On 20 March 2015 at 09:21, Alberto G. Corona <agocor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > Sorry is there a point here? Wings were developed, it seems, by creatures that climbed trees and jumped on prey from above, or something similar. Either you're restating the obvious (yes evolution acts to better fit organisms with their immediate environment, on the whole. Ot doesn't plan ahead or try to do anything that would be advantageous in the long term at the expense of the short term). > > 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. > ??? You seem hung up on what is "bad" or "good" evolution doesn't have those categories (except in a colloquial sense). > > 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. > OK I think you are, very slowly and painfully, repeating what I said to start with in about 100x as many words. > > 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 > > To sum up, your argument is: "Shame on you Liz for suggesting that evolution could ever do something which wasn't an optimal solution, but instead hit a suboptimal peak in the fitness landscape." ...apparently because of some ideological gobbledegook to do with Hegel? -- 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.
