 
|
 Return to the Guestbook |
| |
Guest |
Comments |
Date |
|
| |
Kyle
|
Matt, you seem to have overlooked my point: Notice how the “beneficial” has the cards stacked against it, due to its intrinsic nature of being either neutral or detrimental as a mutation? Ever notice that the whole scenario asks us to believe that detriments lead to functional beneficial macrochanges? I don’t know how many will buy the twist and turn tactic of selling a deadly condition as being an “improvement”, considering that it would lend itself to the death of the line of recipients further on downthe genetic path.Hence, why I stated that thalidomide children need not worry of carpel tunnel, despite the obvious detriment of having no arms. Notice the obvious losing of substantial material there? Same thing in your example. |
3/25/2003 4:41:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
