Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/14/07 11:39, Kent West wrote:
> Atis wrote:
>>> >> On 03/04/07 10:51, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> > ..the problem is not rpms, but mill wing speed and color in overcast
>>> > weather, as in white camo against white fog or clouds.
>>>
>>> Think of this as "enforced Darwinism"!
>>
>> Right, after several generations we will have high-speed,
>> high-maneuverability ducks with armored protection on their skulls..
>> After that, they will see that we can do nothing to harm them, and
>> will start stealing food from our homes
>
> 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.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF+EVLS9HxQb37XmcRAqLxAKCULigMdE6rcIe/Z4C7jqpzp7JyHwCg0cEx
dzQkvmZOdhrkHBrk1sJv/gE=
=uO61
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: