Dollo's Law...
The Urth list — 3 messages, 3 voices, 16 May 2011
https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6012

Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright
in each message remains with the person who wrote it.

Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original
archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than
retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.

==============================================================================

Dan'l Danehy-Oakes — 16 May 2011, 15:10

... appears to be more, well, a guideline.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm

  --
  Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DAVID STOCKHOFF — 16 May 2011, 15:27
  in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

Like most of these Laws turn out to be.

"... In 2003, scientists showed that some species of insects have gained, lost and regained wings over millions of years."

That's a good example of a common-sense reversible adaptation. If humans experienced million-year floods every million years, we might evolve, devolve, and revolve webbed fingers and toes---because the original structure from which the webs were derived are still going to be around. Evolution uses the tools at hand. Tress have used and re-used the same basic leaf shapes for millions of years. 

I have forgotten the trait that brought up Dollo's Law---mind projection? mimicry? opposable thumbs?

> --- On Mon, 5/16/11, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>
> Subject: (urth) Dollo's Law...
> To: "The Urth Mailing List" <urth at lists.urth.net>
> Date: Monday, May 16, 2011, 11:10 AM
> ... appears to be more, well, a
> guideline.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm
> 
> -- 
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
> _______________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Wilson — 16 May 2011, 16:47
  in reply to Dan'l Danehy-Oakes

> On 5/16/2011 10:10 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:
> ... appears to be more, well, a guideline.
> 
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110511162538.htm

This looks like part of the stuff I mentioned the last time we went 
around on Dollo, or maybe the time before. I am so glad that I didn't 
just imagine it.

  --
  Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
  Computational Intelligence Laboratory - Texas A&M Texarkana
  < http://www.tamut.edu/CIL >

------------------------------------------------------------------------------