Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.
That doesn't mean it can't happen - it only means you weren't the dominant species.
>I'll rephrase that: everything that happens in
> nature is by definition in accordance with evolution, but those species that destroy themselves
> will die out, while those species that don't destroy themselves will thrive. Therefore, there
> will be selection for the species that don't destroy themselves, and eventually those species
> will come to predominate.
First, that doesn't mean the eventually dominant species will be intelligent - by weight bacteria
are the predominant species on Earth. Second, it assumes a kind of static equilibrium. It may be
that there are cycles in which similar species become predominant, kill themselves off, and then
re-evolve. Or it may be that there is a kind of chaotic succession of different species becoming
predominant.
>When you think about it, the theory of evolution is essentially a
> tautology: those species which succeed, succeed.
I don't think that's a fair chracterization. Darwin said that the species with the highest rate
differential reproduction will succeed - and that's separately analyzable attribute.
Brent Meeker
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Fri Jul 07 2006 - 02:45:20 PDT