Hacker News Reader

Comment by gpsx | Hacker News Reader

Yes - in order to have a change be that fast it would have to be something that makes those people dramatically better at surviving, like X-men type mutations, or reproducing. I don't think the change of this blood vessel is really turning the tables between survival and death, or making these people that much more successful at reproducing. But with the prevalence of online dating these days, maybe it is a big help by allow people to navigate faster? /s

View on HN

A mutation will also stick around if it doesn't prevent the person from reproducing.

That can still be considered evolution even if it doesn't provide an obvious benefit.

Just to clarify, the parent comment was stating that for a change (read: evolution) to be that _fast_, it would have to help either survivability or reproduction. In other words, increasing survivability or reproduction speeds up a mutation's proliferation throughout the species.

> makes those people dramatically better at surviving

Better at reproducing. Death after reproduction has much less effect on evolution than death before reproduction.

It is unfortunate that it is so often misstated (I am guessing you already know the difference, but I want to clarify it for those who are not so aware). As an aside, I think the article is complete and utter bollocks.

I am guessing this is misstated because so often lack of survival is the reason there is less reproduction. But yes, it comes down to who passes their genetic material to the most offspring.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com