Ron Johnson wrote:
On 03/15/07 09:05, Kent West wrote:
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.
Well, then, we're in agreement: "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."
You're just adding the detail that any existing "hidden" characteristics
now have room to be expressed. I have no problem with that.
I do have a problem with the misconception that the extinction of
"unfit" characteristics automatically leads to the creation of _new_
non-existing characteristics, which is what I was responding to. If
armor-head genes are already in the duck population, an extinction of
the non-armor-headed ducks may very well lead to the expression of those
genes, but an extinction event will not create armor-head genes where
none were present. Nor will an extinction of slower ducks add any speed
to the faster ducks if that speed is not already pre-existing. Other
mechanisms (mutations, anyone?) may add speed, but an extinction event
does not.
--
Kent West
http://kentwest.blogspot.com <http://kentwest.blogspot.com/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
