From owner-freebsd-chat Wed Sep 4 11:40: 0 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD75D37B400 for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from directvinternet.com (dsl-65-185-140-165.telocity.com [65.185.140.165]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5696343E6A for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from Tolstoy.home.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by directvinternet.com (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g84IduGd056398; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from nwestfal@directvinternet.com) Received: from localhost (nwestfal@localhost) by Tolstoy.home.lan (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) with ESMTP id g84IduvF056394; Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: Tolstoy.home.lan: nwestfal owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:39:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" X-X-Sender: nwestfal@Tolstoy.home.lan To: Terry Lambert Cc: Dave Hayes , Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? In-Reply-To: <3D756EB4.DE0179ED@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020904113306.I88455-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Terry Lambert wrote: > > > By evolving creatures who imprison or kill peers who engage in > > > forcible reproductive acts, thereby ensuring their removal from > > > the gene pool. > > > > Have either of you ever wondered why, over billions of years, evolution > > hasn't made these problems irrelevant? I mean, how many billions of > > years do we need to wait for evolution to kick in and remove the > > miscreants? > > Either it's not a genetic trait, or the gene is recessive. > > Recessive genes do not get eliminated from the population, > because there is no evolutionary pressure on the bearers of > the genes, only on their offspring in which the genes are > expressed. Or possibly on your evolutionary theory, (I think Dave will appreciate this) those genes are necessary for the survival of the species. > > > A society no more cares for its individual members than you > > > care for the individual cells which make up your body. > > > > Why then all the talk about "the rights of the state"? > > Thus implying a state which cares not for individual members > has no rights? Exactly. > By that argument, we should not talk about the rights of the > individual, since individuals are made up of cells, yet do not > care for the rights of the individual cells of which they are > composed... and therefore have no rights. Fallacy of composition? Neal To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message