On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 11:46:03PM -0800, DJA wrote: > Remember, in many cases, a birth defect is nature's attempt to adapt to > a changing environment. It usually takes many, many failures before the > adaptation is successful. That's just basic biology. Attempting to > prevent all genetic "defects" is tantamount to taking away nature's > ability to learn from its mistakes. Not only can we *not* prevent all > birth defects, we should *not* do so.
OK, I was really enjoying what I saw as a _great_ reply when I his this bit of teleology. DJA, I _know_ you know this ... it is Very Bad Evolutionary Theory to characterize mutations as "nature's attempts" at anything. The theory rests on the assumption that there is no guiding force (although there could well have been a prime mover -- no opinion up or down there), but only the maelstrom of natural selection. In other words, all mutations are blind chance, but those that don't survive and reproduce won't be around for long. The greatest birth defect is a miscarriage (or it's egg equivalent), and as much as they've been selected against (anyone on this list have a miscarriage as an ancestor? Thought not), they still happen with a fairly high frequency. -- Lan Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Guy, SCM Specialist 858-354-0616 -- KPLUG-List mailing list [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
