Replies

So you're suggesting that a species can evolve from A to C by way of an intermediate stage B that has less survivability than A, but leaves it possible with luck to reach stage C before it dies out? That strikes me as considerably less likely to work than the traditional idea of continuous improvement.

You obviously cannot grasp the concept. "B" has a survival advantage over "A" (after all, it was a small change in the DNA that got from "A" to "B"). "C" never entered into it.

"The regulatory problems of the clotting cascade are particularly severe since, as pointed out by Halkier (1992, 104), error on either side--clotting too much or too little--is detrimental."

But not necessarily fatal before the organism reaches breeding age -- and nature has a lot of individuals with which to experiment.

So you're suggesting that a species can evolve from A to C by way of an intermediate stage B that has less survivability than A, but leaves it possible with luck to reach stage C before it dies out?

"B" has a survival advantage over "A" (after all, it was a small change in the DNA that got from "A" to "B"). "C" never entered into it.

Your statement that clotting too much or too little is "not necessarily fatal before the organism reaches breeding age" is considerably weaker than "has a survival advantage over" and does not imply it. It is by no means clear that too much clotting has a survival advantage over too little, or vice versa.