But it takes so long to evolve

If you think that waiting in a tree is going to result in the right adaptations for life in open grass, then you have still not understood what has been explained about a gazillion times here. Well, for the gazillionfirst time: if life evolves in trees, it will adapt to the circumstances in trees. A species may become very agile in jumping or swinging from tree to tree (like gibbons are) or it may become very good at holding on to a branch while thoughtfully contemplating the next move (like sloths), but nothing about life in trees would induce adaptations suitable for life in the open savanah. Only when tree life becomes a liability, a species may have to move elsewhere and adapt to its new surroundings. Many individuals will not survive, and the species may even go extinct. But if it doesn't, it will adapt to whatever changing environment it finds itself in, and not to an environment it is not in.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Crikey, you guys are quick! I wonder if I should still bother. O well, why not... Mutations are random. What is induced is the keeping of certain traits (resulting from those random mutations), which happen to provide a benefit under the given circumstances, in that they keep the critter alive long enough, in the face of fierce competition, for it to produce offspring. Indeed you could, I think we can agree on this. Traits that do not provide an advantage or are even disadvantageous (again, both varieties resulting from random mutations), fade away, the former more gradually than the latter. Ho hum to you, sir. I perfectly (but not sarcastically) understood that you used "waiting in a tree" as a slightly humourous way of saying "living in trees for an extended period of time", and I picked up on it, no offence intended. And I also realise the 'gazillion' may have sounded a bit harsh, for which I offer you my apologies.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

{sigh of relief} If the trait was not disadvantageous, it might linger in the gene pool a bit longer, yes. Random mutations would get to it in the end, though.Do I take it that you understood the notion of induced traits versus random mutations?I notice that you are one of the few creationists who are really trying to understand evolution, by asking questions, digesting the answers and discussing things. Great job, thanks.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

Mike, Loudmouth,Allow me to yank this topic back on track: Not exactly, Loudmouth. I realise now that I should not have used the term 'induced traits', because it leads to the erroneous perception of mutations happening as the result of a stimulus.Let met make it clear: all mutations are random, none happen as a response to a specific stimulus. What I meant with 'induced' is that the environmental circumstances make it so that some traits turn out to be beneficial while others are neutral or even harmful. Neutral traits may linger in the gene pool for a while, but harmful traits get weeded out pretty quickly, leaving the beneficial traits seemingly 'induced' by the enviromental circumstances.It looks as though the environment stimulates a certain development, whereas in reality that development is simply what's left over from a range of possibilities that have been 'tried out', as it were. Again, I realise that 'induced' (and now 'tried out') seems to imply an agent of some sort, but that is only an effect of using those metaphors. There is no plan to evolution and mutations are not the result of a stimulus. 'Induced traits' are simply those traits that are kept as a result of their success at being passed on, given the circumstances.Note that this last phrase, 'given the circumstances', also indicates that if the circumstances change, a trait may no longer be so successful and disappear.I hope this made my ramblings a bit clearer.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.