(but we're also assuming that we're simply spreading the copies more thinly among more people)
-
-
Replying to @HbdNrx @RiversofBlood68
The point is that a race can disappear without reducing the fitness of its individuals or genes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your idea of "genetic interest" is not an implication of evolutionary theory, because you didn't evolve to act in your "genetic interest".
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
You evolved to reproduce, not to act for the good of your genes (whatever that means). Reproduction is the basis of selection.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
If you think about the genes you share with others, you share most of your genome with all vertebrates.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think you share about 25% of your genes with a sea cucumber. Would you kill your child to save 5 sea cucumbers? No.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Suppose you had children with a Chinese woman, so that you shared more genes with a random white person than your own child.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Do you think you would kill your child to save a random white person? No, of course not. Because you were selected to reproduce.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PoisonAero @RiversofBlood68
That is an interesting example that does happen. A person's multiracial kids might be less similar to someone than random white kids, but
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
people obviously do favor their own kids, even the multiracial ones.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
But is not necessarily actually adaptive, in the mathematical sense--it's a consequence of the fact that 99% of the time your own kids are
-
-
actually closer.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like - 3 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.