Re: Abstinence Only Sex Ed: 65 out of 490 Girls Pregnant in Ohio School
- On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:48 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2005, at 3:42 am, Doug Pensinger wrote:Amen, brother!
>> William wrote:
>>> Most of all it needs to be banned.
>> Banning it is the best way to ensure that it flourishes.
> It would drive it underground. The number of people infected would
> be reduced and its influence in public affairs mostly silenced.
> Whether it would then wither away naturally or have to be rooted
> out is hard to judge.
Like when they killed that Jewish reformer in Jerusalem a couple of
thousand years ago. His lot went underground and nobody ever heard
from them again.
No, actually, a couple of generations later, a bunch of them turned
up in Rome. Thankfully, that nice boy Nero did us all a favor by
burning them as torches along his way and fed a bunch of 'em to
lions. That sure shut them up, eh?
Sheesh. Do you EVER think before you write?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Chassell" <bob@...>
Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: Brave New Genetic Frontiers
> > Off hand, I cannot think of a shorter sentence that includes all
> > concepts.
> > It would be great if someone else can.
> To which Dan Minette said
> I think the question can be expressed.
> Is the natural tendency for a population to disperse in gene space
> through random mutations (in the absence of a natural selection
> induced focus in gene space) sufficient to explain the existence
> of blind cave fish.
> That is an interesting way to ask the question. It certainly focuses
> attention on populations over time. But why talk about a case which
> specifies the `absence of a natural selection induced focus in gene
Because I think that's what is happening. From what I've read in this
thread, the blindness is not the result of the eye structure totally
disappearing, but the result of a key component disappearing. Thus, the
advantage in efficiency afforded by this small change should not be a key
factor in it's existance. If it were, wouldn't the advantage of
eliminating the rest of they eye cause those parts to disappear too.
Rather, I think one can look at the genetic tendencies to blindness that
exists in humans now. They are rare for good reason: until very recently
(compared to the time needed for genetic changes) blind people didn't get
to pass their genes along. Blind lions, blind deer, etc. are at such a
disadvantage, we do not expect them to be able to pass their genes along.
But, in a cave, blind fish can pass their genes along. With the
elimination of the pruning of the blind, blind cave fish developed.
> It is like talking about one of Newton's laws
> "force is the product of mass and acceleration"
> while overtly leaving out the concept of mass.
Actually, it's like talking about the path of a rock wirled around on a
string after the string breaks while overtly leaving out centripital force.
> The answer to your question has to be: to get blind fish without
> selection is improbable.
Why? Why can't genetic drift explain the process?