4 ms·

Biological evolution is sort of an arms race? Wolves as a species aren't trying to eat every single deer and deer as a species aren't trying to never be eaten b

Biological evolution is sort of an arms race? Wolves as a species aren't trying to eat every single deer and deer as a species aren't trying to never be eaten by a wolves (of course species don't "try", it is just a convenient manner of speaking). It is more like a balance where wolves eat the unhealthy/old deer and moderate deer population is the ideal for both species. Calling evolution an arms race massively misses the essential nature in most predator-prey relationships.

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Wolves have adapted to be good at deer killing: sharp teeth, front-facing stereo vision, pack behaviour, etc. Deer have adapted to be good at not being eaten by wolves: large eyes, peripheral vision, skittish temperament, herd behaviour, etc. Wolves would eat every deer if they could. They don't not because they think it's a bad idea, but because either they can't because the deer are good at not being eaten, or when they get too close to that goal, they run out of deer and starve into a smaller population that lets the deer recover. Any creature that "wins" the "arms race" against its prey either finds new prey or goes extinct. And species that loses the arms race better hope their predators have no other prey and starve to extinction before they all get eaten, or go extinct themselves. The only reason there's a predator-prey balance at all is a kind of survivor bias: anything not in balance is already filtered out. Not all balanced relationships are predator-prey. Viruses aren't really predators as such, but they still evolve to a balance against immune systems. If they get too good, they burn out their host populations and go extinct (SARS, say, though there have surely been countless natural examples over history). If they don't adapt in time to better immune systems, again, curtains. You could say smallpox as an example, though the last step in the arms race was an Outside Context Problem[1] from the virus's perspective. Similarly, any overly-large step in weaponry can be just as deadly as not enough: working Star Wars missile defense could easily have resulted in the end of the world, as would not keeping up with the Soviets. That shaky balance is partly deliberate, and, if you're into the anthropic principle, partly also survivorship bias. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Pr...

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

Wolves have adapted to be good at deer killing: sharp teeth, front-facing stereo vision, pack behaviour, etc. Deer have adapted to be good at not being eaten by wolves: large eyes, peripheral vision, skittish temperament, herd behaviour, etc. Wolves would eat every deer if they could. They don't not because they think it's a bad idea, but because either they can't because the deer are good at not being eaten, or when they get too close to that goal, they run out of deer and starve into a smaller population that lets the deer recover. Any creature that "wins" the "arms race" against its prey either finds new prey or goes extinct. And species that loses the arms race better hope their predators have no other prey and starve to extinction before they all get eaten, or go extinct themselves. The only reason there's a predator-prey balance at all is a kind of survivor bias: anything not in balance is already filtered out. Not all balanced relationships are predator-prey. Viruses aren't really predators as such, but they still evolve to a balance against immune systems. If they get too good, they burn out their host populations and go extinct (SARS, say, though there have surely been countless natural examples over history). If they don't adapt in time to better immune systems, again, curtains. You could say smallpox as an example, though the last step in the arms race was an Outside Context Problem[1] from the virus's perspective. Similarly, any overly-large step in weaponry can be just as deadly as not enough: working Star Wars missile defense could easily have resulted in the end of the world, as would not keeping up with the Soviets. That shaky balance is partly deliberate, and, if you're into the anthropic principle, partly also survivorship bias. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Pr...