From: henry999@eircom.net   
      
   Jack  wrote:   
      
   > Henry wrote:'   
   >   
   > > Jack  wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>It is not character itself which matters   
   > >>in the  selection process but presentation.   
   > >   
   > > Perhaps. But if there's no character underpinning the presentation,   
   >  > then such 'selection' will quickly prove to be faulty and the charade   
   >  > won't persist beyond one iteration.   
   >   
   > Are you sure you mean to speak of human interactions?   
   >   
   > Perhaps you are less cynical than I. But I think your "science" is not   
   > adequate to explain why natural selection has produced neither a race of   
   > monsters nor a race of angels in 200,000 years.   
   >   
   > There is more than meets the eye in applying natural selection to human   
   > beings, beyond the gross interactions between humans and their physical   
   > environment. Perhaps we just don't have the benefit of enough distance,   
   > or a long-lasting enough experiment to draw any conclusions.   
   >   
   > I would be interested in any examples to the contrary which you may suggest.   
      
   Whoa. I never said anything about 'science'. But let me give you a   
   hypothetical example of what I meant by 'presentation without character   
   fails'.   
      
   Frontier village, expanding pioneer society. Males display, female   
   chooses best 'presentation' without regard to character. New couple   
   moves to the wilderness. Winter comes, man unable to provide adequate   
   food or shelter; he, woman and baby all die. No genetic future -- as   
   simple as that.   
      
   cheers,   
      
   Henry   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)