Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:18:08 -0400 |
In-Reply-To: |
<v03102802b2372fbdc09a@[206.53.100.137]> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Ward Nicholson wrote:
> (continued from first part...)
Ward, thank you for this thoughtful response to Amadeus, which
states my position much better than I was managing to do. I had
composed a facetious *reductio* argument to the effect that,
since our ancestors were bacteria for 3 *billion* years before
the Cambrian explosion, perhaps we should be trying to
reconstruct something along the lines of "ProkaryoThin."
> Your conception of evolution seems to be of a process that is
> additive--that is, one newly evolved trait gets piled on top of previous
> traits which are retained with the same level of efficiency in functioning
> they previously had, with no trade-offs involved. But evolution doesn't
> work that way. There are two reasons for this.
I believe that the fact that evolution doesn't work this way also
explains divergent microevolution, or optimization to a specific
niche. This is why I am suspicious of quick generalizations from
the Inuit or other relatively isolated breeding populations.
Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|