I did another thought experiment recently - seeing if I could budge "Evolution" in some way.
It goes like this: say I come along and I start killing off a species. The theory is, the more I kill off of this species, the more likely it will develop a mutation, that in turn will adapt to my killing. But I did not say "I will start killing off a species predictably", I said "I will start killing, by implication, at random" so that there is no way of telling how to adapt. The problem then is that the species has every reason to kill me, but no means.
However, if as I begin killing this species, that species learns to communicate - not specifically, but generically - that species will learn to mitigate the randomness, by singling my efforts out, by identifying me. Identifying me is not something that can be passed down to future generations, it is not an adaptation, as such. No creature of the species will wake up one day and say to itself "I must learn to identify a predator X" - far from it, the creature will wake up rejoicing that it can communicate and with instinct will associate higher levels of stress with a need to express the source of that stress. This is not random, it is design.
Parts of design then, work against my killing the species - as the example goes. At no point does the species start having to take chances with what kills it and what doesn't, it simply internalizes the problem and develops a behaviour that most of its species can benefit from, within the parameters possible, due to their shared design. My predation becomes a behavioural quirk of something outside of the species, that no amount of adapting on my part can perfect. I have been identified in relation to the design of the species, the species that now escapes me.
What has happened here is that the species has identified an adaptation, that it does not want to have evolved. It is "unevolution". The adaptation that fed me the species, becomes a precursor, by design, that then singles me out, from specie killing in that way. It does not cause my adaptation to succeed, that I have been singled out, rather, my design as a predator fails, as long as I am attached to it: I must give up the adaptation, to survive.
Combined with the advantages of multiplying an adaptation and finding a mate, the more unique their number becomes, there is no way for a predator to secure a hold. Quite simply: design creates safety in numbers.
[a thought goes out to all those suffering in the fires in Queensland, Australia - pray they manage to escape what the fire had in store, in Jesus Name Amen]
It goes like this: say I come along and I start killing off a species. The theory is, the more I kill off of this species, the more likely it will develop a mutation, that in turn will adapt to my killing. But I did not say "I will start killing off a species predictably", I said "I will start killing, by implication, at random" so that there is no way of telling how to adapt. The problem then is that the species has every reason to kill me, but no means.
However, if as I begin killing this species, that species learns to communicate - not specifically, but generically - that species will learn to mitigate the randomness, by singling my efforts out, by identifying me. Identifying me is not something that can be passed down to future generations, it is not an adaptation, as such. No creature of the species will wake up one day and say to itself "I must learn to identify a predator X" - far from it, the creature will wake up rejoicing that it can communicate and with instinct will associate higher levels of stress with a need to express the source of that stress. This is not random, it is design.
Parts of design then, work against my killing the species - as the example goes. At no point does the species start having to take chances with what kills it and what doesn't, it simply internalizes the problem and develops a behaviour that most of its species can benefit from, within the parameters possible, due to their shared design. My predation becomes a behavioural quirk of something outside of the species, that no amount of adapting on my part can perfect. I have been identified in relation to the design of the species, the species that now escapes me.
What has happened here is that the species has identified an adaptation, that it does not want to have evolved. It is "unevolution". The adaptation that fed me the species, becomes a precursor, by design, that then singles me out, from specie killing in that way. It does not cause my adaptation to succeed, that I have been singled out, rather, my design as a predator fails, as long as I am attached to it: I must give up the adaptation, to survive.
Combined with the advantages of multiplying an adaptation and finding a mate, the more unique their number becomes, there is no way for a predator to secure a hold. Quite simply: design creates safety in numbers.
[a thought goes out to all those suffering in the fires in Queensland, Australia - pray they manage to escape what the fire had in store, in Jesus Name Amen]
Upvote
0