LizR: My descendants can not develop wings living in mountains, even if wings permit us to move faster, this does not mean that natural selection do it wrong. Even if there are animals that fly. My descendants will not develop wings because my other traits forces to solve the problem of locomotion in other different ways. That do not means neither that bipedal locomotion is better than flying neither the other way around. flying and non flying animals have their benefits and disadvantages.
If a planet of the size of phobos hit the Earth and only survive microbial life that does not mean that pluricelular life was a bad byproduct of what would be optimal in this context: the evolution of microbial life. That reasoning by the side of a intelligent microbial entity would be the product of a bias caused by ignorance. simply speaking, products of evolution can not be compared. Neither a design can be compared against an absolute scale of perfection,, neither exist a "perfect" model towards which the evolution evolve. neither can be the criteria something like simplicity nor complexity. Neither if the design optimize this or that . It is the entire genotype of the animal what is tested against the environment. And that trait will be inherited by the descendants,so it should be effective for 600 millions years in different ambients and circumstances and phenotypes, like the vertebrate eye. The scientific reasoning must be the opposite: why is the vertebrate eye so successful? The opposite, to assume an ideal based on simplicity, or in something that optimize certain parameter, ignoring the infinite other factors and circumstances of that are present in a pervasive process extended in space and time such is natural selections is an engineer (leftist) point of view that is not scientific, but something in the tradition of the idealistic rationalism in the Hegelian sense: All that I imagine that is rational must be real and true. This point of view is closed to learning new knowledge and thus, anti-scientific 2015-03-19 19:55 GMT+01:00 LizR <lizj...@gmail.com>: > As far as I know "evolutionary advantage" means favouring the replication > of a specific trait (or the genes underlying it) over competing traits. The > "simplistic reasoning of an ignorant" is the reasoning of Charles Darwin > and Richard Dawkins - that evolution acts on the individual in the first > case, and genes (or gene clusters - or whatever produces traits on which > evolution can get some traction) - in the latter. I don't follow everything > you said but it looks like you're arguing for some sort of group selection? > Maybe you could make your ideas a bit clearer. This in answer to post 1. > > Post 2 - Darwin focused on the long term effects of the process - he > wanted to explain how organisms developed over many generations. Not sure > about the ideological bias, please explain further. > > Sorry I have to go now - to work in fact! Must fly :-) > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
