This is a foreshadowing of evolution. In the 2nd edition of OofS, Darwin mentions an passage from Aristotle who built upon the idea, showing that in the pre Christian era it was commonly held that struggle results in refinement, and lack of fitness leads to extinction.

... Aristotle, in his 'Physicæ Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), "So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish." We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teet

I agree with the original post.

We have Tornadoes, Volcanoes, Earthquakes and Tidal Waves, which are elemental chaos. You might say the Climate is elemental harmony but obviously on a massive scale!

struggle results in refinement, and lack of fitness leads to extinction. — Sculptor

Well, the ladedaimonikans agreed with that, but most of the Greek city states preferred the struggle of commerce to the struggle of war.

The Greeks also did not believe in any personal God. Most people just had to take it as it was thrown at them, and they tried to get the God's attentions at temples, but didnt really put much hope in it.

All city states were up for war. Athens had an empire, and Alexander learned how to build one in Athens.
The thing about the Spartans was they were a small tribe keeping order over the majority of Helots.

That's Hollywood's misconception, not historical fact. After all Hollywood was founded to glorify war, and has done so ever since, with ever better special effects.

The Greeks defended themselves if they had to, but after Alexander the Great, there was not another attempt to conquer other nations. That together with Troy was enough for them. But Hollywood doesn't like that. What Hollywood likes is Virgil's reinterpretation of the Iliad, making the Trojan Horse a clever trick rather than an ignoble deception, and ending the story with Troy's successful demolition rather than the horrible fates of the victors. Mostly now Hollywood tells Virgiil's Aeniad, with Greek names, glorifying war rather than imparting wisdom as to its folly. hat was Rome's preference, and it fits with the USA's own history or violence and aggression, so that's the story Hollywood tells.

The Greeks favored independence, and it was very difficult for them to gather themselves to fight the Persian retaliations of the two Xerxes. But the Greeks believed in their independence and fought viciously to defend it. Now, Hollywood loves to describe the Persian invasions as unjust attempts at conquest, rather than the retaliation it actually was.

The Greeks favored free trade and economic competition instead, to which war was a terrible impedance. The Greek view was that violent aggression was exciting but foolish, and they taught that view to new generations with Homer, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus.

What Hollywood likes is Virgil's reinterpretation of the Iliad, making the Trojan Horse a clever trick rather than an ignoble deception, and ending the story with Troy's successful demolition rather than the horrible fates of the victors. Mostly now Hollywood tells Virgiil's Aeniad, with Greek names, glorifying war rather than imparting wisdom as to its folly. — ernestm

You have never read either Homer or Virgil, have you? You got it exactly backwards. Virgil takes up the Trojans' narrative (for obvious reasons), and for him Greeks are the enemy, and the story of the Trojan Horse is a story of low cunning. Later Dante, who was raised on the Latin tradition, picked up Virgil's narrative and went so far even as to put Ulysses not in Limbo, with other heroes of antiquity, but in the lowest region of Hell, with liars and fraudsters.

I read the both in the original languages. The romans liked what you call 'low cunning.' They admired it. Thats my point. Virgil tried to be ironic about it occasionally, but the romans really did not have a sense of irony either. So mostly he wrote what they liked, bombastic guts spilling and glorification of violence. There was almost no mention of the Trojan Horse in Homer, in fact it is arguable whether the original version of the story contained it at all. It was almost entirely an invention by Virgil.

I dont see what you think I got backwards about the greeks. What I do observe is that the majority of the world is entirely sucked in to Hollywood's version. Some time ago there was even a version that made the whole Trojan War an act of vengeance by abused women. That's what sells now so thats what it makes. Homer's point was that Agamemnon was a power-hungry, war-crazed megalamaniac who didnt care about women at all. It's true he abused women, but it wasnt anything against women in particular, he abused anyone he could in his desire for power. Sacrificing his daughter for success in war, and supporting a competition for Helen's marriage against her own wishes were just symptomatic.

