On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is there no way to define success in evolutionary terms? Wiki describes > natural selection thus: Over many generations, adaptations occur through a > combination of successive, small, random changes in traits, and natural > selection of those variants best-suited for their environment" Is the use > of best in that description a mere tautology? Or if I had said best-suited > would it have changed the meaning of my statement appreciably?
There is at least one problem with "best" that strikes me immediately -- the "environment" is not static. Every living thing co-evolves. So what is "best" at one point is not best in another. The living environment is shaped by and shapes life. Surely "best-suited" in this context means best-suited for survival as a species. But that one gets messy, too, since speciation begs the question. And then there's the definition of a species, which blurs around the edges. If we survive by becoming different species, who/what survived? Selfish genes? But they change, too! This seems to me to be a bit like Newtonian v. quantum physics. The former is fine for gross measurements, the latter for fine ones... and the two haven't been reconciled. Nick SS Can't set foot in the same river twice _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
