I think Ian has answered the two questions you set out pretty well, jim. With regard to evolution, on strictly scientific terms, we must be careful not to imply any kind of purpose to it. In a strict sense, the term "survival of the fittest" is a tautology - that which is fittest survives, what qualifies it as "fittest" is the fact that it survives. The evolutionary process does not "know" beforehand, what is fitter and select this; adaptation and mutation happen all the time, frequently on a random basis. What works, works. What doesn't, disappears. And all of this is in a state of constant living dynamism. Biological history contains many examples of more or less balanced ecological systems over long periods which suddenly became unstable because of the sudden introduction of a new factor; in recent history, the effect of human arrival in New Zealand is one of the more spectacular examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa). Seen from this point of view, the question about sleep becomes largely meaningless - if a biological entity can sleep and survive, then it is fit enough to sleep and survive.
It can be argued that, at least in terrestrial history, the evolution of intelligence/(self-)consciousness has thrown a major new variable into the evolutionary equation. We only need to look at the huge ecological changes initiated worldwide in the evolutionary-biological instant since homo sapiens sapiens emerged as a significant group in the past 50,000 years (in particular since the emergence of agriculture in the past 10,000 years). Whether the story of our (self-) conscious intelligent species is one of enduring success or a bush- fire phenomenon remains open. We are, of course, free to put forward models of regarding biology and history which include the aspect of purpose in the evolutionary process. Teilhard de Chardin's teleological scientific-religious spirituality/vision is one such (and a rather beautiful one at that). But such views go far beyond what a strictly scientific view of evolution (as first put forward by Darwin and developed by many other scientists since) can support. Francis On 14 Jul., 19:35, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > As I understand one basic premise of the theory of evolution, > survival of the fittest prefers individuals that live longer, breed > faster and leave more progeny. Yet two traits we possess – sleep and > intelligence – seem to contradict this preference. > Sleep works against survival for, while sleeping, an individual can > hardly defend against attack and consumption. So evolution would seem > to have selected those individuals needing less and less sleep, until > sleep would no longer be needed. Yet today, maybe one billion years > after speciation began, we still need our 8 hours of sleep. > Intelligence also seems to disprove the all-encompassing scope of > evolution. Those individuals better able to recall experience and > predict the future would have an advantage in food-gathering, mate > selection and progeny protection. Yet we hardly seem smarter today > than humans living thousands of years ago. > Are these traits exceptions to evolution? Are there other exceptions? > I expect so. But no one discusses them. Why not? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
