I have a theory entitled: The Necessity of Transitional Art. And I would like feedback to see if it's making sense to anyone. I think that transitional art is necessary to get to the really good stuff. Let's say you're a huge fan of the musical group, Wilco. You probably wouldn't have liked them when you were 7. Since you had never been exposed to anything like it before, it was strange and awkward, and therefore, unenjoyable to you. Back to Sesame Street sing-a-longs. But, then you hear the California Raisins, they lead you into MoTown, you start giving different radio dials a try. Matchbox 20, yeah, pretty catchy. That gets you into Ryan Adams. And then finally. You hear Wilco's album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot. And you wonder where it's been your whole life. I think the same transition takes place for everything. Books: Nancy Drew - Lord of the Flies - Tolstoy. Movies: Honey I Shrunk the Kids - The Sandlot - My Cousin Vinny - The Fugitive - The Godfather. Food, clothing, knowledge, wisdom. It's all the same. Even though something may be great, it may take us a while to get there. So, instead of trying to argue that the Godfather is the best film of all time with someone who's not listening, let them borrow 'My Cousin Vinny' instead. They'll get there.

How do we reconcile instinct with evolution? I saw this flock of birds flying on the way to work, and it was absolutely spectacular. That 50 or so birds could fly absolutely in sync in these crazy patterns just floored me for some reason. "So, how do birds know how to follow the leader, and trade off, etc." "Well, that's instinct." Ok, well, if everything cool about animals is instinctual, then why is evolution necessary? Doesn't instinct, by nature, not require evolution?