3 ms·
Not necessarily. Consider the peacock's tail - not good for survival, but sexually selected for. Just because something "should" evolve doesn't mean it does.
by nollidge 17y ago
Not necessarily. Consider the peacock's tail - not good for survival, but sexually selected for.
Just because something "should" evolve doesn't mean it does. Evolution is haphazard, and adaptations are usually merely good enough, not perfect.
- roundsquare 17y agoTrue, but I guess my point is that I wouldn't consider it a completely distinct theory as the article suggests it its. But its a good point, its possibly intelligence is attractive for reasons not having to do with evolution.