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