“The population thus seperated will adapt to the slightly different environment”
This adaption would be anything but slight! The course of a river being changed over the long run would upset the whole eco-system, and would become VERY altered. It would get extremly chaotic!“Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.”
Dr. Fidelius is now the topic of a Great Debate, it seems.
I, for one, simply don’t believe he exists. I haven’t seen him.
Christ on a wildebeast, Jedi. If you want to debate a point with him, please:
Cite and reference the applicable thread, or at least the point in question. You jump into the river argument without giving anyone a substantive point of reference.
Title the thread appropriately.
Support your argument. “An argument isn’t just the automatic gainsaying of whatever the other person has to say.”
-andros-
Yes it is!
(You had to know somebody would say that.)
Ah, but “faith is the something-or-other of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 12:1)
Not that anybody was hoping for an Anomalous Paleontologist and part-time Charlatan…
I was hoping. You’re my hero, David.
P.S. to Andros: It would get very annoying if I looked at the Great Debates menu page and found 30 threads all entitled “appropriately”
Well, I guess we could number them (Appropriately1, Appropriately2, etc.). But I guess you’re right.
BTW, please notice the posts from myself and Andros, both dated 10/27 at 4:39 above. It would seem Dr. Fidelius has someone who was hoping for his arrival!
“Coincidence? I think not.” 
Odd…I seem to recall it was either a colt or a donkey. Your version must be using Revised Greek. 
Pickman…he was obviously using the Gnu Revised Standard Version for that reference!
I feel honored. I am not worthy of having an entire Great Debate about myself.
Unaccustomed as I am to public speaking…
Hey! Stop throwing things!
Meanwhile, back at the topic, I just have to wonder how different the environment on the North bank of the Amazon is from the South bank. They have very similar climates, and the biotas are obviously related. In fact, the animals which are able to cross the river appear as the same species in both areas, the organisms to whom a river is more of a barrier appear as different sub-species or as completely reproductively isolated related species.
An envrionment is more than just one ecosystem. The environment of any given species is the total suite of biomes in that species’ range.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position he did not reach through reason.”
Mynd you, møøse bites Kan be pretty nasti…
Religious painters were confused about that, too, and the sometimes depicted Christ astride both. Pretty silly looking.
Thread well on course to Cuba, sir!
Christ was astride both a colt and a donkey, I meant. DrF sneaked in before me with that post.
Dr. Fidelius,
Yes, I understand this, but in your original statement, you said…the river changed course.
Wouldn’t that kill plant life, which would force animals who use it for food or camo. and force the animals who prey on them to move and so on and so on. This it seems would be a true case of “puntuated equillibrium”.
I’m sure you remember the butterfly in Africa that flapped it’s wings and created the storm in Europe.
You were talking, not about different places in geography, but, something as drastic as changing a river.
Jedi-667
Dr. Fidelius,
Please excuse the spelling!
Rivers change course all the time, or at least they used to until we invented levees and suchlike. A river changing course, splitting off oxbow lakes, wearing away part of its bank so that it is redirected, whatever, is not a major catastophe.
If God had wanted me not to believe in Evolution, he would have given Jedi-667 better debating skills.
<p align=“center”>Tris</p>
I was actually hoping for a “Dr. Fidelius is a pompous windbag” type of thread. I get what seems to be an almost deliberately obtuse reply to one phrase in an otherwise over-long post. sigh One gets used to life’s little disappointments.
It would appear that when young Master Skywalker was attempting to post a reply to one of DrFidelius’ posts (most probably in the “Neo-Darwinism” thread), (s)he mistakenly actuated the “NEW TOPIC” button, rather than the “POST A REPLY” button.
I would like to submit that this, being a perfectly plausible error on the part of a rookie, is not really worth the attention of those gathered here.
David – do you have the technology to splice the two threads? Although it’s probably a moot point, what with the rumors abounding that Jedi-667 has left of his own accord.
Related to that, while I think it would be, if not abusive, at least rash to obliterate these threads as being unproductive, could you at least post some type of disclaimer at the beginning of the threads, to alert the unsuspecting that they are unlikely to find much, if anything, to engage the mind?