Post reply

Reply to the message by dhw

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> DAVID: [i]Based on your worry about an IM with guidelines, I went back to this entry. What occurred to my was the obvious appearance of organisms changing their phenotype for no apparent reason. How many species modify and there are no environmental challenges? I think humans are one prime example. What I am claiming is that it is obvious some changes and advances are not due to stress, but simple innovation. The whale series is another example. The changes only served to complicate the physiology of the animals as they progressed from land animals to sea-dwelling whales. Natural selection played a role but initial stress didn&apos;t as far as can be told.[/i]-You have missed out the argument that I have put forward throughout this thread: namely, that what you call stress or environmental challenge leads to adaptation, but environmental change also offers opportunity for what I call IMPROVEMENT, and it is improvement that advances evolution. That is why I keep quoting the image of the fish leaving water when suddenly confronted by dry land. The land animal that entered the water reverses my example. My whole argument is based on the claim that innovation is not required but is the result of intelligent organisms exploiting new (for them) conditions in order to better themselves. But it is also possible that an especially intelligent &#147;mind&#148; will think of a new way of doing things - as in many of the natural wonders you present to us. That would be a different type of innovation, but the principle remains the same: intelligent organisms are inventive.