Selection at the gene level does not imply that the phenotype does what is "good for the genes" necessarily.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. From the genetic copy perspective, I agree that we're not changing much. (I've never taken
-
-
the position that this is inherently a bad choice).
-
I might say that it takes two people of the new group to equal the same genetic interest you had in one person of your ethnic group
-
(but we're also assuming that we're simply spreading the copies more thinly among more people)
-
The point is that a race can disappear without reducing the fitness of its individuals or genes.
-
Your idea of "genetic interest" is not an implication of evolutionary theory, because you didn't evolve to act in your "genetic interest".
-
You evolved to reproduce, not to act for the good of your genes (whatever that means). Reproduction is the basis of selection.
-
If you think about the genes you share with others, you share most of your genome with all vertebrates.
-
I think you share about 25% of your genes with a sea cucumber. Would you kill your child to save 5 sea cucumbers? No.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.