@bonacquist,
bonacquist wrote:Random mutation is a very inefficient means of driving evolution, since most mutations are not adaptive. Why hasn't life over the eons hit upon a more efficient means of evolving?
Why would it? It's not a design with someone driving it - always looking for a better way. As substances interact with each other and they're environment they remain slaves to those conditions in which they exist and interact. How might there have been 'sought' a better way? What has happened is a slave to its conditions..
... and whose to say that what *has* happened isn't the most (or least) efficient? Further, what has efficiency to do with anything? The principles of evolution have - in various parts - suggestions of efficiency. But neither what we know nor what has been could even be called efficient in any context. Its so hard to peel out of the context of the world as we see it. Very much like the fawning praise for the "Beauty of Our Bodies" or "the miracle of our minds"; what we have is FAR from the best.. .hell, it might be far from the worst.
Its a mindset we can't comprehend. My vision's restricted to those trees around me, how might I grasp the forest at large? Going further... how might I assess efficiency in the forest at large when I can't even see it?
So... good thoughts, but a question to which no answer has meaning or validity.
Thanks