Ron Johnson wrote:
That's right. The *survivors* don't improve; the *species* improves.
Well, if by "improve" you mean "purify", "make more homogenous", "weed out the weaker, less-fit individuals", yes.
But that's not the definition of "improve" I was using. I was using the meaning "to add some positive quality, such as high-speed, high-maneuverability, and armored protection on their heads".
The extinction of a sub-group does not automatically give the survivors a new boost of speed. Any new boost of speed is provided separate and apart from the extinction event.
---As an aside, I might point out that your definition of improvement is an argument for eugenics, which animal breeders do all the time, and dictators attempt every once in a while among the human population.
But such efforts do not automatically add improvement to the survivors of such eugenics programs.
Back to my crayons: if you have a box of red, green, and blue crayons, and Homer comes along and eats all the green ones, the process does not add new colors to the box. It does "improve" the box (in this specific environment), in that the box will no longer be hassled by Homer, but such "improvement" has come at the expense of "information" (the color green), not by the addition of anything.
Or if you don't like the crayon analogy (as some do not), then use a dog population. If you have a group of dogs that are a mix of short-hair, long-hair, and bald, and you go out and shoot all the bald dogs, you have, by Ron's definition above, "improved" the species. But by the original implied definition of making the gene pool bigger by adding some quality, such as speed or armor-plating, you have not improved the species; instead, you've shrunken the gene pool, not made it bigger.
An extinction event is not a creative event. That's all I've been saying. -- Kent