Subject: Re: Speaking of love...

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1998 11:51:45 -0400

From: wsmiii@ix.SPAMMENOTnetcom.com (Little Bill)

Organization: Netcom

Newsgroups: alt.slack

References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7

 In article <353e47be.13876252@news.newsguy.com>, twgs@whatsthepoint.net

(Jahweh David Lynch) wrote:

> >

> >> Thus spake Little Bill:

> >>

> >> >There is a fitness-inclusion evolutionary view of bonding, altruism and

> >> >love that fits somewhere around here...

> >> As a matter of fact, though.. I think it would be a decidedly bad thing if

> >> _I_ reproduced.

> >

> >This calls to mind the misfit-exclusion clause of the fitness-inclusion

> >model. All very comprehensive.

>

> I thought so! Biology is PREJUDICED against MUTANTS and others with COMMON

> SENSE!

>

> REPEAL DARWINISM!

Well, S. J. Gould adds that evolution has been driven to a large degree by

catostrophic happenstance that has nothing to do with adaptation as shaped

by natural selection. Dinosaurs ruled the earth until *WHAM* a meteor

slammed into earth's breadbasket, after which rat-like mammals were

suddenly the better adapted to take over the joint. They may soon be seen

chittering nervously in response to at least two meteor movies.

There have been at least five such major extiction events, in which 90

percent of species were rubbed out regardless of prior adaptedness, the

machinations of fitness-inclusion, etc.

Little known bit of trivia: all five fell on July 5. I have no idea what

that means.

--

When I imagine a tree, I am not spectating a resemblance;

I am resembling a spectator. - Ryle