Mephura said:
Things that can be observed in the human populace.
speed of hair growth, body hair, things of that nature. While in our society, these things don't have too much influence over survival, take the same ideas and transplant them to lower organisms. In a colder climate, thicker hair that grows fast could mean higher chances for survival.
The real question at hand, whose accepted answer does not satisfy many (inclduing me), is this:
Does the colder climate CAUSE hair to grow in longer, thicker and faster, which then spreads by Natural Selection... or is the longer, thicker and faster-growing hair simply a "random mutation" that spread by Natural Selection?
There is no incontrovertible proff either way, and anyone who says otherwise is simply attempting to interject his or her own opinion or agenda into science.
That interjection seems to me to often be caused by the fear that accepting any kind of intentional driving mechanism behind evolution would be akin to saying "God did it".
That fear is well justified, but causes people, in my opinion, to reject the idea of anything other than "random mutations" far too lightly without supporting evidence (though they sometimes incorrectly invoke the Principle of Parsimony) and that is irresponsble science.
I believe this is the gap (or percieved gap, if you prefer) that fuzzywuz was suggesting Gaia may address in his opening post.
I think the idea has merit.
valich,
First you stated:
valich said:
The "Gaia theory" states that earth is a living organism, which I would uncategorically reject. The earth contains countless living organism, but to say that these all add up to one big one called "earth" is absurd.
But then Hipparchia pointed out that it was not true, and not not at all what Lovelock intended or stated in his theory (which is completely correct).
valich said:
Yeah, but what happened out of Lovelock's original conception is that many of his succcessors and proponents started elaborating on his idea and now you read about GAIA as a single living entity.
Not only does Gaia theory, as prsented by Lovelock not state this at all, he made concerted effort throughout his career to clarify that people misconstrued his theory and he was upset about how people twisted and misinterpreted his words.
valich said:
You're right though! And there is a partial self-regulation like that that goes on in the universe, but then we also have flare ups and electromagnetic fields from the sun, and background radiation as energy, and the effect of gravity from other galaxies, planets, and solar systems; but most importantly, nowadays, our own human effect on the Earth: pollution, changing the environment, ozone depletion, wars, atomic bombs, biogenetic plant alterations. Get's a lot more complex that just that.
That's essentially what Lovelock was saying.
I don't think you disagree with Lovelock as "uncategorically" as you claim.
(By the way, did you mean "categorically" or am I misunderstanding?)
I think you just do not understand what Gaia theory actually is or states.
Have you ever actuallt read Lovelock's work, or are you basing your assumptions on second hand information and relying on others' interpretations?