Kevin_Uxbridge

Kevin_Uxbridge t1_j9iuy46 wrote

Probably lots of moving about the landscape. Land tenure is something we know precious little about for our ancestors but it's reasonable to assume that covering ground can be advantageous generally.

Also, the image of early hominids running pell-mell after game presupposes some things about the world they lived in. Running down prey would, for instance, likely catch the attention of the local predator guild, who might be just as likely to steal your now-weary prey and kill you too. On the face of it, human cursorial hunting sounds ludicrously dangerous in most circumstances. The endurance hunting guys have no real answer to this.

6

Kevin_Uxbridge t1_ivf9ztk wrote

> That "genome cost" only exists when considering the individual.

A genome is the makeup of an individual, and can only be understood as such. Population genetics is the spread of genes but the mechanism, by necessity, acts on individuals with the genes. Your genes could be said to 'not care about you particularly' except as a vehicle for themselves, just as your genes in you don't give a crap about 'the species' except how it impacts your personal genome.

Not sure what you mean that evolution 'caters to the whole species'. Its effects can only be seen in these terms but the mechanism shapes the behavior of individuals to act on their own behalf. Sometimes this benefits the whole species, often it doesn't. That's just selection for you.

13

Kevin_Uxbridge t1_ivdeea4 wrote

Worth mentioning, this is also one of the stronger explanations for why sex exists at all. Reproducing sexually comes at a huge cost to your genome, as only half your genes will go into any particular offspring. A staggering cost evolutionarily, so why is it worth it? Because mixing your genome with others is a good way to keep pace with the many parasites trying to make a living off you. If it's either lose 50% or die, pay up.

312