On 8/8/2011 1:35 AM, Billy wrote:

[...]

Exposure to the bubonic plague
seems to have imbued some with resistance to HIV. Is this the price you
want us to pay, not to mention the further loss bio-diversity? You
really should look into a subject before you start pronouncing on it.

I'm sorry, Billy, but you're mistaken. I urge you to read this book,
and perhaps other more advanced ones on the topic, and see how it
all fits together.

http://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Making-Science-James-Gleick/dp/0143113453/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312810518&sr=8-1

For example:

Exposure to bubonic plague did not cause the modification to the
CR5 gene. Exposure to bubonic plague didn't lead the survivors
to procreate more. Survival only allowed those with the mutant
gene to represent a larger segment of a surviving population.

However you'll find that Mediterranean peoples today have a
smaller portion of the population with the mutant gene than
those in northern Europe.

Why would that be if the only survivors had the mutant gene?

Logic would dictate that there's more than one mechanism for
survival. But that's generally true for *any* mechanism where
that mechanism can fail. A study of parasites in general shows
how complex their needs are to survive generation after
generation.

I can't think of anything in the natural universe that's linear.
Yet your arguments have historically depended on linear attributes.