Re: Public School was a waste of my time (Re: When even a Republican can see it....)

In article <U6-dneYOgKYAUxPbnZ2dnUVZ8seinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dave O'Neill" <daveon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"David Friedman" <ddfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ddfr-BCEF8F.16141906072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <3Wxji.19311$p8.11853@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jette <bosslady@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Dave O'Neill wrote:

Natural Selection isn't a synonym for "survival of the fitest" -
although
that does happen a fair amount.



Personally I'm rather fond of the "survival of the cutest" theory ;-)

About as close as "survival of the fittest." Both ability to stay alive
and cuteness--if we take that as a proxy for sexual attractiveness--are
inputs to reproductive success, which is what evolution is actually
selecting for.

Sexual selection is a factor in evolution, it's not necessarily clear that
it actually leads to long term survival traits.

Selection for reproductive success is the factor in evolution. There are
lots of inputs to reproductive success, of which success in obtaining a
mate is only one.

Evolution doesn't have an end goal and it doesn't necessarily select the
best life form for an environment.

I don't know what "the best life form for an environment" means. Having
a big showy tail is poor design for the species of peacocks but good
design for an individual male pea***, given that the rest of the
species is part of his environment. Do you know what an ESS is?

Lifeforms do and have "evolve"
themselves into dead ends and go extinct.

Yes. So?

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
.

Loading