(December 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm)Darwinning Wrote:(December 22, 2011 at 4:47 pm)Perhaps Wrote: I think my assumption was just based on the idea that in order to survive one must be better than the other which it will kill to further sustain life. Thus evolution brings about 'better' things. But the idea of procreation is one which I should address further as well.
Also important that there be sufficient variation in the population. Evolution works better in larger numbers, because there is more chance someone hits the jackpot if there are more people playing.
I feel the need to expand on this a bit while I sip my morning coffee. If you have no interest in learning more about evolution, feel free to ignore. I happen to think it is one of the most intriguing subjects one can study, but I may be severely professionally biased.
The size of the population is very important to evolution.
It increases the chances of successful coupling. What if the only two people on the world don't like each other? What if they are both men? What if they are on different continents. No babies, no evolution.
It reduces the effect of regressive mutations. Mutation is random. Bodies are complex. It's akin to hitting your car with a sledgehammer. A random change has a small chance of improving some small part of the machine, but a fairly large chance of breaking everything and stopping it from working altogether. Evolution of the species is paid for in many, many unborn babies.
It increases variation in the population. Contrary to what some authors have claimed, not all pigs are equal; they are all slightly different. Children are not only dstinct from their parents because of mutation, but also because they are a recombination of two different individuals. The more individuals in the population there are, the more evolution can experiment with recombining existing features.
There's probably more, but my coffee is cold now. Better brew some more.
