|
|
Re: No Instincts To Swim?
Paul G. Shockman (shockman@amug.org)
19 Jul 1996 07:05:14 GMT
In article <31ECBEE0.688D@hgu.mrc.ac.uk>, James Borrett
<jamesb@hgu.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
> david l burkhead wrote:
> > Incorrect. The negative would be, should be, taken as the
> > default--until and unless there is evidence to the contrary.
> > So where's that proof?
...proof? ...evidence? ...default? heavy guns. ...hard stuff to
come by...
I would guess a fetus starts "flailing" about "in uturo" at about ...2,
maybe 3 months (wild speculation), tethered by an umbilical, and I have
seen movies of their "swimming" around quite apparantly "hiding/shielding"
their eyes from the fiber-optic cameras light source...
...so, maybe many or most placental mammals "swim" some during their
embryonic developement? eh? I don't know... I can certainly imagine the
benefit to any individual in a mammal species to ...ah... learn / imprint
the trophisms required for locomotion after birth while still in the
uterus.
...could be all mammals are "aquatic"...
...gill slits/blah/blah/blah...
Instincts? cool. ...prewired medullas... I take three, please.
Hold the fries...
okay, sorry, sorry...
why is it no one likes...
uh, numbers? like, where the differentials? probability analysis?
tables and charts and equations -oh my!
**end trash mode**
Later, aquatic alligators,
Paul Shockman
etc., etc., etc.
|