Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- From: "Entertained by my own EIMC" <write_to_eimc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:52:51 -0500 (EST)
"Lorentz" <drosen0000@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fm9qu5$24tq$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jan 11, 1:40 pm, "Entertained by my own EIMC"
<write_to_e...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"John W Edser" <ed...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote inI will answer this seriously, in the optimistic assumption that
BTW:
Accordingly, my notion (derived from the 'Evolutionary Pressure Totality'
by
didactic dichotomization) of "opportunity type evolutionary (selective)
pressures" is the 'ultimately primary' one, whereas "adversity type
selective pressures" is, of course, secondary.
you are not schizophrenic. Or even if you are, in the even more
optimistic notion that someone somewhere can follow our discussion.
I think what you call "opportunity like selection pressures"
is discussed in biological circles as the "pioneer effect." "Adversity
like selection pressures" is called "attrition."
To wit, suppose that we live on a crowded planet (advanced with
spaceships) and the population is being kept constant by disease and
warfare balancing the births. People dying all over the place amounts
to "adversity selection." Yes, evolution will go on. People will
develop resistance to disease, germs will develop resistance to
antibiotics, animals will develop a taste for human garbage. However,
there will be no real novelty coming from all this. Lots of variaty,
but no novelty. No new organs, not even novel behaviors. Just same old-
same old red tooth and claw.
However, suppose they find that there are lots and lots of
livable planets out there. People can survive but taking off on a
space ship, and moving to a new planet. Furthermore, there are
millions of planets per person out there. Every family can take off
and avoid the competition on earth. Survival means reaching for an
opportunity, not fighting an adversity. And when these uninhabited
planets get too crowded, there are enough undeveloped for each of
these crowded descendants to make a new start. Indeed, it is no longer
survival of the fittest. It is survival of the boldest.
To go where no man has gone before, to dream the impossible
dreamblahhh blahh blahh...
Nice to see by your supplied illustration of "opportunity *type*
evolutionary pressures" [not "opportunity like" since that is your own
clumsy, or careless, misquote] that you are so far proving to be only half
as thick as you first appeared to be.
But your tone of conceited superciliousness still smears your "image" (=how
I see you).
Also, I can not be more generous than so about your apparent awareness and
intuition about the 'topic' at hand, because of the sloppy and slap-stick
quality of your this, your 'cadence':
There turn out to be planets where even schizophrenics and
autistics do better than normal-typicals. Therefore, schizophrenics
and autistics thrive. Not by destroying or displacing NTs, just by
moving out. Eventually, the NTs, schizos, and autistics meet for
picnics and holidays. No survival of the fittest, just "Go up, young
man."
Unfortunately, it has never ever worked that way in our earthly
biosphere (not completely) and it is unlikely to work that way forever
even in our universe. The pilgrims get to America, so they survive the
wars in Europe. But there are Indians. And even if there weren't.
there are other forms of life. So in the end, even a pioneer has to
displace somebody. Somebody ends up facing adversity. Look up
"nonnative species" on your google. Life is not a zer-sum game, but
historically it comes rather close.
Maybe I should be careful what I say to you since, after all, I don't know
that you are not a border-line psychotic. ;->
But for your reasonable concession in the 'coda' - at the very end:
There are large amounts of adversity in every opportunity.
However, maybe we can reduce it a bit if we try.
- I *do* give you some further credit. %-]
P
.
- References:
- Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- From: Lorentz
- Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Prev by Date: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Next by Date: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Next by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
