Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 29 Sep 1998 22:18:08 -0400 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
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]
|
|
|