Garrie - on further reflection, is seems to me self-evident that sleep makes the sleeper vulnerable to a predator that isn't sleeping. So since virtually all living forms sleep, sleep must be needed for some reason more important than survival. Does that sound right? Jim
On Jul 18, 10:24 am, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote: > Garrie - Excellent point. Thank you. Jim > > On Jul 17, 4:45 am, GarrieMushet <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If sleeping was dangerous enough to kill all animals that need lots of > > sleep, then indeed, those animals would have died out. But they > > didn't. > > > The fact of the matter is that most animals who sleep did NOT die out, > > and therefore they WERE able to survive and reproduce. > > > So rather than thinking that the theory of evolution is wrong based on > > your hypothesis that sleep isn't compatible with naturally selected > > highly evolved beings, I would tend to think that your hypothesis that > > sleep isn't compatible with naturally selected highly evolved beings > > is flawed. > > > There are many examples of features and characteristics that have > > evolved that increase the risk of death. But as long as this risk of > > death does not kill people too early, then they have time enough to > > reproduce, and their traits will be passed on. > > > These are not exceptions to the theory of evolution, they are simple > > traits that, whilst they may decrease the quality and length of life, > > they do not do so enough to reduce the chances of reproducing. If they > > did, those characteristics WOULD have died out. > > > On Jul 14, 6:35 pm, 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
