Replies

"This is not so far fetched. We already know that animals can sense predators in the area, and such sensing will cause phenotypic changes in their offspring. I don't think that it would be too out-of-touch to propose that visual senses can contribute to this as well, and to think that like other senses, it can be tricked to produce specific sensation and response.

Huh?

Are you implying that sensing predators will cause inheritable changes in the phenotype?

After reading all of this and allot of other stuff from both side elsewhere, here is what I am wondering most.

1. Are the fossil sequences that I see used to document evo based on more than similarities, and if so with what degree of certainty is each step made? Who gets to debate the realtionship between each step, and where are the arguments made?

2. I read the "Chihuahua (sp) versus Great Dane argument regarding species. I also read here in this thread "Groups that can interbreed to some degree can still be separate species. Consider lions and tigers, for example. A better definition is that species are groups that *don't* interbreed to any large degree. A more technical way to put it is that they are independent breeding populations. "
Would this not make these dogs into two different species, because they are (almost certainly) unlikey to breed? Could physical geography be used as a reason to seperate a species?

I'm not sure if there has been found _heritable_ phenotypic changes, but I certainly wouldn't rule it out. We know of other environmentally-induced heritable changes. Why rule out predation-based ones?