Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!seismo!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf-lovers,talk.origins,sci.bio Subject: Re: James P. Hogan's Giants trilogy: error about evolution... Message-ID: <1171@dg_rtp.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Feb-87 13:54:45 EST Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.1171 Posted: Tue Feb 24 13:54:45 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Feb-87 05:17:33 EST References: <1151@husc2.UUCP> <305@netxcom.UUCP> <1170@husc2.UUCP> Lines: 41 Xref: utgpu rec.arts.sf-lovers:1538 talk.origins:336 sci.bio:132 Summary: Looked at properly, Hogan doesn't seem too far wrong. >,>>> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) >> ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) >>> [...] James P. Hogan postulates [...] that in the absence of >>>predation, aggression will not exist. This has been shown to be false: some >>>herbivores are among the meanest creatures around. >> The only herbivors that we have around to study most definitely >> evolved in a predator filled environment. Therefore an argument >> based on these 'aggressive' herbivores is fallacious. > The amount that the creatures have to worry about predation does not > correlate with their aggression, as far as I know It is worth noting that herbivores really ought to be considered predators. It is just that their prey is particularly easy to sneak up on... >> [..."proof" that predation implies agression and non-predation >> implies non-agression...] > This definition [of predation] is the one of choice for politics and > non-scientific human relations, but it doesn't cut it for biology. > For biology you have to add that it is only that which is an attempt > to deal with competition. Similarly, my definition of predation might be a little non-standard. But my point remains... Hogan's world wasn't truely free of agression. It's just that the agression was all directed towards species that did not resist effectively. But then, humans don't prey on species that can resist effectively. They didn't even do it when there still were species that could resist effectively. So how is the selective pressure on the Giants different from those on humans? In one regard. For a Giant, the simple fact of mobility is a strong indicator that a species ought not be be preyed upon, because all mobile species on the Giant's planet were effectively defended. It could thus plausibly be built in to the Giants that they only agress against plants. -- There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. --- John von Neumann -- Wayne Throop !mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw