Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nihil who wrote (33617)	4/2/1999 10:29:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 108807

Nihil, when there is no proof in favor of a position it is pretty hard to agree or disagree on a scientific basis. Dominance as I used it is a genetic attribute (not sociological), and speciation is the result of a closed genetic pool -- genetic isolation (that is the definition -- not a description). Remember, science argues what is and what is demonstrable, not what we would like; it makes no normative arguments. The fact that language evolved is a function of survival and adaptive value -- no different than resistance to disease or increased fertility rates. Preferential mating is no different. It, too, is a potent factor in evolution, but it is no different than fertility factors in sperm heads. In general, males compete for females. Males tend not to discriminate among females. Male sticklebacks will attempt to mate with pieces of wood painted to resemble females. But females tend to be highly selective, and choose their mates from among the group of competing males. Whether the selection is based on speech, physical strength, or a host of other attributes doesn't matter, nor does it change the premise I outlined in previous posts. What matters is the genetic success of the mating. That either validates the females choice (because many young are produced), or consigns the pairing to the genetic dustbin. Life is tough. Your stories and anecdotes may be fun, but lacking proof they are just that. You assumed that the ability to speak had adaptive value, but it may well have been another set of traits that was selected for -- we don't know. Sickle cell anemia exists today because the sickle cell trait had adaptive value in malarial regions. Tay-Sachs syndrome is a disease cause by a recessive gene. It is largely found among Jews coming whose ancestors hail from two small towns in Poland. The disease is 100% fatal. There is no cure. But because it is recessive it will never be eliminated from the gene pool barring selective breeding. The real problem with evolution theory is not the theory; it is that scientifically naive people insist that it provide a history and a rationale. One may explain sickle cell anemia that way, but Tay-Sachs is another matter altogether. That is not the purpose of the theory. It's purpose is to provide us with a means to understand how species change over time as the result of random events interacting with a changing environment. In that context Tay-Sachs is very easy to understand. I once delivered a talk on adaptation (an unfortunate term because it smacks of teleology) at the molecular level, and was astounded when an otherwise intelligent person asked me whether the field of molecular evolution allowed us to predict the course of evolution. We cannot because we cannot predict changes in the environment, the biosphere or stochastic molecular processes. TTFN, CTC