Which theory of species development do you agree with?
 

?

Why is there not a "don't care" option? The point is there are fuzzy animals all over the planet. That's enough of an explaination for me.

Don't vote if your opinion isn't listed. Then you write a reply to tell us what your unlisted opinion is.

It seems to me that you did that very well without instruction.

Do we REALLY need another topic on this? You know full well it's just going to end up as another argument (especially since Pinky's back), and I for one am sick of the same argument being repeated over and over again...

But, Dan! This one is different! It has a poll! A poll!

This poll wasn't designed to get a 'debate' about evolution Vs creationism started. It was designed to get a debate (I'm hoping for a debate rather than a 'debate') about selfish gene evolution Vs good of the species evolution started.

You'll have to explain the difference between "selfish gene evolution" and "good of the species evolution".

Selfish gene evolution is the theory that all genes are selfish and 'want' to be more plentiful in the gene pool, often at the expense of other genes.

Good of the species evolution is the theory that genes cooperate for the benefit of the whole species.

Nothing suggests that individual genes are selfish and "want" to be more plentiful - it all comes down to meiosis.

Genes being beneficial to a species' survival is incidental. Natural selection determines whether or not genes will help a species survive.

Hmmm... I suppose if the 'selfish Gene' thing was carried through,
important genes might be missed out because if they were in the minority, other genes might cancel em' out...

:fuzconf: :fuzconf: :sick:

Over my head....

All (maybe almost all) genes in a gene pool are selfish and 'want' their survival machine to pass on its genes, possibly at the expense of other genes.
If a gene is selfish then it will become more numerous in the gene pool than altruistic genes because the altruistic genes will let their survival machines die at the expense of other survival machines with different genes.
What about parental altruism towards children, you say? Parents pass on half of their genes to their children and children are often likely to have a longer reproductive expectancy than their parents. Therefore, if a parent were altruistic towards their child then half of the parent's genes would be passed on to the next generarion.

I'm rambling now. I hope that made sense...
Advice to everybody: read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It's an excellent book.



See, Dan? Selfish gene Vs good of the species.

I still say no good will come of this...

(Let's face it, the only reason Tom made this topic was to show off the new knowledge he's gained from this book... ;))