It doesn’t make sense to focus on only one organism. Natural selection is a stochastic process.
Genes that don’t help the only organism that carry it get doublicated all the time.
A random gene on the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan that didn’t have strong effects would now be carried by millions of people without the gene being responsible for it.
BTW, I was just browsing JSTOR and saw this:
Life history, habitat saturation and the evolution of fecundity and survival altruism. S. Lion and S. Gandon, Evolution, v. 64 n. 6 (2010), pp. 1594-1606. If you would like to, I could relate the substance (it is a tiny bit inconvenient for me to do right now, or I would have.)
Technically true, but irrelevant in the scenario when there is yet only one organism having the gene. Kill the organism and the gene is gone.
It doesn’t make sense to focus on only one organism. Natural selection is a stochastic process. Genes that don’t help the only organism that carry it get doublicated all the time.
A random gene on the Y chromosome of Genghis Khan that didn’t have strong effects would now be carried by millions of people without the gene being responsible for it.
BTW, I was just browsing JSTOR and saw this: Life history, habitat saturation and the evolution of fecundity and survival altruism. S. Lion and S. Gandon, Evolution, v. 64 n. 6 (2010), pp. 1594-1606. If you would like to, I could relate the substance (it is a tiny bit inconvenient for me to do right now, or I would have.)