3 ms·
But could this work with a non-Lamarkian explanation: say most people would smoke, some of them have a random mutation which makes them resistant to it, so they
by lkozma 16y ago
But could this work with a non-Lamarkian explanation: say most people would smoke, some of them have a random mutation which makes them resistant to it, so they would be more likely to have children and care for them, so the trait would become more common in next generation. Isn't it just darwinian adaptation then?
- loewenskind 16y agoExcept people rarely die before breeding age from smoking (ever?), so no effect.
- anamax 16y ago> Except people rarely die before breeding age from smoking (ever?), so no effect. Grandparents provide some survival and family size benefits.
- gnubardt 16y agowith the stigma placed on smoking in many societies smoking could in fact inhibit ones ability to breed (or at least influence it).
- loewenskind 16y agoExcept that the heaviest smokers are often found in the lower classes who also breed more than their rich and middle class comrades.
- lkozma 16y agoI guess in older times even dying long after breeding could have had an effect: not being able to look after children => less chance of survival of children carrying same gene. You are right that in modern society this effect is not so powerful probably, but if we take this reasoning forward, it could mean that diseases of old age will be more and more prevalent as there is no selection pressure for defense against them. Is this happening already?