On 21 Nov 2005 00:52:45 -0800, "Cliff L"
wrote:

NetMax wrote:

For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other
variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so
inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was
so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of
chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply
did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps
these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the
niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification.

I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche?
In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped
cichlids?

Cliff

You all are discussing part of my problem with "Evolution", how enough
survived accidents in particularly unique niches can survive twice
within a reproducible time frame, it does take two to reproduce. Think
male and female Peacock, sure you can argue the female is attracted to
the beautiful feathers, but also think how hard it is for the male to
run to catch her or evade destruction from a less beautiful display.
And, how did the female come to find the riot of colors and patterns
"sexy?"

Further, I would like to see a specific gene that can accidentally
change to create a pattern such as seen on the Clown fish (or
peacock). You may find a nich rational, but finding one survivable
gene change requires real imagination. To make things more
complicated, recent knowledge about genes suggest one gene does more
than one thing, then there are all those other cellular functions that
must cooperate for the gene to survive and do something useful.

dick