John Mikes writes:
> > Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.
> Stathis,
> 'evolution' does not follow good manners and may not
> be chisled in stone, I for one identified it (in my
> narrative) as the entire history of the unioverse from
> its appearance till its demise (let me skip now the
> detailed definitions). Destroying one's own species
> may be beneficial to others in the biosphere...

Yes, you're right, evolution doesn't about or want anything.
> > 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. 
> Did the dinosaurs destroy 'themselves'? No way! they
> were destroyed by the temporary exclusion of sunlight
> after the planetesimal-impact's dustclouding. (At
> least according to a widely publicised story). They
> were well equipped for the circumstances on the planet
> that changed abruptly. No self-destruct, just
> extinction.
> Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness.

Yes, but we were talking about self-destruction as a subtype of extinction.
> >Therefore, there will be
> > selection for the species that don't destroy
> > themselves, and eventually those species will come
> > to predominate. When you think about it, the theory
> > of evolution is essentially a tautology: those
> > species which succeed, succeed.
> I like to think that there is more to that.

What more to it than that is there? Sure, the details are infinitely variable, but basically living things are around because they managed to stay around and propagate themselves.
Stathis Papaioannou

Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
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