-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 18:53, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote: >> >>> Not to rain on Darwin's parade, but, um, the death of the unfit does not >>> mean that the survivors have automagically improved. They're still the >>> same ol' critters they were before the unfit died off. >>> >>> (It might can be argued that the improvement came to the fit population >>> _before_ the unfit died off, but it can just as equally be argued that >>> the entire population originally started out as fit, and then the >>> sub-population degenerated into the unfit. And I'm not trying to argue >>> one side or the other; I'm just pointing out that there's a disconnect >>> in the thinking that the extinction of the less-fit automatically means >>> the survivors have seen some sort of improvement.) >>> >> >> Let's say the pre-windmill ratio of fast-maneuverable-with-great- >> eyesight to normal ducks was 2:98, and had been static for eons, >> since the environmental situation was such that even the "normal" >> ducks got plenty of food and mates. >> >> But the normal ducks will get killed off, and so in 20 years the >> ration of super ducks to normal ducks will be 98:2, and what-was- >> super is now the norm, and what was normal is now inferior. >> >> Thus, all of the super-ducks will be mating, and any recessive >> super-duper genes will come to the forefront. >> > > So you're arguing that the "improvement came to the fit population > _before_ the unfit died off", in the form of "recessive super-duper > genes", which is one of the conditions I mentioned above.
I didn't notice that, but yes, that's what I'm arguing. If they aren't needed and thus don't get used, are "recessive super-duper genes" an "improvement" or just a rare mutation? > This does not change my point that "there's a disconnect in the thinking > that the extinction of the less-fit automatically means the survivors > have seen some sort of improvement". > > It's like a population of crayons consisting of red and green crayons, > and all the green crayons one day get eaten by Homer Simpson, leaving > only the red crayons. The extinction of the green does not explain the > origin of the red. It only means the red survived. Bad analogy, since crayons can't mutate and aren't affected by hormones. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+LGyS9HxQb37XmcRAgP3AKCFrch1lDiaIjzK4eG0Wh6nB/jh/ACeM9J5 nRNiB32tRPOE0C9u3v2+HTY= =ffmA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]