Greetings, I disagree with you on many of your comments about evolutionary theory. (1) I have discovered that understanding it is not at all easy, (2) it's central point, that the structure of living things is coupled to the environment through the nature of reproduction, is far from obvious, (3) it is not at all tautological nor is it the the logical neccessity implied by what most people assume by "survival of the fittest," and (4) physical adaptations themselves are often far from obvious. However ... I don't want to argue those points here, because I do agree with you on your main point that inheritance needn't be genetic to have evolutionary significance, and I personally find that much more interesting than the usual tiresome quibbles over Darwin. <<<Since I can not find any evidence of existence of such evolutions right now ...>>> There are others who think along similar lines (although they aren't easy to find) and I think you will find a lot of examples and ideas to help you in: "Animal Traditions : Behavioural Inheritance in Evolution" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521662737/qid=1021060586/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/103-6743475-4900624
by Eytan Avital, Eva Jablonka
Replies:
![]() |
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.