Submitted by Key-Marionberry-9854 t3_115uh6t in askscience
wewbull t1_j96d4tw wrote
Reply to comment by yaminokaabii in Why are fevers cyclical? by Key-Marionberry-9854
True. Local inflections like that can act as barriers to getting to a much more advantageous trait. I agree.
...but I also think it's wrong to say evolution is random. It's random experiments in a game of procreation. Those experiments which fail are discarded. As such the overall process is guided away from failure and not random.
Maybe I was asserting the positive case (towards success) too much, when the negative case (away from failure) is really the stronger aspect.
yaminokaabii t1_j96lbr8 wrote
I had just wanted to add to your last comment, I think we are in violent agreement here! Saying evolution is "random" is simplified to the point of inaccuracy—I would say it is probabilistic.
There is definitely something to be said about going towards success. I'm thinking of the RNA world hypothesis about the origin of life wherein RNA molecules both held replicable genetic information (as DNA does) and catalyzed the chemical reactions to replicate itself. The self-sustaining molecules won out because... they sustained themselves. Life now is pretty damn good at "being successful", except when it's threatened by other life being more successful, which looks like moving away from failure.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments