Instinctual genetic retention

[Lightwaves@aol.com]

Past events notwithstanding, but rather cooled as a igneous flow, let me
refocus my ill-use of the English language.

Mickey, and others, were defensive of my  right to unsolicited rantings, and
I thank you deeply. I seriously considered pulling my name from the list,
however I repented my frustrations and resurrect my voice.

Now;

Despite pyrocastic distraction, I remain unconvinced of a scientific
discreditation for  "Instinctual genetic retention". Yes, a name alteration.

Let's imagine a dinosaur, 72 MY ago, a very small insectivorous preditor
about a foot tall. Maybe it had small teeth, maybe not, it doesn't matter,
(for this model I assemble). This, as yet unrecovered or named or discovered
species as far as I know, started altering it's behavior because of a change
in its environment. I can't even assume what that might be, perchance a
change in food sources or anything effecting behavior. Those capable of
adapting to change, and continue to reproduce, by that action alone altered
the genetic code. Both the ability to adapt, and the ability to reproduce
ensures genetic code is passed on which has a track record of success. If it
meant learning to lay your eggs in someone elses nest, or catch cockroaches,
that behavior, over 80 MY, equals a cockoo or a crow or cowbird or owl. Of
couse, again, as my mind sees it.

If we had blown the world to smithereens, back in the cold war days, and ants
and cockroaches inhiereted the earth like we were told, then given enough
time there would have been millions upon millions of mutations deriving an
again-rich biosphere.( if anything would have survived at all:-(     ). Who
knows, there might have been a techologicaly adavnced social insect 75 MY
from now. Goodness knows all the radiation floating around would encourage
artificial mutation, wouldn't it?

The point of the matter is success and traits unique to survival are passed
on, or evolution is as silly as the fiasco over human tracks in the same rock
formation as dinos.

Did T-rex have better night vision than the dominat prey species, if there
was one? For that matter is there any evidence of night hunting capabilities
within dinosaurs? Speaking of hight hunters, owls regurgitate undigestable
pellets. Is there a possiblity that some corprolites are misread and should
be considered owl pellets? ( you know what I mean). Anticorprolites, a new
term. Dinosaur spew.

Doesn't the evidence of 'gizzard' stones reflect a bird-like trait?

Anyway, "Instinctual genetic retention" becomes sedimentary in the errosion
of human misconceptions. Lines of logic, without continuation, are
metamorphic balancing acts amidst virgin birth. Repugnent disarticulation of
concepts blindingly simple are often responses to subductive reasoning. (say
what?)

Linking behavior to genetics seems as plausable as attaching irridium to the
K/T boundary, again form my point of view. Sorry, but I see no other
explination for unique species behavior. 
*****************************************************************
"You're not allowed to go in there, , ,"
"You are a rebel spy and a traitor. Take her away."
"These aren't the droids we're looking for."
"We don't serve his kind in here."
"He's turned off his targeting, , , " 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Roger A. Stepheson / Morrilton, AR / Lightwaves@AOL.com / Mac user /  Pro
Artist
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The world is flat, and all          /         Is that a fossil in your pocket
      aspirin are alike.                /         or are ya just happy yo see
me?