May a strange discussion, maybe somewhat philosophical I did not know but
now I feel that I must secrete some thoughts maybe you think some
1.) In my opinion there is no perfect plan or master plan or whatever
2.) In my opinion evolution is a chaotical process with coming and going of
new combinations of genes whatever they produce some with more succes some
3.) In my opinion the human species is only a part of the evolution and all
what human kind make or will do is than also only a part of the game and
could not be separated.
Because evolution for me means try and error as long till it fits for the
environment where the "game is played". For example Anth. dressleri is
"perfect" in his natural habitat now at the moment untill the environment
changes(affected by whatever).
Or another example. Many species of the Australian fauna where "perfect"
untill humans import rabbits, so the new species is somewhat more perfect
for the Australian environment and as a result all other affected species
which have no place to live will die.
Or the young oak tree without chlorophyll it is not perfect in that
environment but when you do the same maybe in a laboratory it will work and
it lives than it would be perfect. (don?t say it is not natural it is only a
somewhat different environment created by a species which is part of the
nature the same what Ants do when they grow funghi).
Or is a Banana plant not perfect while it did?nt grow on north pole only in
a tropical environment?
And who knows maybe in some million years all plants are without chlorophyll
and grow in some other way when nature made uncountable experiments and one
of them will work and produce as a result a new species which is more
"perfect" and displace the now existing green plants.
That is in my eyes the other problem with evolution and perfectness. Our
lives are to short that we could registrate the evolution of new species, we
only registrate the dying of old species by fast changes of environment(most
affected by human kind). So maybe the game will go on and human kind has
changed the environment so dramtically that it will die itself but is that
the end of evolution? Sure not some million years later we will surely found
thousands of new species and they will be again "perfect" adapt to the
environment existing at that time.
Also now by making hybrids or transgentic lifeforms we are giving the nature
great input for new combinations of genes whatever the results are, nature
will be affected but never destroyed only environment changes.
So for me is every lifeform which lives now at the moment on earth perfect
in its very own way and also in my opinion we haven?t the right to judge
over a lifeform if it is perfect or not. The evolution will make this
So Dewey is right when he says that he is perfect and it is no joke.
Hope it is somewhat understandable cause as a none native speaker ist is
hard to explain in a foreign language.
Von: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]Im Auftrag von Neil
Gesendet: Dienstag, 2. Mai 2000 04:49
An: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Betreff: Re: Hybrids
> Only one question to Neil and Wilbert which both wrote that nature is not
> What is not perfect in Nature?
> Please only one example I found nothing or am I blind?
> Thanks in advance
I will give you one example but first I think everyone would agree that the
word 'perfect' is a term of perception and everyone's perception is
One plant example: ocassionally I see an oak seedling sprout which has no
chloraphyll. it only lives as long as the acorn's starch holds out.
this is not perfect.
Unless you consider it part of the 'perfect plan' to have imperfections.
As I said, it is impossible to argue the meaning and application of a word
such as 'perfect'.