Hi there,
So this thread is going to expose my bias, to a significant degree: because basically I feel like a choice should be made, even with little reason to change anything. I'll give you the example in the thread title: a species' members all face the same selection pressure, should they respond with a full response or a halved one. A full response might get you in trouble with a predator, while a half response, might make it easier to get away. But this is simply a question of the cup being half empty or half full. Thus my bias.
The question you should be asking, is "are my biases getting in the way of my survival" - and that it something that can't be answered, without a perspective both within and without the object in question: Evolution. Mutation coming before adaptation, is a bias - is it affecting your survival? That is the question? A creature accustomed to give a full response, might be strong enough to deal with lesser predators, or on the other hand a species accustomed to giving a half response, might find that it has to sacrifice a greater degree of its own, to get away from a predator. This is a question of knowing how evolved the herd is - there is no species that can't act as such (a species).
The point I am trying to make is that there is a foundation in saying "something in particular has a value, that can be justified for it's utility" - which is the predicament that "Evolution" is in: how do identify what would prove a predator Evolution, so as to identify what it is prudent to belief in general. If Evolution can't prove it's concept in this case, it will simply fade as not helping the species enough. I am taking no joy in this, I just see an empty place where value should be. You should really be able to test, which declarations of faith in Evolution are friendly and which are not (surely you don't think ignorance is a threat, "Warden_of_the_South").
My thought on it, is that if you do something for a friend, for life, that friend is going to be desirous that more like the relationship prevail - the friendship itself will be passed on to the next generation. Creatures following after that friendship, will have a greater instinct, of what is good for the species and which is not. Imagine you had heard that friendship had been discovered, that is what this is - in part (it is a discovery of principle). A friend never cuts a friend off, if a Friend helps a friend that friend will adopt the style and strength of the newer friend.
It might be that you never make friends, but that is beside the point.
So this thread is going to expose my bias, to a significant degree: because basically I feel like a choice should be made, even with little reason to change anything. I'll give you the example in the thread title: a species' members all face the same selection pressure, should they respond with a full response or a halved one. A full response might get you in trouble with a predator, while a half response, might make it easier to get away. But this is simply a question of the cup being half empty or half full. Thus my bias.
The question you should be asking, is "are my biases getting in the way of my survival" - and that it something that can't be answered, without a perspective both within and without the object in question: Evolution. Mutation coming before adaptation, is a bias - is it affecting your survival? That is the question? A creature accustomed to give a full response, might be strong enough to deal with lesser predators, or on the other hand a species accustomed to giving a half response, might find that it has to sacrifice a greater degree of its own, to get away from a predator. This is a question of knowing how evolved the herd is - there is no species that can't act as such (a species).
The point I am trying to make is that there is a foundation in saying "something in particular has a value, that can be justified for it's utility" - which is the predicament that "Evolution" is in: how do identify what would prove a predator Evolution, so as to identify what it is prudent to belief in general. If Evolution can't prove it's concept in this case, it will simply fade as not helping the species enough. I am taking no joy in this, I just see an empty place where value should be. You should really be able to test, which declarations of faith in Evolution are friendly and which are not (surely you don't think ignorance is a threat, "Warden_of_the_South").
My thought on it, is that if you do something for a friend, for life, that friend is going to be desirous that more like the relationship prevail - the friendship itself will be passed on to the next generation. Creatures following after that friendship, will have a greater instinct, of what is good for the species and which is not. Imagine you had heard that friendship had been discovered, that is what this is - in part (it is a discovery of principle). A friend never cuts a friend off, if a Friend helps a friend that friend will adopt the style and strength of the newer friend.
It might be that you never make friends, but that is beside the point.
