Evolution
The mutation and replication of DNA and evolution as we know it is inherently as stupid as a rock because it's a non-intelligent entity. I look at it like a gutter is to water, as in it coerces the path in which water is to travel.
However, if it was merely survival of the species as the primary motivation for evolution why wouldn't our DNA conform in a manner to ensure the longest longevity of a given species? Species have a certain time clock involved for life expectancy as a fly can only live for days or weeks, while humans cannot live past 120-something (forgot the exact age). There are creatures with far more longevity than the average human, so evolution is definitely capable of longer lifespans but why does it settle for less in so many cases when it's counterproductive.
Another thing I was wondering about is whether or not there was an inherent random factor involved.
The first macro-evolution yielded dinosaurs, then they died out and we were supposedly the result on the second-go?
So assuming you have another planet in another galaxy with the exact same conditions as Earth, would dinosaurs be the result...or even humans? When I say conditions, I'm including oxygen levels, atmosphere, gravity, terrain composition, and natural disasters including the one that wiped out the dinosaurs.
|