Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 304 Editor's Choice: 50
-
@Canuckistan Bob @Amerigo
[Read the article: Are women biologically drawn to older men?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]@Canuckistan Bob
> you make the old mistake of associating "primitive" and ancient with brutal and stupid
I might have made other mistakes, but I didn't make THAT one! In hindsight, I think I showed bias toward the historical record. Since the dawn of history, most societies have been patriarchal. The time and place the study focused on (northern Finland between the 17th and 19th centuries) certainly was.
Anything in pre-history that can't be supported by material evidence is speculation. While I think a comparison to more recent hunter-gatherer societies is a reasonable basis for this speculation, trying to infer mating patterns, which are based more on culture than economy, is going to be problematic. Two peoples might live side by side, with the same basic lifestyle, and one might practice polygamy and the other monogamy, based on nothing more than a difference in religion.
Also, I doubt you need the clarification, but for others less familiar with the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution - while it is true that species remain stable over long time periods, they can also change very quickly when conditions are right. There was a fascinating series on PBS recently on the domestication of the dog, that showed dogs likely evolved from wild to domesticated in the spread of a few generations, based on a trait for bolt-distance (how close a threat can get before they run) being on the same gene as other physiological traits like color and size. Feeding off human trash, the dogs the were less likely to bolt were the ones who got an easy meal. My dogs and I watched it together, we seemed both appreciate it on different levels. They didn't care for the science, but liked listening and watching the other dogs.
@Amerigo
Disease resistance isn't a cause of evolution unless mortality from the disease is 100%. In the case of sickle cell anemia, the sickle cell is a naturally occurring trait, and because it confers an advantage, is found in greater abundance in malarial areas. But regular blood cells are still possessed as well, and as long as genes remain in the pool, they haven't been selected out. This natural variation is an asset to organisms, because who knows when conditions change (elimination of malaria) and yesterday's asset becomes today's liability.
Many view evolution as selecting for positive traits. Usually, it selects against negative traits. If you live long enough to reproduce, that's good enough. Your genes only get removed from circulation if you or your subsequent offspring die without reproducing. In the case of positive selection, if a mutation occurs that confers an advantage (most mutations don't) then that organism survives to add its genes to the collective pool. The genetic variation of the species is expanded, but until those who don't possess the new trait are eliminated from the gene pool, evolution hasn't occurred - so in the end it is the negative selection, not the positive that drives it.
Also worth noting - much of the naturally occuring varition in organisms (and new mutations when they occur) doesn't result in the kind of terminal selection that produces long term change. Additionally, sometimes genes pass out of existence thru mechanisms independent of their value. A meteor impact that destroys a large area doesn't discrimination based on fitness, it just kills everything without distinction. It might affect the course of evolution, but it isn't based on natural selection, but rather (for lack of a better term) bad luck.
One has to be very careful at inferring fitness or causality based on the presence of current traits.
-
Lets hope they get it right
[Read the article: Barney Frank's new, improved Federal Reserve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I can't think of a better indication that the financial activities of a portion of the market require regulation, than when the government is compelled to step in to prevent market forces from bringing the roof down on all of our heads. Lets hope they get it right.
This is a good thing. Corporations derive their mandate from the government, and the government derives it mandate from the citizens. On behalf of the citizens, and ideally for their best interests, the government defines rules to regulate what actions are permitted in the economy. The notion that you can have an orderly and fair system without the imposition of external constraints is as ludicrous as trying to have a football game without rules or referees - it quickly becomes a brawl.
Citizens all want to profit from a vibrant economy. While regulation is fundamentally good, you can certainly have too much of a good thing. The current situation seems to show that we previously had too little of a good thing, and knowing human nature, I hope that decisions aren't made in the heat of the moment, even while it is clear that something must be done.
-
@ ChillyDogg
[Read the article: Barney Frank's new, improved Federal Reserve]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> Fascist much?
Do you know what that word means? Just for the record:
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole."
Yeah, I guess I'm a real nutjob for thinking the American government exists to serve the American people. Have you ever read the preamble of the constitution? It starts out "We the people...", they even wrote those words in extra large letters.
-
this is women's news?
[Read the article: Welcome to the "menaissance"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is Broadsheet changing its focus from a discussion of women's issues, the the more fertile and generalized ground of gender politics? Certainly this has been the norm in the discussion groups, but usually the starting point is an article about a woman's issue.
Not that I'm complaining - perhaps the "broad" can stand for broad-minded?