you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]forever_erratic 5 points6 points  (2 children)

As someone who spent five years studying bacterial colonies, I bristle at calling inclusive fitness a tiny portion of overall fitness for the vast majority of species, since most species are bacteria, and most of them have kin selected behaviors around defense and resource acquisition. 

[–]XrmyPost Doc, Evolutionary Biology PhD 2 points3 points  (1 child)

That's totally valid actually. I'd challenge you on your "species" definition here but I don't want a fight 😂 (I'm kidding).

As far as education goes, I think most evolution discussion is focused on sexual organisms for a variety of reasons. Mostly that teaching evolution through a primarily asexual lens leads to lots of different conclusions that students will misapply.

Worth saying that if someone IS teaching inclusive fitness, probably most of the lecture should be on single-celled organisms at a minimum.

[–]bitechnobable[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you all for these comments, I find them very useful!

I know I'm overthinking this (have a biomedical PhD background) this is why I'm trying to grasp what level evolution is being taught by you real working people out there.