From: YP Fun (ypprotection@yahoo.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 09:30:42 MDT
--- CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/2/02 19:42:59,
> ypprotection@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >Only selection is no longer an arbitary
> >random variable.
> >Selection is hand-picked and contrived.
>
> Selection by floods, famine, and male-male fighting
> is better than
> by concious intent? What's bad about selection
> being intentional?
I think if human beings selected the traits they
wanted we would get super humans that have the
following traits:
1. einstein's brain
2. olymipic winners bodies
3. bach's musical genius
We have established standards for measuring
excellence that has nothing to do with the
environment. The tests are specific not
necessarily accurate or broad in coverage.
We would probably use these standards to
create the super human being.
> Surely you don't think random is superior. We're
Yes I do.
> very fortunate
> - being a human in modern society is relatively
modern is very relative. Every generation believes
that they are "modern".
>
> Which is bad how? Randomness is usually
> detrimental.
The greatest generic diversity occurs at the
borders of extreme environments. Does selecting
genes to create a super human reproduce this
environment? More than anything I think it
reduces the diversity of an environment, to
use genetics to create a "perfect" trait.
By definition a "perfect" trait represents one
single environment.
> need to do is dose up people with radioactivity -
> the
Not all mutations are beneficial. The benefits of
a mutation may be specific or general, temporal,
or environmental.
> In any case, genetic evolution is a brutal,
> uncaring,
> amoral process. It needs and deserves no
> protection.
I do not have a response to this perhaps you
can elaborate on what you mean by
"brutal and amoral".
Evolution does not distinguish ever between
"bad" or "good" just useful in an environment or
not.
> No, just save hair clippings from a few thousand
> individuals.
> That will give you virtually every human gene in a
> storage
> form that will last centuries. Given human
> variability and the
The actual genes may not be significant. What you
would need to know are the phenotypes, the expression
of the gene as opposed to the encoding. Expression
takes place only when an individual is alive and
living.
> staggering size of the population, you won't lose
> any gene
Not if we all have the same genes.
YP
=====
Please Copy:
Ideas, like everything else in life, deserves to be free.
----------------------------------------------------------------
pursue dreams, climb mountains, enjoy sunshine,
and above all be happy...
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:48 MST