2 ms·
I don't really get the distinction. I do get your point but x% of a species needing glasses is a species level error. And our entire species was susceptible to
by AlecSchueler 4y ago
I don't really get the distinction. I do get your point but x% of a species needing glasses is a species level error. And our entire species was susceptible to things like smallpox before we had vaccines for that stuff.
- Retric 4y agoThe threshold where kids “need glasses” isn’t the same threshold where people would be unable to survive in the wild without them. Also, species level survival is based around fairly large families you see before birth control. Not everyone needs to make it.
- AlecSchueler 4y agoThat's the point though: we have much better infant mortality rate now, and the kids who grow up don't need to worry about their eyesight etc., ergo we're doing better than evolution alone.
- Retric 4y agoBetter by our own yardstick, but evolution can get plenty of people to adulthood without any medical issues. A frog egg would presumably prefer an evolutionary strategy that involved fewer eggs and a more caring parent. However, the willingness to fail allows for more long term flexibility. Which is presumably why many species place their young in an immediate live or death struggle with their siblings.