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 

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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to