Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA10954 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 16 Aug 2001 23:56:28 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 18:00:36 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Callouses and Kings Message-ID: <3B7C0A44.14821.3037E3@localhost> In-reply-to: <000b01c12683$f9065e80$a207bed4@default> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 16 Aug 2001, at 20:47, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kenneth Van Oost <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 11:14 AM
> Subject: Re: Callouses and Kings
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <email@example.com>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > > Callouses would not evolve all of a piece, but gradually; but what
> > > you're REALLY missing here is dermatological understanding.
> > > Animals (including us) can develop callouses anywhere there is
> > > chafing on the skin; it's built into the dermis; the only
> > > modification needed is one that permits such growth in the absence
> > > of stimulation, and that mutation could happen anywhere, and only
> > > stick where it was useful and selected for.
> > Just a few minor observations,
> > << I just wonder how slow such a selection process works !!
> > I mean, if one variation permits an organism to substain the
> > hazzards of its life better, wouldn 't it be logical to presume that
> > such a
> > were selected much faster and get passed down to the offspring far
> > more easier !?
Of course it is selected for if it allows the carrier to live and
reproduce; that is trivially and tautologically how selection works.
The point is that environmental success isn't what gets things
selected FASTER, it's what gets them selected AT ALL.
>Why waiting for a million years or more !? It seems
> > very unlikely to me that Nature would create, so to speak, an animal
> > and than realise, damn I forgot the kneecaps ! Well, no problema, I
> > ' ve got time and wait another million years !?
Of course some mutations aren't environmentally sustainable; they
simply die out, which is how eviltion can be blind and yet still work.
The "damn, I forgot" line is an unjustifiable anthropomorphism of a
> > And a gradually evolution sounds to me like calluses had to fight
> > for their rightful place. And why, have we, as humans, still
> > calluses on our feet and no longer on our hands if supposingly we
> > walked this earth on all fours for a million years !? Why is Nature
> > slow with the camel and ' fast ' with us !? Why does this system
> > works gradual faster in dismissing a variation than in creating one
> > !? Or, in the case of the calluses on our hands which disappeared,
> > would the more faster memetic evolution count for the beginning of
> > the
> > of that variation !?
We've been off all fours for at least 2 million years; that's not real
lightning fast. Still, we have more callouses on our hands that we
have on, say, our armpits or thighs, and a little hard manual labor
will stimulate the growth of hand callouses in pretty short order (a
lot quicker than hard pubic labor will cause sex workers to develop
callouses there, I'll wager).
> > Best,
> > Kenneth
> > ( I am, because we are) no elephants
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 17 2001 - 00:00:51 BST