[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: flights of fancy (or "I'm brave, but I'm chicken****")

>I try to be open minded, but the above is an argument based upon group
>selection, and evolution doesn't seem to work that way.  Individuals
>don't develop characters because they are good for the species as a
>whole; they develop characters that are good for their descendents in
>particular.  You can see the distinction in the scenario reported
>above: the animal with the trait in question is having its life cut
>short, thereby making it less likely to leave descendents than its
>conspecifics that don't have the trait...

Not completely true.  We see over and over again that animals that are lower=
 on the food chain tend to produce a plethora of offspring.  This is so some=
 of them will last long enough to reproduce (basically, the flood the=
 system).  Invertebrates churn out vast quantities of planktonic larvae, as=
 do amphibians.  This is actually a decent survival strategy: produce enough=
 young to satisfy the predators, then produce a bunch more to carry on the=
 species.  Rather harsh, but it works.


Labrynthodonts: Amphibians that lived with the Minitaur!