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@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
