Re: anticipation

[Tim Gwinn <***>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of John M
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 11:20 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: anticipation
>
>
> Tim,
> a caveat to your 'thoughts' which are very much acceptable (to me):
> you write 'random' for changes ('mutations in the plants linreage') which
> are reactions to impact accepted. And here comes the other part
> of the same
> caveat:
> you seem to be inclined to accept an impact (temperature, etc) for changes
> while it is ALWAYS a two-way result: impact responded to by the actual and
> latestly changed structural (compositional) format (details) of the
> organism.
> The same impact did not call for a similar (=random!) change at another
> instant, when the organizational responses did not prepare (anticipate?)
> such change.
>
> Cheers
>
> John M

Good point, John. Caveat duly noted. :)

Regards,
Tim