Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 10:33:35PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote:
> > Good analogy, because I'm not talking about whether change can happen or
> > not; I'm merely saying that an extinction event in one sub-group of a
> > population does not cause improvement in another sub-group. Even if
> > crayons could mutate, this would not mean that the red ones would
> > automatically "improve" because the green ones went extinct.
> >
> > I'm not saying that the surviving ducks would not improve (or degrade,
> > or stay the same); I am saying that the extinction of the
> > windmill-killed ducks does not automatically cause the survivors to
> > improve (or degrade, or stay the same). That's all I am saying.
> >
> > Arnt (I believe) and Atis implied that the extinction of an unfit group
> > leads to improvement in the survivors. I'm just saying that's not true;
> > the extinction of an unfit group only means that the unfit group went
> > extinct. The survivors were indeed "more fit" (for this purpose, and
> > however they got that way), but the extinction of the less-fit does not
> > automatically mean that the more-fit will get even more fit.
>
> That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves.
>
Which is the whole point, isn't it. The only important grouping here is
that which can breed. Those which die off can *no longer* breed, so the
improvement is in the *next generation* which have fewer of the
defective or no longer useful gene/genetic characteristics. The
successful genes are the ones which make it to the next generation, the
unsuccessful ones are those which do not. The term "survival of the
fittest" means that the "fittest", those most suited to their
environment, remain alive in order to breed a next generation.
This is also why Darwinian-like selection can be seen to apply to
open-source projects and/or distros; those which make it to another
release are successful, those which become moribund are not. Looking at
a population of crayons is daft, however, looking at the success of the
manufacturers of crayons, say, is not quite so daft. In these cases,
the survival characteristics are clearly not genetic, but other
characteristics. The question you should consider, if you truly
question Darwin's theory, is why genetics should be any different to any
other evolutionary system, like business, open-source project survival,
or any number of similar systems. Should Windows never make it to a
release beyond Vista, it will be because it was no longer suitable for
its environment, perhaps less fit for it than Debian, say which hopefully
will continue to evolve.
Doesn't anyone here learn science or economics?
--
Mark Kent
Reply to: