From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{a|people|}}The yang to [[natural selection]]’s yin, and the thing that perhaps more than anything else leads to muted cries that the theory of [[Evolution]] may be not so much universal acid as universal ''arse''.
| | #redirect[[Evolution by natural selection]] |
| | |
| For natural selection says that all variations are selected for environmental fitness. This, you would think, stands to reason (is ''[[a priori]]'' true); for if it were not, and a variation that ''prejudiced'' one’s environmental fitness could sometimes win out in the genetic lottery, then the reliable [[algorithm]] of incremental, and inevitable, ''improvement'' of a species’ capacity to cope with prevailing conditions would be, in a word, buggered.
| |
| | |
| A successful variation which prejudices a species’ ability to survive and replicate, would ''[[falsify]]'' the theory of evolution by natural selection, you would think.
| |
| | |
| Yet, this is exactly what sexual selection purports to do: explain the prevalence of “peacock’s tails” in the genetic record — biological adaptions which confer no survival benefit at all, and indeed, seem to make survival harder. Such as a male peacock’s tail.
| |
| | |
| There is a theory that the client alert has survived in the great ecosystem of ideas, despite it being read by absolutely no-one except the poor sod commissioned to put it together, and his supervising associate, by dint of some kind of analogue to sexual selection.
| |
| | |
| {{sa}}
| |
| *[[Evolution]]
| |
| *[[Legal evolution]]
| |
| *[[Client alert]]
| |
Latest revision as of 08:17, 3 October 2023