Coffee!! Well, anyway, don’t run the OTHER way

Lenoxus, it astounds me that the 'evolution' of Bird's Nests is taken seriously as science while Dr. Sheldrake's studies in Psychical powers of animals is not taken seriously as science. We can observe and measure this power of animals in real time while Nest evolution is entirely speculation. Morgentau

O'Leary:

See, if I am asked to believe that little birds that build woven basket nests by working together as mates developed that capacity solely through natural selection, it just sounds wrong. Too many eggs would be broken in the process of discovery to enable the survival of the species!

I love these wild either-or ways of describing all biological developments. Of course birds did not start out the "process of discovery" by laying their eggs in three-twig nests on high tree branches, or some such nonsense. Instead, it is very, very likely the first nests were built on the ground, as many still are today. A great deal of nest-building knowledge may have developed in just that context. Since eggs are round, preventing them from rolling off a slightly-sloped nest is an important problem to solve, but one with far less dire consequences than broken eggs. From there, there is a trend towards the safety of higher and higher ground, which gradually increases fitness (within a different niche) by allowing the parent birds to afford to spend less time guarding the eggs, and supervising the hatchlings. This "just so story" may sound absurd, but consider how many bird species use knots in trees: it's a "half-and-half" solution to the twin problems of the dangers of the ground (like snakes and lack of hiddenness from other predators) and the dangers of the air (namely, falling). While eggs are in a tree knot, they are safe enough for continued "experimentation" in the nest-building methods, to the point that a willingness to not use a knot becomes completely reasonable. This page on the subject isn't terribly well-written when it comes to describing evolution in general, but it is chock full of neat information. Thanks for inspiring me to Google that subject! Lenoxus

Yes, Hans at 3, Sheldrake's work IS interesting stuff. See, if I am asked to believe that little birds that build woven basket nests by working together as mates developed that capacity solely through natural selection, it just sounds wrong. Too many eggs would be broken in the process of discovery to enable the survival of the species! Some other source of information is kicking in. I am NOT claiming it is mysticism, magic, proof of God's existence, or why creationism should be taught in public schools. None of that is even relevant. I am saying that we are missing something big about the origin of information in life forms. Darwinism is a major hindrance to beginning the path of discovery precisely because it restricts what we are allowed to consider to the same old (increasingly unbelievable) same old. O'Leary

Sheldrake has also worked on several potentially ID friendly projects including the origin of instincts and body forms. I think he's most famous for his idea of morphic resonance, where organisms develop under the influence of previous similar organisms. Sheldrake conceives of morphic fields as a database for both organic and abstract forms. It's interesting stuff! Hans Fritzsche

Mrs O'Leary Well, that is probably one reason why they are “common” toads, not “endangered” toads. Your funniest line in quite some time! ;) Thanks for the chuckle. Nakashima

Sheldrake worked with humans too: Rupert Sheldrake: Telephone Telepathy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdOi3s-tBzk bornagain77