Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA16378 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:52:21 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 03:56:01 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Logic (to Vincent) Message-ID: <3B6237D1.13534.213BB84@localhost> In-reply-to: <996309862.3b627b6645adf@rugth1.phys.rug.nl> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FD0@inchna.stir.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 28 Jul 2001, at 10:44, Philip Jonkers wrote:
> Philip said:
>
>
> > <Survival might relate to accidental events. A species
> > >might accidentally survive regardless of its possible
> > >maladaptative state. The addition of the word `fittest', makes
> > > sure that survival applies only to the most vigorous and best
> > > equiped, best
> adapted and most successful species.
> > >Even if it's tautological, that still doesn't diminish its
> > >significance of the success in explaining nature. Let's not
> > >waste our energy on petty syntactic
> > > matters, shall we. I say we stay focused on the more
> > >important issues of semantics instead!>
> > >
>
> Vincent replied by:
>
> > Maladaptive behaviours do not, in the long run persist. As
> > long as a species is adequately equipped to survive it will do so,
> > it does not need to be the most vigourous, the best equipped, it
> > just needs to be equipped sufficiently. Like the old creationist
> > argument about eyes being too perfect to have evolved by chance,
> > this ignores the gradual slight changes over millions of years that
> > led up to humans eyes, which are far from perfect (goldfish can see
> > further into both the infra red and ultraviolet than we can). An
> > individual may possibly survive by 'accident' but a species will not
> > prosper based on luck alone.
>
> Philip says:
>
> First of all, with accidental survival I meant survival
> related to possible maladaptive but fortunate individuals of a
> species, not to the entire species per se. With survival of the
> fittest the maladaptive are precluded from survival, in a
> statistical sense anyway. Also `fittest' is not to be
> confused with `perfect', I never pretended (at least never
> intended) that there is such a thing as a perfect species.
> As long as the environment changes, and it does constantly,
> there is work to be done by evolution.
>
>
> Philip said:
>
> > <Why there's a myriad of different species and not one dominant?
> > > Suppose there's only one, to be antropocentric let's say the human
> > > species. We run into obvious trouble at feeding time: Where
> > >do we obtain our food? We necessarily have to resort to
> > >cannibalism then. The point is this: There's enough space on
> > >earth, enough resources and plenty of positions on the
> > > food-chain for a multitude of different
> > > species to thrive. Nature seizes on such possibilities through
> > > mutability of species via natural selection. Then there's
> > > symbiotic relationships. Often, one species cannot live without
> > > the existence of the other. To take it to the extreme, there are
> > > ample examples (bacteria, shit-flies) around of species living off
> > > of other species' feces!>
>
> Vincent replied by:
>
> > But this contradicts your earlier view of superior fit species
> > shaping their own evolution.
>
> Philip says:
>
> I'm sorry if this is source of confusion. I hope I can settle
> this once and for all. With `fittest' I do not
> mean to denote a species being superior in an absolute sense.
> More so in a relative sense instead. That is, I refer to
> the best adapted species compared to other species occupying
> the same positions in the food chain (better yet `food web'):
> peer-species, if you like. These are the species that compete
> one and other for the resources they are designed for to exploit
> by evolution (not creation!). Species taking no part in this
> relative struggle are bound to be engaged in other struggles.
> Each of these struggles, local competitions, has a winner
> : this is what I meant with the `fittest'.
>
> Anyway, hope this will do. I'm off for the weekend:
> dress warm and don't get a cold in Scotland Vincent!
>
There are two possible meanings here:
1) those that are able to horn in on the most expansive niche, and
2) those who are able to most securely glue themselves to a
disputed niche.
Which is under dispute?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Philip.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
> Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
> For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
> see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
>
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 28 2001 - 09:56:28 BST