6 nov. 10.38am. let me summarise the article. scientists (even textbooks?) said it's cryptic colouring, how the spider change colour depending on the flower it's on (to catch more preys?). but the videos show that changing colour - or not - does not correlate with the number of preys or the meat-volume. in that sense, the scientists have mis-interpreted nature. what's the nature's law here? i'm beginning to feel that i'm really dense. beyond the times i've felt like i'm the biggest idiot in the world. or my radar system has been so terribly jammed. shud i start subscribing to wired?
6 nov. 11.23am. nature permits the spiders to change colours. there was a comment "they just like to change colour... i would :D". as much as we would like to, we can't. it's nature's law. we were not made to do so. counted as nature's law? we don't know why the spiders change colours, but the truth is it does. and we don't. spiders may choose to totally not change colours at all one day. then they become non-camouflaging spiders. fine. it's their choice. just that they could but they didn't. they lose their potential - a pity. we can change colours tho we can't. michael jackson says black is white - logic error in my opinion.
6 nov. 11.09pm.
the fact that i'm still thinking abt spiders, behaviours, genotype/phenotype, mutation, random mutation, even during sauna shows that something is really wrong. aka i'm thinking too much.
some two months ago, rong en "scolded" me for my academic mind. how i just keep analysing things and putting theories into things. how i wanted to patch my knowledge and understanding. i was actually quite angry... tho it's self-denial. he's right.
peace.
No comments:
Post a Comment