I wrote:
>The key word here is "most." Successful evolution occurs even when only a
>very few individuals die before reproduction due to genetic un-fitness to
>new, persistent behaviors or changes in environment. Theoretically there
>could be one circumstance where your argument would apply, and that is if
>*absolutely no one* is killed prior to reproduction due to the new
>behavior. But for this to apply, one would have to argue that diseases
>which eventually kill after reproduction have absolutely no prior
>cumulative detrimental effects whatsoever that might also kill some
>individuals before the reproductive years.
Something else I forgot here: Actually, even were this exceptional
theoretical case to occur, it does not automatically mean that evolution
will be obstructed. Even if *no* individuals die prior to reproduction,
evolution is still highly likely, because what matters is not deaths but
births, i.e., fertility. So long as fertility is adversely affected even in
the slightest by changes in food or behavior or environment (i.e., you
leave behind fewer descendants), you will still get a selective effect that
leads to successful adaptation to the new circumstances.
To give a silly example unrelated to food, say you have bad breath and
fewer people of the opposite sex will mate with you because of it. It's "so
long sucker" for the future of whatever of your genes leads to your bad
breath in the long run. :-) Hello Binaca! :-) (Actually, there is a whole
sub-branch of evolutionary theory that deals with successful mating as a
prime mover in evolutionary adaptation and success--i.e., alpha males,
fertile females, success at winning mates, etc.)
--Ward Nicholson <[log in to unmask]> Wichita, KS
|