109
78
893
Conversation
Evolution does not result in "winners". If a nuclear winter wipes out all humans, leaving only rodents to rule the Earth, I won't call the rodents "winners" or humans "losers". But the Q is still legit, and the answer depends on whether we think we live in a simulation or not.😊
1
1
I would absolutely call the rodents the winners.
2
2
The rodents don’t have the cephalization required to understand winning/losing thus making this scenario moot
3
Even if the rodents have the concept of winning and losing, it is still misleading, as long as we are discussing a process called "evolution". It has no concept of, nor the intent/goal of picking winners or losers.
1
1
Winners live and losers die out, that's just as simple as that. Evolution.
1
Yeah sure, the one who lives to the oldest age is the sure winner, everyone else is a loser in comparison. I bet you don't even know who that person is without some research, yet there are winners you can point out around you without any hesitation.
1
No. Evolution winners pass their genes to the their heir, and (ideally) make sure that the heir will survive. It doesn't matter who lives to what age. Since the humans all die in nuclear war their genes are lost and they are losers. And rodents are among the winning side.
1
You do make a good point. But it is odd you seem to understand the theory of evolution so well in one espect, but ignorant of it entirely in another espect. You would have to say some genes are winners, and 99.99% others are losers, and that would have proved your "theory" wrong.
1
Well, those who die out are losers for sure. Those who live are still in the game, not final winners, but participants at least. And these rodents will have a chance to evolve into something as intelligent as current humans are. Probably will take another billion years though.
1
1
You are avoiding the issue here. If your method of comparing winners and losers leads to the conclusion that almost all have been losers, and almost none (statistically speaking, another scientific method we use) is a winner, then your method is logically flawed.
I can't see why is it flawed. There's usually one winner (or a small group) at the end of the game. If everyone will be a winner, what a game it would be?
1
Show replies