delt0r wrote: I now work in Evolutionary biology (was physics). I assure you its not as good as you think. In fact if you understand whats going on, there are often simple things you can change for improvements that a mutation selection thing never gets. For example solar cells are far more efficient that photosynthesis.

First seek to understand….

Sorry for the flashback bump…

I don’t think that is a fair comparison.

1) Photovoltaics generates electricity, Photosynthesis generates complex carbohydrate molecular chains. Not exactly a fair comparison. Electricity production by means of using a single photo to knock off a single electron is by far more simple at task than the complex dance of chemistry to convert H20 and CO2 to much longer chains of molecules. It is not as efficient because there are a LOT more side and half reactions that all contribute to loss.

2) Natural Selection cares only about replication, not pure efficiency. If higher efficiency is rewarded by better means to replicate, than natural selection could and would go that route. But that is not always the case.

Example. Two plants:
Rather than increasing the efficiency (energy per square inch of each leaf surface area) which would yield only gains for itself, a plant may opt to simply grow taller, and thus compete directly with the other plant and yield gains for itself AND simultaneously doing harm to it’s competitor. Shading the other plant, so it dies and the nutrients and water are then available for the taking.