Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina 
OK I'VE HAD ONE TOO MANY SAMPLES OF LOCAL WINE PRODUCT SO THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING. (hic)
|
When you say local ... Hunter or Barossa or Boutique ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina
1.. The point is research has shown that when circumstances change the organisms environment the organism can over a series of generations can comes up with ways to compensate/counter these changes in environmental pressures.
2.. In terms of your experiment I would say that in real world melanin production would be stimulated in response to increased sun intensity. Our bodies would I believe come up with what was necessary to protect us (if that is possible) from the harmful rays and this MAY mean we'd become dark skinned.
3 .. Greg I have to dig out research details but please take my word for it - everything I state is very well considered and evident in various studies but explained as :microevolution" etc.
|
Tina ... For the purposes of this you have no need to supply proof .. I will take it as given.
I have no disagreement with 1, 2 or 3 above. However, they are not relevant. If I am exposed to the sun my skin does go darker. This is already in my DNA, which I inherited. You are implying that if I am overexposed to the sun my DNA can alter beneficially to stimulate extraordinary melanin production, over and above my DNA's normal inherited ability. Further that my DNA can alter its code to retain this ability.
OK .. Up to this point I am agreeable. Or at the least, willing to suspend disbelief.
Now you imply, if I read you correctly, that my new Super-Melanin DNA can pass the new code across the barrier into my sperm. (If I am a male [which I am] or to an egg [if your female] which you are)
No .. I don't agree with this. This is Lamarckian theory and has been disproved. (A caveat here is that recent tests not related to our discussion have revealed that Lamarckian theory needs to be re-examined) You have to convince me of this point, as Design Intelligence relies on this as a foundation stone. Or at least that is how I read your description of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina HUMANS HAVE BEEN MORE A FACTOR IN DETERMING THE SURVIVAL OF MOST SPECIES THAN ANY THING LIKE "natural selection/survival of the fittest". WE HAVE UN-NATURAL SELECTION - FOR HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN ALIKE. SO LUCKY FOR CRABS IF THEY WERE CONSIDERED APHRODISIACS IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE STORY. |
No ... Hominids have only 'walked' (excuse the pun) the earth for 2 million years (some fragments of fossils indicate up to 5-7 million years). Homo-Sapiens for only 100,000 years. How could we have affected evolution more than any other thing?
In any case, I don't believe that because we consciously control our environment to the best of our ability that our actions are somehow 'artificial' while all other species are 'natural'. We are part of the eco-system, subject to it, for all our technology, for all our belief systems. We are not outside it.
ALL, repeat
ALL, evolutionary changes are driven by mechanical acts. Whether those acts are conscious human decisions or 'rifts' opening in the earth or asteroids striking the earth, or Elephants clearing Acacia Forests to aid grass production, aridity or flooding etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN DISCREDITED - I THINK THE DARK MOTHS WERE FOUND AND NAILED ON TO THE TREES. |
No, what at first appeared to be nail-heads turned out to be part of the dark moth. They had evolved the nail-heads on their wings in order to convince there predators that they could not be separated from the tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tina GREG SEE IF YOU CAN GRASP THE ABOVE BEFORE I LAUNCH INTO MECHANICS. |
So that we are on the same wavelength let me know if I should open a Hunter or Barossa ....
cool bananas ... greg
