4 ms·
I understand you're not disagreeing with the core of what I said, but I have to point out your circular logic. Why do species have a prime? Why don't they reac
by fwdpropaganda 9y ago
I understand you're not disagreeing with the core of what I said, but I have to point out your circular logic.
Why do species have a prime? Why don't they reach a certain "amount of reproductibility" and stay at that constant amount forever?
The fact that a prime exists is just one instance of one of those things that evolution hasn't figured out yet. Or maybe there's a different reason why it hasn't happened, but that reason is certainly not fundamental physics.
- jamesrcole 9y agoNot the person you're replying to, but the theory I've heard is the following. The background for this theory is that evolution is gene-centric, not individual-centric. What is fitter is what will better propagate the genes, which is not necessarily what's best for the individual. So it can build "designs" that have a better chance of propagating genes earlier on, where features that help that (I'm making this example up, but say something like faster growth) may later have a deleterious affect on the individual. And since evolution is gene focused, there's not as much evolutionary pressure for a longer and healthier life for the individual.
- Tepix 9y agoIf you leave out the repair mechanisms you save a lot of resources.
- fooker 9y agoInteresting point. This has a nice analogy in coding theory. In general you can do things significantly faster with a lower number of bits if you leave out the redundancy required for error detection or correction.