gregor

Many interesting points of view have been contributed, but, sorry to say, I have not been able to answer all.

I have a somewhat different view of this.

Assuming that the evil is caused by the genetic or phenotypic disorder, caused by the entropy law, and that the “good” is caused by the mean fitness, you are right in the sense that one is not more efficient than the other. But they form a sort of duality, which follows from the theorem of Gaussian adaptation, which can be proved in two different ways.

Firstly, one may maximise the mean fitness keeping the disorder constant, leading to the condition of optimality that m* = m (m and m* defined as before) in a state of equilibrium.

Secondly, t is possible to maximize the disorder (proportional to the logarithm of the volume of the concentration ellipsoid of the Gaussian) keeping the mean fitness constant, leading to the same condition of optimality, m = m*, meaning that Gaussian adaptation (GA) effectuates a simultaneous maximization of mean fitness and disorder.

This may be understood from the simple figure below where a circular gene pool is placed in triangular region of acceptability. If the circle is slightly moved in some arbitrary direction mean fitness will decrease, but may be restored if the radius of the circle is decreased (disorder is decreased). Thus, in the optimal position – when the circle touches the three sides of the triangle – both the mean fitness and the disorder are maximal.



The advantage with the GA-theorem is that it is valid for all regions of acceptability – not only triangles – and all Gaussian distributions.

Thus, both “good” and “evil” seem to be necessary for survival, because without the random variation and selection (causing both maximal mean fitness and disorder) there will be no evolution. But I am still optimistic in the sense that “evil” will be alleviated as a cause of increased mean fitness, in the long run.

I also wish all debaters a Happy New Year 2007.