3 ms·
Ok, I don't see how "one species dies and another lives" represents anything that is 'good'. It's just one way things could be. They could be other ways, and ev
by Retra 10y ago
Ok, I don't see how "one species dies and another lives" represents anything that is 'good'. It's just one way things could be. They could be other ways, and evolution doesn't show any preference for any of them.
What you're missing is that 'good' is defined with respect to a goal. From an evolutionary standpoint (whatever that really is), the complete extinction of all life is just one possible way things could be and it is as good as any other way things could be. From a human perspective, this is awful. As is any future where humans don't exist.
- chrisfosterelli 10y agoWhile I see your point, I think it was pretty clear what the OP meant.
- LukeShu 10y agoI think you've fundamentally misunderstood m3ta's comment. You seem to have understood it as: "A species dying off very easily is sometimes a good thing for evolution." In response to this, your response is justified. When in fact, what m3ta is saying is: "Members of a species dying very easily is sometimes an evolutionary advantage for that species." In response to this, your response is a non-sequitur.
- m3ta 10y agoThis is correct. I should have been more clear in my original comment. That is my mistake.