Originally Posted by cricketman

Yes absolutely

The title to this book is rather unhelpful as it leads lots of people who have never read the book to misinterpret the model that Dawkin's in describing.

Basically, the driver of natural selection is the need for genes/DNA to replicate. Individuals and species are just a consequence (a side-effect if you like) of DNA reproduction.

So, in this way, humans (and all other organisms) are empty vessels that have been selected by their DNA to become "perfect" DNA replication machines for the environment in which they exist.

I find this a beautiful and very liberating concept. And it puts us egotistical humans in their place. Humans are very much like a 2 year old child thinking that they are the centre of the universe, when actually we are probably just a passing phase. What is important, is that DNA keeps replicating, not that humans survive as a species, in the grand scheme of things (and natural/biological laws) this doesnt matter in the slightest.

Originally Posted by bil

Glad you put 'perfect ' in inverted commas. If it were perfect, evolution couldn't occur. It's actually errors in copying that are the materials from whence comes evolution.

Originally Posted by cricketman

Yes. An individual (or you can say species if you like) is actually a "perfect" (for lack of a better word) fit for its environment at a certain time. It is perfect, because it is succesfully replicating.

However, as time passes and the environment changes (e.g. introduction of a preditor or a change in climate) then unless the species changes to adapt to the environment then it will die out.

The most succesful species are those who are best at adapting to their enviroment i.e. are quick evolvers (think bacteria or viruses), have found an environment that doesnt change very much (think sharks who have been top of the predator chain for millions of years in the oceans) or are best at controlling their environment (think humans).

It will be the way that humans are able to control/manipulate the changes that are happening to the environment over the coming years that will determine whether they will be around in a few thousand years.

Originally Posted by bil

I prefer the term fittest. It's what survives to breed, by definition. Interestingly, mutations are often suppressed as tho they are being 'stored' for a rainy day. These mutations accumulate invisibly in the population, and then in times of stress, (ie when there is some catastrophe which opens evolutionary possibilities) they are expressed. This of course gives evolution a massive boost at such times, making the progress of evolution very abrupt with long periods of stability inbetween.