|
>> One reason for assessing biological success based on grandchildren, is that in
>> the long run, we're all dead. The dinosaurs are now extinct, so by your implied
>> logic, they were all unsuccessful, even though many generations of dinosaurs
>> were successful. Wrong again. My logic implies no such thing. I have not defined 'success' or
'biological success', I have merely pointed out the intutive limitiations of your
definition. My own definitions (which I have not provided) have no such limitations.
>> Another reason is that if you don't draw a time line, the
>> score keeps changing - the game never ends. And the reason you can't use a function which relies on variable 't' is ...? >> Finally, the grandparents are
>> intuitively just not as responsible for the success of their grandchildren as
>> their children are, and certainly should not be held responsible for the
>> success or failure of generations born after their deaths. Now you have gotten more weird trying to link 'responsibility' and 'biological
success'. Does your definition of 'biological success' also apply to animals
and plants? How much 'responsibility' does a blowfly have to its grandchildren? How many biologists would be happy with a definition of 'biological success'
which was human-centric? I have a request: Clearly you have not throught the issues through, and are
just posting things that come into you head. Can you go away and actually think
about the issue before you post again? Thanks.
| 
