Replies

If you're not going to consider mutations and genetic recombination, then you're not even talking about evolution.

It is pretty simple. You jumped into a conversation that I was having with RWP(see post 130). He stated that I needed to reproduce in order to pass on my genes. That is not true. My genes exist in my parents. There is a "unique" combination of those genes that belong to me, however the genes exist apart from me. That is a fact and is clear. This was in discussing what was more important for survival, surviving or reproducing. In the case of humans you have to survive in order to reproduce. The individual does not have to survive in order for a particular gene to be passed on. I think that is pretty much a tenet of Darwinian evolution. The tendency for a gene to be passed on is a determining factor, not whether a particular individual survives/reproduces or not.

"There is a "unique" combination of those genes that belong to me, however the genes exist apart from me."

Your combination of genes is just as important, and is just as much what "your genes" refers to as the individual genes themselves. You probably have some traits that neither your mother nor father has, which may or may not give you an advantage in survival.

My truck is more than just it's parts. If it is taken apart and it's pieces scattered, it is no longer my truck, even if it's individual parts survive.

The individual does not have to survive in order for a particular gene to be passed on.

That might be true were it not for mutations. But since you do not appear to accept the existence of mutations, you may go on living in a fantasy world. Evolution is not really about recombination. It is about novelty and selection.