-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/15/07 10:08, Kent West wrote: > 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."
Well, they're not the *same* (they might be considered a new breed of duck), but at the same time they aren't (yet) a new species of duck. > > 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. I already mentioned mutations. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF+WWHS9HxQb37XmcRAkvTAKCvFTRoB8sUZpk9mOdxuSIYhfp9HgCeOyps cWmqPDyZDFbTDpodsR9kBzg= =nAQc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
