Re: Evolution, "adaptation", and what's currently adaptiveLen Piotrowski (email@example.com)
Thu, 5 Sep 1996 14:26:48 GMT
In article <322E3C24.2A18@megafauna.com> Stephen Barnard <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>You must be joking.
You're right! I am joking.
>Either that or you don't know what you're talking about.
That's possibly true as well!
Not all eyes are the same. Perhaps some gastropods haven't any eyes. I bow
> What do you think are on the ends of those stalks? Eyes.
Couldn't say this is true, but I presume what is at the ends of those stalks
> Octopuses, which
"Octopuses" related to mollusks? I wouldn't know about that, or the nature of
>The mere fact that so many phyla have independently evolved eyes -- and many different
I think I disagreed with the functionalist argument as method, not with any
>The path from no eyes to eyes is quite plausible.
... but just so!
> First a patch of light-sensitive
... first step on the slippery slope, the need for a patch ...
>Then this patch forms a cavity,
... followed by the need for a cavity ...
>which is better able to resolve the
... culminated by the need to resolve the light source.
>Then the cavity closes over on itself and a crude
Another need to fold the cavity ...
>which allows for the resolution of shapes.
... and the need for resolution of shapes.
> (I'm taking about simple
I don't doubt the historicity of your museum of " incremental improvements." I
>How do you suppose all these phyla got eyes?
I don't know how exactly these myriad series of historically related
>Did genetic drift miraculously produce
I don't know. Do you believe that one proto-eye was ancestral to all eyes?
>Is there some essential "eyeness" at work in the universe? Did
I don't know of a plausible explanation for "eyeness." Your "incremental