3 ms·
> I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesn
by nvasilak 17y ago
> I liked Avatar, but to me the obvious science fail was the telepathic connection between the Na'vi and the animals. Evolution doesn't work like that! Rattlesnakes do not grow rattles for your benefit! I'm afraid that yon astrophysicist knows rather a bit more about physics than about evolutionary biology if the inter-species universal complex adaptations didn't jump out at him.
You should check this out: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php http://www.i-sis.org.uk/paris.php The latest science suggests that evolution is less random than we thought, and that unrelated species often swap genetic information. Inter-species universal complex adaptations may be a bit more plausible than we think.
- hegemonicon 17y agoI am not an expert on evolution, but much of this article strikes me as incorrect. The fact that genes are capable of modifying other genes (turning them off/on, splicing in new genes, etc.) doesn't refute the concept of natural selection of random mutations unless you're ALSO positing a new mechanism by which this modification ability can be acquired. I skimmed through and didn't see one, even though he strangely implies that the fact that genes behave in a complex fashion means that organisms aren't coded by them. His (apparent) creationist sympathies and tacit endorsement of the gaia concept leads me to believe he thinks there is some sort of magic at work, which is not a very useful explanation. I'm equally perplexed by his overall point of "genetics is complicated, therefore genetic engineering and capitalism is immoral."