2007-02-18 09:30:19 · 9 answers · asked by Dred 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Could be....but that is not the Neo-darwinian pespective as it appears to introduce a teleological element.
In the neo-darwinian model changes in organisms randomly arise to then be selected by the changing environments. The only rival to this that posited that the organisms reacted to the environment was Lamarkism. Lamark thought that if an animal stretched its neck throughout its life to reach high leaves its offspring would have longer necks. Unfortunately this goes against out understanding of how DNA works. The "central dogma" of genetics basically states that whatever happens to you in your lifetime doesn't effect the genes passed forward - and as that is all that the new body has to go on whatever happens to you in your lifetime is "dropped" in the line of inheritance.
2007-02-18 10:25:51 · answer #1 · answered by anthonypaullloyd 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have been developing a hypothesis, which I detest for it's proximity to creationism and intelligent design.
Essentially this, could DNA poses a memory, so that evolution is not random, but a progression toward some previous life form? This trace DNA could have been carried here by commits, or existed on an earlier incarnation of the Earth?
This is just a though really, an idea not worthy of an episode of the Outer Limits.
In the SF world this could explain the similarity of species from different worlds.
2007-02-18 09:51:34 · answer #2 · answered by H. Hornblower 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i won't be in a position to be stricken to study by using it totally, yet i assume what you're asking and you at the instant are not the 1st is 'what use is a a million/2 a watch?' You even use area of Darwin's clarification - there's a delicate delicate area that gets extra advantageous at it! there is not any such element as a million/2 a watch, until eventually you study are eyes to an eagles that could see a rodent from a mile up, we would have difficulty seeing a individual, it in all threat does not equate to a million/2. So the attention grew / progressively progressed into an entire eye and become under no circumstances a million/2 a watch in basic terms as there's no longer a million/2 an o.ok.tree.
2016-09-29 07:18:02 · answer #3 · answered by fabbozzi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, the other way around; changing organisms in a reacting environment!0!
2007-02-18 09:34:15 · answer #4 · answered by Alex 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Single organisms do not change due to their enviornment. Evolution is when change occures in a SPECIES that better helps them adapt to a changing enviornment.
2007-02-18 09:37:16 · answer #5 · answered by October 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Symbiosis!
2007-02-18 10:08:07 · answer #6 · answered by Kikkaz 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well to put it simply, yes.
2007-02-18 10:27:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. It is more sophicated and complicated than that.
2007-02-18 09:34:43 · answer #8 · answered by Sophist 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no there is more to it
2007-02-18 14:07:31 · answer #9 · answered by ilovemydogii 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