'natural variation',
that is the normal elastic capacity in a healthy body which in this case
must involve the haemoglobin. (Effect was right, Affect is wrong.)