Chimps \'r\' not us: the role of gene enhancers (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, February 03, 2018, 01:09 (2487 days ago) @ dhw

DAVID: Exactly my point. Highly complex humans have made tremendous improvements, none of which were required for survivability. We are more complex than necessary. Raup reminded us survivability was related mainly to bad luck, not Darwin's competition between species.

dhw: Your point is exactly the opposite of mine! According to you, all our advances in medicine, in methods of acquiring food, in protecting ourselves against the climate and against our enemies have nothing to do with survivability. We are not talking about the causes of extinction, but about survivability being what you call a “minor evolutionary issue” and “of no issue to the Homo branch”.

I'm discussing survivability as it relates to the overall process of evolution, not individual survival which the point you are attempting to make. Back to Raup's point of bad luck. Competition for resources is a point to consider, but does it cause mutations that advance evolution. I strongly doubt it, as it represents more bad luck.

dhw: Now you tell me that the Homo branch spent 270,000 years focusing on nothing but survivability! And I point out to you that survivability is still the main issue for Homo today, but you don’t want to discuss that either. So when was survivability of no issue for the Homo branch?

DAVID: I'm discussing survivability at a different thought level than yours. It is a minor evolutionary driving force, but a daily individual human concern.

dhw: It is and always was a daily individual concern for all species, and it is the absolute priority for all. If you want to confine the discussion to human evolution, you keep telling us that for millions of years until 30,000 years ago every single advance was confined to the purpose of survival, so how can you say that it was a minor or even no issue as a driving force. According to you it was the only issue!

You are still discussing survival at the individual level, and I'm not. I'm knocking down 'survival of the fitest' as a concept supporting Darwin. It doesn't, but sounds good on the surface. What survives lives to evolve, but what survives doesn't tell us what drives evolution. See the difference?