EERIE

"Evolution advances, not by a priori design, but by the selection of what works best out of whatever choices offer. We are the products of editing, rather than of authorship." George Wald

The mechanistic explanation of evolution, championed by Richard Dawkins, is almost universally accepted, and his models demonstrate how refinements and adaptations are cumulative, thus explaining the crazy leaps and bounds of development.

Despite this, I can't forget a flower I saw on the slopes of Mt Meru in Tanzania which was shaped exactly like a spindly red insect, so as to encourage others of that species to inadvertently pollinate it while, presumably, trying to mate - or else to have a conversation. (Spare a thought for the frustrated insect when he discovers his date is not all she was cracked up to be!)

I also recall an episode of In Our Time (Radio 4) last year, in which one scientist was saying that the octopus's eye and the human eye, despite having developed on totally unrelated evolutionary branches, are strikingly similar in their structure. He admitted, almost guiltily, that such recurring patternings were "eerie." Melvyn Bragg replied instantly, but in a matter-of-fact tone, "a lot of people will have picked up on your use of the word eerie."

It is not in the scientific lexicon. But can't be completely dismissed from mine.