"Faustino Núñez Hernández" <faustnh from gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.669.1187668458.11350.mol-evol from net.bio.net...
| Steve , I know perfectly that genes don't " want " anything , in the
| sense you're considering my word " want " and the rest of my words .
|| You should be able to appreciate and assume the FIGURATIVE AND
| RELATIVE sense , dimension and characteristic of my words and my
| message , and you should be able to appreciate , assume and understand
| what is the clear and simple idea I want to transmit .
|| If I have now to stop and try to discuss with you , and explain to
| you , things like what a figurative and relative way of expression
| is , or like in what sense or manner you have to interpret my
| account , or like what's a pondered , moderated and mature manner of
| interpreting and criticizing a text , not subjugating this
| understanding to certain excessively strict and rigurous linguistic
| orientations and vocations , that I already passed when I was much
| younger , then please forgive me , but let me respectfully say that ,
| at my present age , I don't feel like keeping any debate in these
| conditions .
|| Again respectfully , I'll I can express now is that I will only debate
| with you if you give me valid critics and considerations .
that's really quite a mouthful, chalked full of commas and run-ons....i
my intent was not to insult you. i did point out where your logic was
faulty, as it needs to be. further, even in the most abstract application of
meaning in 'want', genes don't decide which of it's components are most
advantageous for an organism. i think the word you were perhaps looking for
would be 'wont' - in the habit of adapting to new environments, etc..
however, even the best application of that word leads one to think that the
gene itself is doing the adapting, and that, actively. it is not and does
not and is strictly limited to a shuffle of the deck and the play of a
hand...winner take all.
so with that in mind, let's jump straight to your posit number 7. this is no
new revelation. yes, the sensory nervous system does influence the genome.
however, that influence is not direct and is regulated by
survivability...just as any external influence.
while i'm not asking for you to be 'excessively strict and rigorous[ly]
linguistic', i would as that your logic would be both strict and rigorous.
and fyi, i was not debating, i was correcting.