Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007
|
I don't happen to have the book right now; it is on extended loan. Sorry, perhaps FtK, who noted your work approvingly over on her blog, can loan you her copy. I suspect that it is still in the original shrink-wrap...
As for this statement | Quote | | I was looking for something that would make the animal more physically selectable because of fitness, not more attractive to the opposite sex. Attractiveness is a subjective thing. |
It definitely makes the case that you are talking out your ass. Go look up "fitness" in the evolutionary sense. Here are some page numbers
p. 639 in Klug and Cummings, Concepts in Genetics, 7th edition
p. 555 in Griffiths, Gelbart, Miller & Lewontin, Modern Genetic Analysis, 1st edition
whereupon you will learn that Drosophila fitness is intimately related to selection and "attractiveness". Unfortunately, even though you thought you might have to shift that goalpost, you really didn't move it an inch.
Now, about those mental processes generating life instantly - I'm really anxious to hear about that.
thanks again in advance for continuing to ignore this question.
--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers
|
