Don't get it (Re: Ape to Man - where did the hair go?)

I know I'm weeks late on this reply, and veering away from topic. (maybe it should be a new one?) But I have to point this out: both those articles flirt with a suggestion that imperils the legitimacy of biological evolution. Both articles suggest that a species can somehow direct its evolution when an environment changes, evolving to suit its needs. Why do rational people feel so compelled to infer purpose when mere function is sufficient to explain something?A walking stick with wings in a flightless population is just like the occasional human born with a little tail, or a cetacean with legs. The gene is there as it has been all along. Its function has been drastically reduced by mutations that spread throughout the species, but the occasional reversion occurs and is not necessarily fatal. If the environment changes some day, the rare case will gradually become more common as more and more individuals are born with an advantage that used to be a disadvantage. Give it a few million generations, and you could have walking whales returning to land, humans balancing in trees with tails, and walking sticks with wings. Unlikely? Of course. Impossible? No more than the current assortment of species.Aside from the misdirected implication of purpose or intent, Dollop's Law seems pointless and unsupportable to begin with. If you accept that a feature can evolve by chance in the first place, what on earth would possess you to claim it couldn't happen twice? A species only has memory to the extent that it retains deactivated genes. It has long been known that such genes exist, which implies the possibility of re-evolving traits if the environment reverts to a previous state.I think this is why science has moved away from creating "Laws" anyway. It's a misnomer because they can be broken, and there is always the emotional distraction of a famous sponsor whose name is attached. (let's call that Zephyr's Law! )

I offer this as a mostly uninvolved observer who is not emotionally invested in either side. It would be more accurate to say you have ignored the thinkers and thus silenced them by your scornful avoidance of a real discussion.