42 ms·
Can you elaborate a bit on your comment? I am not sure I quite understand the distinction you are trying to make. Much like “weeds”, when referring to plants,
by GuiA 8y ago
Can you elaborate a bit on your comment? I am not sure I quite understand the distinction you are trying to make.
Much like “weeds”, when referring to plants, is a distinction that is only relevant in the context of human agriculture, so it is for “invasive species”. All life is, by definition (reproduction), invasive.
- pif 8y agoI think he's talking about animal and plants that prosper in a region they could reach only due to human intervention (think: trans-oceanic or trans-continental travel).
- faceplanted 8y agoNo, what he's saying is that evolution doesn't always produce optimal species for the environment, if a species is so invasive as to out compete the native species, then clearly _it_ is more optimal than the one that literally evolved there. Meaning Evolution doesn't find optimal solutions unless it has the right starting configurations.
- empath75 8y agoOptimal for _what_? It makes no sense in the context of biological evolution.
- Drdrdrq 8y agoOptimal for survival in the given environment. However the worth of solution depends on other solutions (organisms)... Interesting way of looking at the problem.
- coldtea 8y agoEvolution never finds "optimal solutions" (except by happenstance). It just has to reach some solution that works and allows the organism to survive and reproduce. Optimal-ity is not a factor.