Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!!

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (33605)	4/2/1999 3:33:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (1) of 108807

I disagree. I think his point is very well-taken. We know that the direction of evolution is ultimately impacted by only one thing -- how many breeding individuals (on a proportionate basis) are left in the succeeding generation. Nature exhibits two breeding strategies for accomplishing this end: increase fecundity (have lots and lots of kids), or increase survival rates (fewer kids but more survive). You see this in pioneer populations where the initial strategy is fecundity, and it later switches to survival. And the reason should be clear. As populations grow, so does competition for scarce resources (food, shelter etc). These issues have been studied for over a hundred years in excruciating detail in everything from fruit flies to fishes, from trees to birds, and from protozoans to primates. When I wish to select for a mutation I must provide it with a selective advantage or it will be simply swamped out. There are any number of ways this can be done, but sitting around passively is not one of them, and that is the point of the article. TTFN, CTC

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next