Somewhere between Darwin and Baldwin lies... Lamark?

Sure, but the first crab which had this feature didn't "strive to have a face on his back". It just happened. Then, as a result, he lived and had kids that had similiar markings.It's even possible that multiple crabs independantly developed face-like features on their backs, since, I'm assuming here, all these crabs have some feature and it's really subjective on the part of the fishermen what is face-like.In the mouse study, according to Larmarkian evolution, a tailless mouse would be born in short order as a result of cutting off the tails of the parents. It's important to the study that every mouse survive to reproduce (since cutting the tail off is what is causing the change in the future generation).What I'm saying is that if you have two groups of mice. One group as a control. The other gets it's tail cut off. And every mouse is raised to reproduce. Eventually (maybe a thousand years of this, but eventually) you'll get a mouse born with no tail. However, that mouse is as likely to be born to the control group as the tailless group. The mutation that causes taillessness is not caused by tail amputationThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 09-29-2005 11:26 AM

Agreed. Sorry if I was unclear and seemed to argue otherwise.The speculation I was supporting is that the continued chopping of tails in the "Farmer's Wife" cohort could act as a selective pressure that favors the genetically tail-less mouse.With the tail-less mutation-bearing mouse free from the risks of traumatic injury, and, perhaps, therefore more desirable as a mate, the tail-less mutation might spread throughout that isolated cohort.Similarly, an antibiotic may not cause the resistant mutation, but the outcomes may differ dramatically between antibiotic-present and antibiotic-absent cohorts of bacteria when a new resistance mutation appears.