Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----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-----
Reply to: