[quote]I don't understand why an organism reverting to a previous state is in any way a problem.[/quote]Cyclical evolution is not evolution since it promotes only variants of the same species to exist.[quote]If there is light, the organism will start adapting to light.[/quote]Life needs light in the first place.[quote]If there is then no light, the organism will start adapting to darkness.[/quote]How do you suppose life got on planet Earth in the first place.[quote]If the light comes back...and so on. There is no prohibition on life reverting to an original or simpler form - and the joy of the gene means that in that simpler form it will keep a handy little note encoded inside itself on what's a good plan for dealing with light or dark.[/quote]That's my point, which is also exhibited in the OP, the same environmental factors affecting the biology of any creature has to always remain present in order to keep the process from reverting.[quote]Evolution has no concept of 'progress', nor of 'good' or of some sense of one thing being better than any other. It is the constant blind search for what works, what prevents the intrinsic pressures of the universe killing it off. It is mindless and without values.[/quote]Does this not go against Natural Selection? And did you just state why the followers of atheism have no obligation to be kind?[quote]Many adherents to the theory posit that whales adapted themselves for the land, but ultimately went right back into the sea. Returning to the sea was a reversion to a prior strategy. Should the universe suddenly loose all environmental pressures - every cell is free from all predation or possibility of damage - then the theory would hold that all life would begin slowly start turning itself back into something like an amoeba, because all the other adaptations are not needed.[/quote]Britton, if you are reading this, do you agree with it?