-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/14/07 22:01, Kent West wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: >> 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. >>>> But the normal ducks will get killed off, ... >>>> 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" >> 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? >> > > It doesn't matter; the extinction of the non-super-duper-gened ducks do > not cause the origin of the super-duper genes in the survivors, which is > all I'm saying: an extinction event does not automagically improve the > survivors.
Yes. >>> 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. >> >> > 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. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+L6PS9HxQb37XmcRAmd9AJ9e2eLRExvLYak0laqU1SGxMMCzogCgsL3b YMSsvGLGEeWoPi1Wy4BGW/0= =6mCh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
