I'm not sure that it can be termed "survival of the fittest". In the same
plant, for example, we see each branch/leaf seeking sunlite. We can say that
a given plant is competing with other plants for sunlite, but, can we say a
plant competes with itself?. What it looks like competition to us may just be
a natural "mandatory" response (phototropism +). What I mean is that the
plant is not really competing but just following a law. The same goes for the
roots (geotropism -). BTW, nobody knows yet why these things happen in terms
of basic mechanism. I think our interpretation may be a case of Western
Anglo-Saxon competative philosophy imposed on nature. Another point. The
exact dimensions of our bodies are not coded in the DNA, otherwise we would
die before loosing or gaining weight. But all the necessary machinery to
properly response to the environment is in us. An adult tree, every spring,
produces all its leaves, but the number of leaves, their locations, and the
individual designs are never the same, yet the general shape of the leaves is
remarkably similar from leaf to leaf and from year to year. Just thinking.
What do you think?
Glenn Morton wrote:
> Hi Eduardo,
> I wrote:
> >> Re: Design Flaw in the Brain
> >> But according to Terrance, the brain, being underspecified (informationally)
> >> engages in a great survival of the fittest game among the neurons as it is
> >> being formed.
> At 10:57 AM 10/31/97 -0600, Eduardo G. Moros wrote:
> >Ok., but survival of the fittest does no necessarily mean macroevolution, it
> >could simply mean stasis.
> If, as Deacon relates, a large percentage of the neurons are dying off, it
> can't be described as stasis. Also apparently different neurons died in my
> brain than in yours or anyone else's
> Foundation, Fall and Flood