nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Sorry, I just felt it wasn't very encyclopedic the way it was worded especially the part in the form of the question. Also, it seems consistant with the Natural Selection that vestigial structures could be "in the process" of being phased out. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 18:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I just felt it wasn't very encyclopedic the way it was worded especially the part in the form of the question. Also, it seems consistant with the Natural Selection that vestigial structures could be "in the process" of being phased out. [[User:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] 18:26, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:Part of the 'two-edged sword' of natural selection is that it should weed out inefficiencies as an outgoing occurrence and if it's not doing so, then they aren't inefficiencies. Giving it an open ended "in the process" can be fine if we're talking about short time periods on an evolutionary scale, but when we're talking about tens of millions of years then there is a benefit or a neutrality to the structure that by definition says it is not useless. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:45, 23 May 2007 (EDT)