-----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----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
