Standard evolutionary theory. Evolution did not have to take the path it took by any stretch of the imagination.
It didn’t have to- but can’t we discuss relative likelihoods of paths taken by evolution? It may be that the likely paths all look similar- the trajectory we took was in a ‘rut’ of broadly similar trajectories. It might instead be that wildly different trajectories are similarly likely- but that seems like something that you would need detailed inside experience to judge.
Consider an analogy to thermostats. The range of temperature fields that are present in a house over some time period is a tiny speck on the space of all possible temperature fields- but it’s that narrow because the inputs don’t vary all that much and there’s a regulating system that tries to keep it narrow. Similarly, mutation could produce a far wider variety of life than we see now- but natural selection pares it down.
Actually it’s not even an argument, it’s just an assertion: “There are lots of unexplored possibilities” How do you know?
Standard evolutionary theory. Evolution did not have to take the path it took by any stretch of the imagination.
It didn’t have to- but can’t we discuss relative likelihoods of paths taken by evolution? It may be that the likely paths all look similar- the trajectory we took was in a ‘rut’ of broadly similar trajectories. It might instead be that wildly different trajectories are similarly likely- but that seems like something that you would need detailed inside experience to judge.
Consider an analogy to thermostats. The range of temperature fields that are present in a house over some time period is a tiny speck on the space of all possible temperature fields- but it’s that narrow because the inputs don’t vary all that much and there’s a regulating system that tries to keep it narrow. Similarly, mutation could produce a far wider variety of life than we see now- but natural selection pares it down.