Eric wrote things like:

> THE "GOAL" IS TO ...<

Well, THERE IS NO GOAL (excuse the caps, you started it).
Evolutional events are not "in order to" rather "as a consequence of".
Further on Eric wrote:

>The organism doesn't have to be  smart enough to believe in
>this wager {of risk that is}...<

While I am all for Eric's stance in group-evolution, I refuse to assign
speculational deeds for evolving species (groups), or in instigating changes
"in order to" survive. A bacterium does not amputate the sensitive group of
its molecule to resist the antibiotic or 'grow' resistant ones - in order to
the same. It is all selection of variants, wich come in all colors/tastes in
every generation - and the environment changes constantly as well. The ones
that have the better functioning variations for the (continually changed)
conditions will prliferate stronger and we (later on) observe prudent
changes "in the better surviving kinds".

The "group-evolution"?
I don't care how the reductionistic boundaries are cut for a "unit" of
our observation: it may be cutting off one member of a "group" or it may
include the entire 'group', the variational (mutation?) characteristics are
there, producing 'items' (callable 'singles' or 'groups', who
cares) -proliferating stronger or falling back in survival.

God did not write in his book the evolutionary path which the species
HAVE to run in order to fulfill HIS plans designed for the world.
It is all coincidential of the changes in the total, reflecting to the
functions of - what we assign as - individuals (or groups). It is all in an
"open deterministic two-way interaction" defined by the circumstances
which may be unpredictable (for us), not for the omniscient.

Then, when we see "snapshot observations" from time to time (in science) and
recognise changes therein, all for the better survival,
we have the reductionistic right to say:
(in a way: it did).

Words, words.


John Mikes

Reply via email to