(urth) Like a good Neighbor

[David Stockhoff]

On 11/23/2011 3:18 PM, Marc Aramini wrote:
> I think this is backwards.  The trees and vines both fed on sentient beings in the past and revert to their natural primitive state without that influx of sentience.  The inhumi really are what they consume, and that is very very clear from the text.  They started as lianas then became animals through consuming animals.

Seems like either path is biologically possible! Except that only trees 
stand still long enough for a vine to feed on it.

Are you and James open to a long evolutionary history of transfers of 
DNA in both directions? If not, why not?

Once the "become what you eat" kicked in, what's to stop it? How could 
any planimal/aniplant ever truly regress except in losing sentience, a 
single "soft" feature?

Evolution does not go backwards---but a species can lose traits as well 
as evolve them repeatedly in different ways. (Such I believe is Wolfe's 
model for human moral evolution anyway.)