OT: McCain Running Mate
- From: "James B. Byrne" <byrnejb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2008 17:27:57 -0400
On: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 12:44 PM, "Wirt Atmar"
<atmar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Evolution is a very mechanical process, a process of constantly
accessing benefits and costs to every aspect of the body plan of
the organisms it evolves, and evolving its forms to exploit
untapped resources in the most efficient manner possible.
I would say not exactly. Yes, evolution is mechanical, it requires no
force or purpose. But evolution is simply the term that we apply,
post-hoc, to the consequences of random variations in reproduction that
are incrementally selected for by random variations in environments over
prolonged periods of time. Specieization is the more immediately visible
effect of breeding population isolation and reproductive and environmental
variances, both accidental and deliberate (as in domesticated breeding)
over much shorter time scales. Both evolution and specieization are
utterly dependent upon imperfection in reproduction, which is no more than
random chance in fact. So evolution is not a force. It does not seek
anything.
The process of evolution is not particularly efficient itself, nor does it
exalt efficiency to any detectable degree. But it is most decidedly
effective. Efficiency stands in a distant second place to efficacy in
evolution. There are lots of examples of inefficient evolution. Consider
human eyesight, the human appendix, bumble-bee and dragonfly flight, and
insect respiration. Nonetheless, no matter how inefficient the process or
physical appendage may be now, they all self-evidently possess the
singularly valuable attribute that they work. In the end that is all that
life requires, that it work. Efficiency in lifeforms is always relative
to their reproductive success.
I object to the imagery of evolutionary pressures seeking untapped
resources using a lifeform as some unconscious and unwitting tool to an
end. This metaphor simply replaces one mythic form of exogenous power
(divinity) with another where neither are necessary to explain the process
of life and change. Life simply seeks to reproduce. If it did not then it
would not be alive, by definition.
What the theory of evolution tells us is that the only measure of success
that has any intrinsic value to lifeforms is their ability to create the
next generation. The theory also informs us via inference that the idea
of assigning a value to reproductive "success" is essentially
anthropocentric since I find it very doubtful whether the bulk of "life"
on this planet is self-aware to the point that it could value offspring as
a measure of "success" against some arbitrary "norm". Does the oak know
its own sapling? The dandelion its progeny? The bacteria its clone?
The theory also tells us that reproductive "success" is very much a matter
of chance where, for example, no matter how many eggs you and your mate
fertilize, a lightening induced forest fire can take you, your mate and
all your offspring in a moment. Now, if some of those eggs prove more
"fire-resistant" than others and thus survive the event, well then the
environment has now selected for that physical characteristic which may
be, but not necessarily, transmitted into the next generation. Thus it is
chance that is THE dominant factor in all biological processes.
Life is, as yet, an unexplained phenomenon whose origin is still concealed
from us by our present lack of knowledge and want of means to discover it.
This state of ignorance may persist forever or it may be obviated
tomorrow. But, given that life is, as it self-evidently must be, and
acknowledging that reproduction does not produce perfect duplicates of the
parent, then the theory of evolution poses no great demands on ones
intellect to understand or to accept. In fact, it is the alternatives to
selective adaptation that strain credulity.
In the meantime, I fear that those who turn to superstition to assuage
their fears of the unknown have far more in common with peoples who
worshipped rains gods and forest spirits than is comfortable to
contemplate. I consider that the idea of a life giving "creator" with
"purpose" stems from a deep seated human desire to avoid facing the
alternative; that all of life depends, moment to moment, on both the large
scale and the small, on no more than the toss of a coin. It is an
avoidance mechanism for something which, when considered superficially, is
very emotionally distressing.
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
.
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Chrome wow!
- Next by Date: OT: Google on Chrome EULA controversy: our bad, we'll change it
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: McCain Running Mate
- Next by thread: Re: OT: McCain Running Mate
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
