*Species interdependent on environment and other species. Even if "surroundings" were static, the species itself would remain seemingly perfect (never changing) only because of static surroundings. This interdependence means that the species themselves are not perfect as their perfection is brought through surroundings.
*One may say that their changing allows for being closer to perfection relative to their environment, but the species will still have faults, hence is why they change. One that changes for desert climate will therefor show faults in an arctic environment. If they were perfect, there would be no need for change in order to better faults, and if changing was perfection, why would they need to change?
*If a hypothetical species could, at will, change its "composition" so that it may be instantly adapted to the environment. This would be the only permissible way in which a species may be overall adapted in that it changes itself at will, rather than random biological occurrence. However, the fact that it must change constantly means that it is not wholly adapted as it must CHANGE to adapt or die. If you will, a self-inflicted instantaneous evolution only different from typical evolution in that it is self-inflicted. A comparison may be drawn to frogs who change sex at will if too little females are around in that they will change to greater reproduce their species and survive.
*As a random tangent, if perfection is simply defined as the lack of flaws, then all may be considered perfection as "flaws" are attributed to things as being such only by nature of the mind, much as morals are not an objective thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment