Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, September 12, 2009, 17:11 (5549 days ago) @ David Turell

The only sticking point I might have is on the predation issue. If we see predators rapidly evolving alongside of prey, do you simply consign that to "correlation only?" 
> 
> You are absolutely right here. The 57 or so phyla in the Cambrian Explosion (CE) contained prey and preditors. They always evolve together and create a balance in nature. Ask the Australians about rabbits, or why Hawaiians keep out snakes.-I know about that aspect of conservation; a good chunk of why my grandfather sold an ungodly amount of land to Uncle Sam was to keep a "wild" area near the farm to keep the populations of local wildlife high. It also gave us wild choke cherries, as well as one helluva nearby hunting ground every season.-What I find issue with here is how you would determine the difference between the pressure of selection and the driving of DNA. At what point can you say that evolution is happening by one process or the other? To me it seems it creates a chicken and egg scenario. In order for your idea to be tenable, you really need to be able to show that the process of speciation happens without some event to force the hand. --> As an aside, cells die and are replaced. The process is called apoptosis. The dying cells call the garbage men by eluting chemicals that draw in the macrophages. Isn't life very complex and wonderful?
> 
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/edsumm/e090910-13.html-No one will disagree with you there... I just can't find a teleology for life.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"