Summations Only

The first problem I see with your theory is that what seems to be its central premise is dead wrong: an organism does not have to know or understand the changes in its environment to succumb to or survive natural selection. If your environment is flooded and you can't swim, do you have to know these facts before you decide to drown? Of course not, you simply drown.There is no mechanism inside an organism that is "geared off" to make changes. Either you have what it takes to survive long enough to procreate or you haven't. It's as simple as that.One question you should ask yourself to disabuse you of your theory is how it explains the evolution of unicellular organisms, which have no neural tissue.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Indeed.And the first thing Zi ko should learn about evolution is that it is not something organisms do, but something that happens to populations.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I don't think this is a fact at all, but, for the sake of argument, let's assume it is.Let's assume that organisms know which changes in their environment constitute a compelling need for them to evolve. The question then becomes: how can they know this? How does a baby antelope know it's not fast enough to outrun the exceptionally fast cheetah lurking behind a bush nearby? By being caught, that's how. In its dying moments, it realizes its offspring needs to be faster to deal with this recently improved generation of cheetahs.Sadly however, there will be no offspring. The operative words of the previous scene are "In its dying moments". The baby antelope is dead, and with it, any mechanism that supposedly could have improved the DNA in its gonads. That's what natural selection is usually like: you only find out you're not up to scratch when you actually fail before you have had the chance to procreate.By the way, the central role you reserve for the nervous system betrays a very simplistic outlook on living nature as a whole. Only animals have nervous systems, and as you can see in the phylogenetic tree, animals are just a tiny twig in it. So, how does your neurogenic theory explain the evolution of the rest of life, i.e. almost all of it?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

First, two things about citing people.If you cite someone, you must be careful to make a distinction between the citation and your own interjections. The way you cited me suggests the remark about empathy is my own, which it isn't. Although I don't think people reading this thread will have any trouble understanding the conversation, it's still a sloppy way of presenting things.Secondly, you do not need to cite whole messages if you are only going to reply to one or two aspects of them. Just pick out the relevant bits and respond directly to those. It makes for a much nicer read.Now, for some substantial comment. You bring up empathy between the mother and her offspring: Again, this is a very simplistic way of looking at things. What about creatures that grow up in the absence of their parents? For example, baby sea turtles that crawl out of the egg and must make their way to the water fairly quickly, lest they be gobbled up by hungry predators. Their mother has laid her eggs some time before and has gone back to sea, so she isn't there to watch what happens to her offspring. You haven't actually looked at the link I gave you, have you? If you had, you'd have seen that, like animals, plants are also just a twig on the phylogenetic tree*. Before you embark on your quixotic quest to launch a new revolutionary theory of biology, please make sure you understand biology proper. Living nature is not just plants and animals. Ad hoc adding plant hormones and pollen to your now inaccurately named "neurogenic" theory doesn't cut the mustard. * For your convenience, I've provided the link again. Please take a look at it.Edited by Parasomnium, : Typo

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

But how did she know that this is what she needed to communicate? She was never there to watch her offspring make the dangerous trip from the nest to the water, remember? Maybe the name "neurogenic" theory is a bit of a misnomer then?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.