Stathis asked: (last lines)
"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
That would call for my 'opinion in my
narrative' about mutation and natural selection, as one from a
non-evolutionist. To the 'infinitely variable' I asked a friend (teaches
special math domain on a name-univ) if he could express mathematically (!)
something with unrestricted variables and unidentified functional effects
(referring to the wholeness) and hi replied with a smile: "That would be
"My" mutation story is based on interactive responses to
the ceaseless changes of "the rest of the world" producing variations
in offsprings. Some more compatible than others.
The variations with more 'fitness'(?) will proliferate
more abundantly so they are the "successful" ones. Scientists consider
most variations still as "the same" species and in their intermittent
snapshots realize "changes" as mutation - towards a better adapted fitness for
survival. The reverse way to how it happened. But it looks like that. No
creature realizes a 'better way to survive' and has a wing or fin let grow out
for that purpose.
The variants of the species "select" themselves for a
better proliferation in the ever changing circumstances of the environment. The
'[unsuccessful do not even show up (e.g. the calf with 5 feet: it was eaten by
the wolf before copulating age).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, July 09, 2006 10:35
Subject: Re: Fermi's Paradox
John Mikes writes:
> Destroying your species runs counter to evolution.
'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...
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
Nobody is exempt from changes in the wholeness.
but we were talking about self-destruction as a subtype of
>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.
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
Be one of the first to try Windows Live
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/384 - Release Date:
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list