5 ms·
Maybe somehow it speeds up the system of evolution by keeping life expectancies shorter, thereby increasing turnover (death and new births)? I have no clue just
by lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Maybe somehow it speeds up the system of evolution by keeping life expectancies shorter, thereby increasing turnover (death and new births)? I have no clue just throwing that out there.
- srean 16y agoTo survive natural selection the gene must give the animal some reproductive advantage. I can understand that promoting longevity beyond the reproductive stage of one's life cycle affords no such benefit. But one still has to account for the fact that the lack of the gene appears to increase the survivability in the reproductive pahse as well. Something more must be going on.
- Tycho 16y agoPerhaps not having the ability to regenerate leads to more cautious behaviour, avoiding life threatening situations to a much greater extent? Puzzling...
- endtime 16y agoI don't think the ability to regenerate means that losing a limb doesn't hurt...
- bambax 16y ago> To survive natural selection the gene must give the animal some reproductive advantage. Most probably, but not necessarily. A gene can be present without being useful because it is linked to another gene that is itself useful; or it can be a leftover from an earlier moment of evolution where it was useful, and then it ceased to be useful but there was never an evolution pressure strong enough to have it disappear. In summary, just because a gene is present and active does not mean it's useful today.
- ckuehne 16y agoStrictly speaking, it must give the _gene_ a reproductive advantage, not necessarily the animal. Often, these two advantages are aligned. But they need not be. This is the case in kin altruism. And this is also, why "promoting longevity beyond the reproductive stage of one's life cycle" affords sometimes very much such benefits. Example: grandparents can help raising their children's children (and their children's children's children ;)). Kin altruism becomes even more apparent in ants (or other social animals). Worker ants or bees are pretty much infertile but they help a lot.
- btilly 16y agoIt should be noted that the difference is much more extreme for ants than it can be for mammals due to a genetic quirk where a female ant shares 50% of her genes with her children and 75% with her sisters. (Therefore having more sisters is better than having children.)
- ckuehne 16y agoStill there are mammals that live eusocial. The naked mole rat comes to mind.
- moozilla 16y agoNot necessarily. The mutation could have survived for any number of reasons including genetic drift. As long as it didn't kill the organism right away there wouldn't be significant negative pressure to get rid of it.
- DavidSJ 16y agoIndividual organisms don't work for "the system of evolution"'s benefit. They work for themselves.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoBut mammals do! They are social creatures. A social group that has more efficient food use due to turnover of injured members would be selected for.
- jessriedel 16y agoGroup-selection explanations are rarely correct.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoYet empirically the effect exists.