3 ms·
There could absolutely be an evolutionary advantage to genes that kill some % of individuals, depending on who/when/where/why, since genes also work at the spec
by Brian_K_White 3y ago
There could absolutely be an evolutionary advantage to genes that kill some % of individuals, depending on who/when/where/why, since genes also work at the species and even ecosystem level, not just the individual level. Just like there are genes to kill individual cells.
- jncfhnb 3y agoSure But not in the immediate short term of failing organs. Those are unhandled exception errors
- Brian_K_White 3y agoYou lack imagination. A failing organ could absolutely be genetically evolved to fail in a given set of conditions.
- jncfhnb 3y agoA vital organ could be designed to fail. It’s incredibly unlikely that the side effects of this vital organ failing, which almost inevitably leads to death, are advantageously evolved. There’s no gameplan for the headless chicken.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoYes, they are advantageously evolved, just like programmed cell death, because that is more advantageous than cancer. Evolution doesn't just work on the individual and simple level.
- awb 3y agoThis is true, but I also find it hard to believe that everything in nature is intentional towards a positive evolutionary outcome. For example: sharks being incapacitated when they’re flipped upside down, or any number of genetic diseases. It looks more like something that nature hasn’t optimized yet rather than something beneficial to the species.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoNo one said intentional. Nothing about the process requires anything like intention or purpose. The process is nothing more than "That which works, works." That's it. Even "works" isn't a value judged or decided by anyone, it's just what happens, or doesn't happen.