That's Hollywood's misconception, not historical fact. After all Hollywood was founded to glorify war, and has done so ever since, with ever better special effects. — ernestm

I studied this for more years than I'd care to remember.
So no I reject your insulting comment.

Some time ago there was even a version that made the whole Trojan War an act of vengeance by abused women. That's what sells now so thats what it makes. Homer's point was that Agamemnon was a power-hungry, war-crazed megalamaniac who didnt care about women at all. It's true he abused women, but it wasnt anything against women in particular, he abused anyone he could in his desire for power. Sacrificing his daughter for success in war, and supporting a competition for Helen's marriage against her own wishes were just symptomatic. — ernestm

I think you might be ignoring the rest of Greek literature.
Hollywood is shite at inventing stuff.

It was almost entirely an invention by Virgil. — ernestm

Since the story of the TH was mentioned in Homer, it was part of the myth for maybe a 1000 years before Virgil was born. I do not call that "entirely an invention".
You are confusing your personal reception of the myth with how it was better know by the people of the time.

it was part of the myth for maybe a 1000 years before Virgil was born. I do not call that "entirely an invention". — Sculptor

thats what I thought too, but when I looked it up, I found only six lines about it. Out of 3,000 lines it is unlikely so little would be written about the now famous ruse which reportedly ended the war, and so its far more likely they were inserted later where they could find a spot for it. They didnt teach me that at school either, I had to figure it out for myself.

And now for the notable problem: if you have been besieged for 10 years and found the camp mysteriously empty with a wooden effigy of a horse on wheels, you would not go through the effort of wheeling it into your city. You'd just burn the entire camp as fast as possible in case they came back. But no, they wanted what they are meant to have thought must be their enemy's idol as a trophy?? Even though they knew it wasn't?

Well that's just perfect for the Romans. Oh those Ilians were so stupid, snicker snicker.

But for the Greeks, somehow it just does not jibe with two dozen chapters on armored warriors bludgeoning each other with blunt bronze swords in front of the city gates, when they could just have walked around to the back of the city where there were no city walls.

It does not matter at all if there were only a few lines in the Odyssey. The story of the horse was a big part of the myth from the very start, well before Virgil stole the story and invented the myth of Aeneas for political reasons
You might want to look at the archaeology too. Depictions of the horse appear on aryballoi and other vases from the archaic to the early ancient period right up to and beyond Virgil.
Virgil simply did not invent the story

https://www.ancientworldmagazine.com/articles/trojan-horse-from-mykonos/

https://theshieldofachilles.net/prologue/corinthian-aryballos-depicting-the-trojan-war-from-1887-jahrbuchdeskaiserich-1200x500/

It's also in Euripedes'Trojan Women.

the vase is good corroboration that there was some story, thank you, although its puzzling there appears to be another giant creature belonging to the opponents. I haven;t read that one of Euripides.

However it does not dilute my point. Even if it was not added later, the horse thing was not important to Homer or the Greeks, and I still believe the thing was a fabrication. in particular, because we know there were no stone walls on the back of Troy, only the front. The most there could have been was a wooden barricade, and no remnants of that were found either. You won't find much written about it, it's something you might have to see for yourself.

View of Troy. no wall in back.

The Troy of Homer does not exist.
There are many candidates for Troy on this site, but you cannot discover what is basically a fiction, based on events that may or may not have happened.
Read Odyssey bk 2 and tell me where all those ships came from.
Explain why Homer uses Bronze age and Iron age references. Why does his work point to the early Iron Age but there are references to boar's tusk helmets, and tower shields which were from a much earlier age. Why is the social relationships between the Basileis incompatible with Mycenean political structures.
Have you ever met a talking horse, seen arrows of disease; met any witches; seen Poseidon or any Cyclopses?

In a fantasy story you are allowed to have a fabrication. 90% of the story is fabrication and more to do with the politics of the late Archaic period than anything to do with a real battle.
Have you ever studied this seriously?