4 ms·

you are evidently unable to form a counterargument, so i can up make one for you: It is possible that evolution might have made it so that older people do not

you are evidently unable to form a counterargument, so i can up make one for you: It is possible that evolution might have made it so that older people do not have friends, so they die sooner and thus consume less resources from prime-age people. The older people are past their child-making age, so they can't affect future evolution in their favour. It's odd however that people did not complain about this until the latter half of the 20th century , or that men did not escape this fate (since men can have children even at old age). i do not back this up with any evidence though, since you 'd dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.

jamesrcole 8y ago
As I've already pointed out, you do not understand that evolution works on the level of genes not individuals. You're reiterating that ignorance here. Other parts of your really basic lack of understand of it is also demonstrated by your latest comment: - thinking that evolution works as if it had intention and foresight. - thinking that being past child-making age can't affect "future evolution in their favour" (this is a variation on the misunderstanding that evolution operates on individuals rather than genes). There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a topic, but there is with being so and acting like you know what you're taking about.
- zerostar07 8y ago
  The hypothesis holds in the population level as well: populations that evolved to disadvantage their older members might be more successful. I dont care if you keep insulting me to make your point, but for the sake of conversation, dont assume your assumptions are correct
  - jamesrcole 8y ago
    They're not intended as insults, they're intended as objective statements of fact that your understanding of evolution is based on misconceptions And BTW, this new comment of yours represents another elementary misunderstanding of evolution, that of assuming group selection (despite some contested arguments for specific cases of purported group selection, no one agrees with such naive group selection).

jamesrcole 8y ago

As I've already pointed out, you do not understand that evolution works on the level of genes not individuals. You're reiterating that ignorance here. Other parts of your really basic lack of understand of it is also demonstrated by your latest comment: - thinking that evolution works as if it had intention and foresight. - thinking that being past child-making age can't affect "future evolution in their favour" (this is a variation on the misunderstanding that evolution operates on individuals rather than genes). There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a topic, but there is with being so and acting like you know what you're taking about.

zerostar07 8y ago
The hypothesis holds in the population level as well: populations that evolved to disadvantage their older members might be more successful. I dont care if you keep insulting me to make your point, but for the sake of conversation, dont assume your assumptions are correct
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  They're not intended as insults, they're intended as objective statements of fact that your understanding of evolution is based on misconceptions And BTW, this new comment of yours represents another elementary misunderstanding of evolution, that of assuming group selection (despite some contested arguments for specific cases of purported group selection, no one agrees with such naive group selection).