Life span and evolution

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...Clearly a limited life span has greater benefit to a collective species than not. ....

in what sense has 'greater benefit' to a species as a whole? (is that what you are saying? if not, clarify... ) Example?
And given that natural selection works to adapt for maximizing reproductive success, not necessarily for and often not for 'greater benefit' of a species as a whole, it would have no relevance to how evolution works even if, in some sense, individuals having a shorter life span has 'greater benefit' to a species as a whole.
Evolution doesn't directly work to necessarily adapt a species for survival as a whole but rather works on the gene level which partly explains why some species happen to evolve to have traits that make the species as a whole more prone to extinction; it is because those same traits help with chances of individual reproductive success.

Without it change (for survival) would be stunted in certain ways.

in what ways would individuals having longer life spans "change (for survival) would be stunted in certain ways" and how would that effect what natural selection selects for? Example?
Your 'theory' doesn't make any sense because you don't explain anything.

Originally posted by humy
in what sense has 'greater benefit' to a species as a whole? (is that what you are saying? if not, clarify... ) Example?
And given that natural selection works to adapt for maximizing reproductive success, not necessarily for and often not for 'greater benefit' of a species as a whole, it would have no relevance to how evolution works even if, in some sense, i ...[text shortened]... selects for? Example?
Your 'theory' doesn't make any sense because you don't explain anything.

Species select for average traits. Attractive women have average traits, but average changes because of natural selection for survival.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...I think life span is limited for a reason. My theory is that it helps evolutionary progress and that is the advantage. Unlimited life spans would hinder long term progress.

How would some individuals having longer life spans "hinder long term progress" and, given that natural selection only works to adapt for greater reproductive success at the g ...[text shortened]... me some individuals having longer life spans because of this hindrance to this "long term progress"?
Your 'theory' doesn't explain anything.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Species select for average traits. Attractive women have average traits, but average changes because of natural selection for survival.

Species select for average traits.

not necessarily. Why should that be?

Attractive women have average traits

not necessarily. Why should that be?
Some people find that what they find as 'attractive' women are those with abnormally large breasts; certainly not 'average' at all.

... but average changes because of natural selection for survival.

that statement doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by humy
How would some individuals having longer life spans "hinder long term progress" and, given that natural selection only works to adapt for greater reproductive success at the g me some individuals having longer life spans because of this hindrance to this "long term progress"?
Your 'theory' doesn't explain anything.

Just imagine a species that has an unlimited life span. It lives very long and still reproduces, but what is average for a very old individual might be different for a young individual. What good is an old bird that finds a stubby wing attractive. Flying might be hindered. How about an early human that finds hunchbacks attractive? Wouldn't upright stature take longer?

Originally posted by humy

Species select for average traits.

not necessarily. Why should that be?

Attractive women have average traits

not necessarily. Why should that be?
Some people find that what they find as 'attractive' women are those with abnormally large breasts; certainly not 'average' at all.

... but average changes because of natural selection for survival.

that statement doesn't make any sense.

Some traits are selected for because they aid reproduction, like feeding a child. Others for signs of health, but average is sexy. Average increases the chances of survival too.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Just imagine a species that has an unlimited life span. It lives very long and still reproduces, but what is average for a very old individual might be different for a young individual. What good is an old bird that finds a stubby wing attractive. Flying might be hindered. How about an early human that finds hunchbacks attractive? Wouldn't upright stature take longer?

What good is an old bird that finds a stubby wing attractive.

why would an old bird be more likely to favor stubby wings than a young bird? How long the bird lives has nothing to do with that.

How about an early human that finds hunchbacks attractive?

why would an an early human be more likely to find hunchbacks attractive than later humans?

Originally posted by humy

What good is an old bird that finds a stubby wing attractive.

why would an old bird be more likely to favor stubby wings than a young bird? How long the bird lives has nothing to do with that.

How about an early human that finds hunchbacks attractive?

why would an an early human be more likely to find hunchbacks attractive than later humans?

They are just hypothetical examples. You find women attractive because they have mostly average traits. Look into it. I don't have time right now. My children's mother died in a car crash last night.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Some traits are selected for because they aid reproduction, like feeding a child. Others for signs of health, .

For once you said something that is actually factually correct.
but then you spoil it with;-

but average is sexy.

not necessarily and often not.
If that was true, peacock feathers wouldn't have evolved.
Peacocks must have an ancestor with an 'average' tail feathers of 'average' length and then evolved to find longer tail feathers more attractive and then sex selection evolved those tail feathers to deviate from what used to be that 'average'.

Average increases the chances of survival too.

again, not necessarily and often not.
If that was true, new traits that deviate from what used to be the average would never have evolved and no new species would evolve. How do you explain how, say, legs evolved from an animal with no legs when 'average' used to mean no legs for that ancestral species?

Originally posted by humy
For once you said something that is actually factually correct.
but then you spoil it with;-

but average is sexy.

not necessarily and often not.
If that was true, peacock feathers wouldn't have evolved.

Average increases the chances of survival too.

again, not necessarily and often not.
If that was true, now traits th ...[text shortened]... viate from what used to be the average would never have evolved and no new species would evolve.

I stated the exceptions. Peacock feathers indicate good health. I don't have time to lecture you about facts.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I stated the exceptions.

these 'exceptions' are numerous and generic and show you are wrong. Those 'exceptions' are the rule; evolution works only directly on the gene level, not directly on the whole species level, for maximizing chances of reproductive success of genes, not necessarily traits for survival or greater adaptation of the species as a whole.
There is no evidence or reason to think that evolution favors, with all else being equal, 'average' traits in particular over those that aren't 'average'.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You find women attractive because they have mostly average traits. .

if that is true, and I don't think it is, it still wouldn't support your 'theory'. There are huge numbers of people that are attractive to woman that have a trait that isn't 'average', such as extra large breasts etc.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Unlimited life spans would hinder long term progress.

Nonsense. Why would evolution care about long term progress?

If you were immortal, you could sire thousands of immortal children, and it wouldn't take long before your family conquered the world.

A given life form fills a niche, usually. If they don't die off from old age then the niche is overrun and the species dies off. So telemere caps are selected to be weak?

Originally posted by humy
these 'exceptions' are numerous and generic and show you are wrong. Those 'exceptions' are the rule; evolution works only directly on the gene level, not directly on the whole species level, for maximizing chances of reproductive success of genes, not necessarily traits for survival or greater adaptation of the species as a whole.
There is no evidence or reaso ...[text shortened]... ors, with all else being equal, 'average' traits in particular over those that aren't 'average'.

You are wrong.

https://realdoctorstu.com/2011/03/16/the-science-of-attraction-what-makes-a-beautiful-face/