Hi Chris >quite true keith. you've touched on some points i've been meaning to bring >to bring to bear on this discussion. hopefully i'll find some time to >contribute more. > >robert, i was trying to draw you into the discussion as a thought exercise >(the thing about the whales). this very question was put to me many years >back,
And to me - or rather it was me that put the question. >and it proved to be very transformational. no, i'm not trying to >"guru" you. but i do like to share it when the opportunity presents itself. Here's what you said: >>then there's the whales. we know their ancestors were land dwellers. in >>other words, sea creatures gave rise to land creatures, and some of them >>chose to return to the sea. >>why would they do that? this is a serious question. after all, you're >>giving up an awful lot. Are they? I reckon they've got it pretty good. I'm a bit envious. The way they live in the sea reminds me of the way later Paleolithic Man lived on the land. Those were the good old days, I think. You said they "chose" to return to the sea, and I guess they did, though it's hard to say just why - because they like it that way, or maybe the land-dolphins, whatever they were - or perhaps their not-dolphin corporate dolphinhoods - screwed the land up somehow (nuked it?) and the sea was their only refuge. Who knows, if they're that bright maybe they geo-engineered themselves into sea creatures rather than evolving or devolving or whatever. I once wrote a three-page article about dolphins for New Scientist. It's not that relevant to this discussion, but it's here, if you're interested: "