hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (05/18/85)
______________________________________________________________________ > { from: miller@uiucdcsb.Uiuc.ARPA (A Ray Miller) } > ... > > Personal comment here. Why don't you evolutionists all move your > homes over a toxic waste dump? Mutations are how you claim evolution > progresses; increasing the mutation rate should increase the rate > of evolution. Should we disband the EPA? I'd really like an answer > to this question from any evolutionist who doesn't consume heavy > metals with his scrambled eggs for breakfast. First, you have made the gross error of applying science to ethics. I have already discussed this in a previous article, and the basic idea is: Science does not directly determine moral/ethical ideas, and morals and ethics do not determine scientific validity. Second, evolution discusses net change over several generations, not instantaneous change. By the way, if some society evolves in which people tended to move themselves over toxic waste dumps, the society would probably become extinct very quickly, unless they development some method of preventing the waste from producing too many lethal mutations in their group and/or some method of making the waste useful (such as food) and/or ... Third, even from a simplistic point of view, I can still argue against you. If my goal is survival, why in the world would I want to increase my chances of instantaneous death? There is some inherent selfishness in this ... I, myself, want to sur- vive. We, as a specie, want to survive. That is why we have EPA in the first place. The "goal", if you will, of evolution is to produce something that will survive indefinitely. Our goal, as a specie, is to make sure that we are that which will survive indefinitely. Your argument becomes rather strange and unintelligible. ______________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }