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
>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
>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
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at