This is such a spurious connection lol but I read the article anyway
The pattern probably emerged as a result of Darwinian natural selection: cicadas that naturally matured in easily divisible years were gobbled up by predators, and simply didn’t live long enough to produce as many offspring. Those who, by chance, had long, prime-numbered life spans fared best, survived longest, and left the most offspring, becoming the dominant variation of the species.
I’m glad the author actually took the time to describe the evolutionary process accurately. When I was an impressionable youngin’ arguing against evolution, a big sticking point for me was how so many people described evolution as if there was some design or guidance behind it all. Nope, just common sense chaos and lots of death
Yes, I too get annoyed when evolution is described as an active process, e.g. “evolution got us to have legs to walk”, rather than a passive selection process “evolution means that those early humans that walked were better able to successfully procreate”.
It is noteworthy to me that a prime number based length of tenure might then cause the fewest number of retirements at the same time, over time.
This is such a spurious connection lol but I read the article anyway
I’m glad the author actually took the time to describe the evolutionary process accurately. When I was an impressionable youngin’ arguing against evolution, a big sticking point for me was how so many people described evolution as if there was some design or guidance behind it all. Nope, just common sense chaos and lots of death
Yes, I too get annoyed when evolution is described as an active process, e.g. “evolution got us to have legs to walk”, rather than a passive selection process “evolution means that those early humans that walked were better able to successfully procreate”.
It is noteworthy to me that a prime number based length of tenure might then cause the fewest number of retirements at the same time, over time.