3 ms·
The problem with that kind of evolutionary argument is that it requires the product of that creativity to impart a reproductive advantage to the creator and the
by JeremyBanks 8y ago
The problem with that kind of evolutionary argument is that it requires the product of that creativity to impart a reproductive advantage to the creator and their close relatives. However, creations are often easily copied, producing a broader benefit that negates the evolutionary advantage. It's not impossible, but it's a tricky thing to argue.
- smaddox 8y agoA more complete analysis requires taking into account that epigenetics can allow such traits to be deactivated in most individuals and that humans are an extremely social species. These details combine to make natural selection of such complex traits both possible and beneficial to the social group.
- tabtab 8y agoThat's pretty much what I was going to reply: Being beneficial to an individual and being beneficial to a particular gene are not always the same thing. Having a particular gene in a population may be a net benefit to the group (and gene) even if it could hinder a specific individual under certain gene combinations or societal conditions. As an example, an individual who likes tinkering with weapons instead of socializing may come up with a novel weapon modification. That individual may die earlier than average due to lack-luster social skills, but the improved weapon makes the tribe thrive and grow, spreading the gene that made the weapon-obsessed individual, which was probably already in the population.
- posix_compliant 8y ago> creations are often easily copied Unless they aren't. > that negates the evolutionary advantage Unless it doesn't. Not only are you speculating, but you're making blanket statements within your speculations.
- JeremyBanks 8y agoPer POSIX you are expected to produce no output.