I should add that selection based on culture (love, pre-arranged weddings etc) rather than fitness also does not help evolution.
Your definition of "fitness" is not the Darwinian definition. It sounds, in fact, more like the pseudo-Darwinian conceit that "fitness" means the ability to kill or resist being killed. When Darwin said "survival", he didn't mean "last person on the island", he meant that the species in question had found a niche where its population would be stable.
Survivability comes in many forms. Some, like tigers are primarily solitary. Some, like herd animals, depend on the group. We have ample evidence these days that in many cases, survivability (in the Darwinian sense), can come even from relatives who never directly contribute DNA to the continuation of the species.
Love as a primarily positive evolutionary trait can be debated, although certainly being unlovable isn't going to afford many non-violent ways to swim in the gene pool. Pre-arranged weddings, on the other hand, can make the difference between a tribe being exterminated or being able to ally itself with other tribes. Systems of laws and mores can ensure that the unlovable whose sole means of propagation is rape will be taken out of circulation relatively quickly.
Social structures as evolutionary forces are not unique to the human race. But they are a powerful contributor. If we went strictly on kill or be killed based on physical fitness, we probably wouldn't have produced a Stephen Hawking.
Source: http://rss.slashdot.org/~r/Slashdot/slashdotScience/~3/qa3a5hX1muw/story01.htm
total eclipse of the heart jionni lavalle earthquake san francisco donald payne elizabeth berkley lenny dykstra jenelle evans
No comments:
Post a Comment