Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cvl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!cvl!rlh
From: rlh@cvl.UUCP (Ralph L. Hartley)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: Where the Deer and the Cantaloupe Play
Message-ID: <359@cvl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 10:54:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: cvl.359
Posted: Mon Apr 29 10:54:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 04:46:13 EDT
Organization: Computer Vision Lab, U. of Maryland, College Park
Lines: 27


> You give an example of a mutation which leads to loss of a
> morphological character.  If evolution proceeds on the basis of loss
> of function, I would not wish to place much confidence in it.  Where
> are the new and useful characteristics?

How about resitance to DDT?

> Also, it would appear that a mutation such as the example given is not
> really a serious entry for consideration.  If it was really more
> greatly viable, natural selection would result in it being found in
> wild form, right?  (Otherwise natural selection doesn't work.)  Is it
> found?  I suppose it might be, but since you talk about "standard lab
> conditions", I am led to think otherwise...

WAIT A COTTON PICKIN MINUTE!

If no improved mutations occur, then ther is no basis for evolution.

If improved mutations DO occur, natural selection dosn't work (because
the change should have taken place in the wild).

You can't have it both ways.


				Ralph Hartley
				rlh@cvl