Re: OT: A Republican!!!!!! (was Re: OT: sponge burning!)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 03/15/07 09:05, Kent West wrote:
> 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.
Yes, that's right.
>
> 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.
He was making a joke...
But then, you never know if there are some recessive genetic
mutations for hard heads and high maneuverability that were just
"waiting" to be needed.
I guess we'll find out!
> ---
>
> 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.
Pure-breed dogs have many more genetic ailments than do mixed-breed
dogs.
*However*, "nature" has specialized certain canines for harsh
environments: thin-skinned, short-fur dogs wouldn't last very long
in Alaska or Siberia.
> 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.
I don't know anyone on this threadlet who disagrees with you.
As I've said before, though: previously unneeded recessive genes
might "suddenly" be bred into prominence, thus giving the appearance
of creative improvement.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF+Vg+S9HxQb37XmcRAorQAKCFWi446HPKCdF24iDw8kux0IVFZwCbBOyE
Qt139u4NDkB/qj51pQhxzvA=
=IZbG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: