rocketpig,

I dont see why an interesting character would disappear if it improves the selective capacity of the owner whatever the population is large or small..
Of course, in a large group, the % of individu having the new allele will increase slowly compared to smaller group but it is not a problem to my eyes.

The only thing I can imagine is that the probability to have homozygote individu will be increased in smaller group allowing maybe a better selection of these individu.

corrected ^^

I suppose it could happen in a larger population but from what I learned, it almost always happens in a smaller population. The problem I see with a larger population is that it would be impossible to split into separate species with such a large gene pool crossing over. Apply it to dogs... Purebreds often have degenerate conditions, skin problems, etc. because the gene pool is so small that recessive traits become widespread with inbreeding. Compare that to a mutt, where almost all recessive genes are neutralized by mating with another breed that has dominant genes to maintain the survivability of the animal.

Reverse that and I think you'll see what I'm talking about. BTW, what I have been saying mostly applies to the creation of a new species, not a single trait that helps a species better adapt to its environment (longer teeth, more functional appendages, etc.). That can happen over time in a larger population, though even then a smaller population is better suited to allow it to spread quickly and become dominant.

 Because the gene may not individually give enough of an advantage to spread to the group unless the group itself is small.

Will watching that movie give us a chance to win his money?

If I survived the show, I can survive a documentary.

Good post kenzomatic. This is a good point and brings a new aspect to this discussion/debate. Why is it that one is so hard supporting one side or the other? Why does one HAVE to be right? Since we haven't been around millions (or thousands) of years to see the process in its exact, why do we HAVE to be set on one way or another as exactly what happened? So if that ONE WAY is wrong, we would all be wrong together? Psshh.

It's the cat in a box scenerio. Certainly something could be in the box, or something could not. If something moves in the box, you could guess a cat, but it could be a squirrel, fox, or raccoon! Why does it have to be a cat, or no cat? What is so important that you have to take one of those sides, however many holes and unknown possibilities might be present?

I think fear has a lot to do with it. If you believe in God and admit to no God, the implication is that your life has in part been meaningless and you have to admit being wrong and discover yourself all over again. If you don't believe in God and there is a God, then you have to face that you are not the sole controller of your destiny, and in turn must go back, admit being wrong, and refind yourself.

Just because Evolution is against tradition does not mean that it is anymore right. The unbiased look at this topic (and more logical) is to consider the possibilities on both sides of the equation, realize that there could be other alternatives undiscovered, see what works in the beliefs and what does not, and develop your own thoughts behind it. Don't stand up and hold out a science book or bible and say your way is the best because you have "people." That is blind following. Many of you, evolutionists, are doing exactly what you are fighting against.

Again, I never said Dolphins were smarter than people. I agree we are quantatatively far ahead of them, but I would point out that it is our standards of measure being used to make this assessment.

So is it really a surprise that we determine ourselves to be superior?

As a humerous thought, what if they were to choose the criteria? I bet we would fall a lot shorter of their criteria than they do of ours.

If dolphins were superior, how boring would "Human World" be? Come one, come all, watch the hairless ape DO MY TAXES!

It's not like we can do anything cool, like jump through an elevated hoop or balance a beach ball on our noses.

...

What the hell am I talking about? Sometimes I get some strange thoughts in my head. 

But do you think Dolphin have a conscience of their existence as we have ?
I personnaly doubt.

do you think dolphin have a conscience of the world we are living ?
I doubt too.

do you think Dolhin will EVER ask themselve the question :  do you think we are more intelligent than human ?""

 I think this is what make us so different of the others species :

conscience of our self
+ conscience of our world
+ big stupid all the time question like "are we more inteligent that Dolphins ?"

Actually, dolphins are one of three groups that are self-aware. Man, apes, and dolphins.

There were actually a lot of really interesting studies done to determine self-awareness in animals. Try Googling them, it's definitely worth a read. 

edit: Wow, just did a little more research. Recent evidence has shown that elephants may be self-aware on some primitive level, too. Interesting.