[extropy-chat] Re: evolution again

[stencil]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 10:33:49 -0700, Spike  wrote
in extropy-chat Digest, Vol 15, Issue 1:

> 
>Think of physical structures in humans (since we know a lot about
>human anatomy) and try to decide its cost and its benefit in terms
>of survival of the individual.  
The assumption that a  would-be quantizer could accurately map these factors
is very shaky.  Even assuming that 
> [ ... ]  humans evolved
>in a tropical climate, but some humans left the tropics for colder,
>harsher
>climates, which required them to wrap themselves in the skins
>of the beasts they slew
...leaving the better-displayed tropical population to enjoy informed choice
of better-endowed mates,  while the colder faction had to let other factors
affect choice,  it still smacks of Lysenkoism to see a cause-effect
relationship here.   Why didn't we just grow thicker body hair?  Why do New
World,  Siberian, and Inuit populations - who all have been filtered by cold
environments - have such sparse pelts, compared, say with West Asians?  Hell,
loss of fur is a *counter* survival trait (you could say) in any weather,
because it undercuts the value of mutual grooming in forming social groups,
plus all the obvious environmental hazards of heat loss.
>If this notion holds in general, then it may help us come up with
>successful 
>mathematical models for evolution.  
I don't think the -if- is satisfied here;  the very ease with which
counter-survival traits can be found serves as a caution light.  I wonder, is
there any indication that there are *structural* aspects of a species' genome
that cause the effects of selective breeding  to be diluted?  IOW, are there
traits in any population that will persist or intensify regardless of mating
strategies and environmental changes?

stencil sends