3 ms·
That's a fair point about competing with the community. I was thinking of "parents" in aggregate, so the previous generation vs the next, but I didn't word it r
by hackinthebochs 6y ago
That's a fair point about competing with the community. I was thinking of "parents" in aggregate, so the previous generation vs the next, but I didn't word it right.
But if everyone lived longer than required, i.e. the minimum ideal for raising viable offspring, then this population stood to be out-competed by another population that aged at a more efficient rate. Individuals in a population aging at an optimal rate is an evolutionary advantage to the population.
- AnthonyMouse 6y agoThis might explain why genes for aging exist but doesn't really explain why genes for not aging don't exist. You could have a stable community where e.g. 15% of the population doesn't age and not run into community-level problems because they aren't that large of a percentage of the community, so where are they?
- hackinthebochs 6y agoHard to say. At least in the case of humans, high generational turnover might have been beneficial in our evolution from aquatic apes or whatever our ancestors were to modern humans. And so longevity genes were selected against. It might be the case that most species' environments are too dynamic for super longevity genes to be beneficial rather than faster population adaptation.