| Mold, not mask | |||
| Re: just peachy -- Frank | Post Reply | ![]() |
Forum |
|
Posted by: crossbowman 05/07/2008, 17:18:34 (About author)
Edit |
If genetics indeed makes a species "plastic", then similarity of appearance is the result of two different batches of "clay" encountering similar "molds". We made the erroneous early assumption that species that are superficially similar must be related, but each species adapts to its own local circumstance. It is clear in hindsight that different "root stock" encountering similar environmental "molding" forces might respond with enough similar adaptations that their distant offspring would be almost identical in appearance. I am reminded of the role-playing game, "Traveller". Set in a space-faring future and faced with the task of coming up with ecologies for the thousands of potential worlds that players might pass through, they settled on the answer of describing encountered animals and plants (and other) by their ecological niche-role: ambush predator, solitary chaser, pack chaser, omnivorous burrower, herbivorous runner, etc. The creatures were worlds apart and as unrelated as several lightyears of open space could make them, yet they faced similar challenges and could therefore be counted on to behave and have characteristics dictated by their similar niches - one fast and nervous, easily startled, perhaps with some form of fixed charging weapon to keep predators from trying to block its running path, another keen-sighted for the chase and possessed of some form of rending bioweaponry to both kill and consume its prey, a third nearly blind but dangerously well-equipped for digging and defending borrows. If multiple mobile species evolve on an open plain, you can pretty well count on some of them becoming very good at running away and some of them becoming very good at chasing, irrespective of what the root stock was. To the player, it was simply a matter of local color whether the pack predators facing them walked on two legs, four, or six. They all ended up behaving like wolves. "Robbins’s claim fails because the Hobbs Act does not apply when the National Government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts." WILKIE ET AL. v. ROBBINS. David H. Souter, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
with John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito concurring. |
| Post Reply | Email Friend | Alert |
|
Previous | Next | Current page |
|