On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:09:20 +0000 (UTC), "Peter F."
 wrote:

>
>"r norman"  wrote in message
>news:c4sr9n$ivh$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
>>
>> My questions are certainly irrelevant to the original question.
>> Whether fixed or not, there are definitely a lot of mutant alleles
>> floating around in humans, all either absolutely neutral or so close
>> to neutral (such a small fitness difference) that you might as well
>> call it neutral. And there are certainly enough instances of
>> bottlenecks and founding populations in species where genetic drift
>> can work much more rapidly.
>
>Genetic drift supplies variation (hence is a special kind of evolutionary
>pressure) for natural selection to either prune in or out.
>But it seems that few people around here have any interest in the more than
>plausible (IMHO) possibility that individual genomes has evolved means to,
>in response to certain types of environmental stressors, hasten its own
>mutation rates in regions of DNA most likely to produce a pay-off in the
>form of surviving (sufficiently adapted to survive) offspring.
>
>(Though perhaps not quite in the way or as readily as Lamarque might have
>envisioned.)
>
>This is where the nowadays _crude_ "genetic drift" concept
ought to be made
>to take a back seat and prominance given to the ideas such as "the histone
>code" and the view championed by Lynn H. Caporale (her book
"Darwin In The
>Genome").
>
>>
>> I don't understand why there should be any controversy about the fact
>> of drift (Edser's epistemology notwithstanding).  Just how significant
>> it is in any particular situation compared with selection is another
>> story where I can understand disagreement.
>
>In this way the "genetic drift concept" can be used as a
>pseudo-sophisticated 'screen' for 'AEVASIVE avoidance' of a truly hot
>anthropobiological topic (IOW, used amongst a myriad of other ways of
>keeping oneself preoccupied or in a habit of 'paying actention' to the
>effect of precluding the possibility of achieving a fully science-aligned
>philosophically onerous omniscientific overview of, or outlook and opinion
>on, ourselves.
>
>Specifically that is: "How CURSES type memories" (also known,
but expressed
>with a less explicitly precise meaning, as "primal pain") are
put into our
>brains (or Actention Selection Systems) especially easily and commonly
>during early childhood, the birth process, and the often alarmingly adverse
>circumstances immediately after birth.
>
>Also, a thick (very thoroughly "filtering") AEVASIVE mindset
tends also to
>prevent both a chance to achieve profound self-regulation (in many cases at
>least in principle) and at least some more profoundly effective
>sociopolitical regulation than usual.

Apparently, there is a technical meaning to the terms"AEVASIVE" and
"CURSES"  that is somehow relevant to this response.   Unfortunately
these terms lie completely outside my experience.  A google search
reveals that AEVASIVE and the combination AEVASIVE and CURSES seem to
be limited in use to news group postings and have no validity in the
real world of science, biology, or evolution (supposedly the topic of
this group).  Furthermore, a password is needed to view the posts
where these terms are used.

The term CURSES alone, of course, is a different story.  Many years
ago I wrote a "curses" display library to format output screens in C
language programs.  I am also familiar with a variety of oaths, both
sacred and profane that go by this name.  The variety of meanings
precludes a google search on this keyword.

Then, again, AEVASIVE might simply be the Australian spelling for
taking avoidance active, but then why the upper case spelling?
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 4/6/04 8:29:26 PM