Hacker News Reader

Differentiating between natural and sexual selection feels pretty hand wavy to me (also not a biologist.)

Your hot-guy rockstar example perfectly illustrates how sexual selection is natural selection. If something is super attractive but also interferes with breeding, it’s not going to have a lasting impact on a species (if it’s genetic).

What’s the fitness here of the tooth-horn?

View on HN

If you're a rockstar and have 3 kids by 22 it doesn't matter if you die at 22, 24 or 98. You propagated your genes and been more successful than the average man (that only has 2 offspring). Survival that does not lead to reproduction is pointless from an evolutionary perspective.

BTW they also use their tusks to hunt/stun fish: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/05/drone-footage-na...

My understanding is that the definition of evolution is the changing of statistics of phenotype/genotype in a population. So, how many children you have is just one way to measure your influence. How many grandchildren would be another, and note that you could have children without any of them having children. If you influence anyone that shares some of your genes, then you're not "pointless from an evolutionary perspective". If you save your cousin from drowning, you've increased the probability of genes you share of being passed on. If you invent chemical fertilizer that allows billions of people to be fed, you have massively influenced the propagation of many of the genes you share. If you help develop policy or a political movement that affects how disabled people are treated, that's not outside of evolution. Etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com