Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA16353 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 28 Jul 2001 09:46:48 +0100 From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl> X-Authentication-Warning: rugth1.phys.rug.nl: www-data set sender to firstname.lastname@example.org using -f To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Logic (to Vincent) Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 10:44:22 +0200 (CEST) References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FD0@inchna.stir.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FD0@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.5 X-Originating-IP: 188.8.131.52 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> <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
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.
> <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.
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!
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 28 2001 - 09:50:58 BST