In article <jaboweryCqLzAL.9x at netcom.com>,
jabowery at netcom.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
>abubu at aol.com (ABUBU) writes:
>>The basic answer is that the "unit of selection" is not the
>individual, but the "gene". Genes are already "immortal" so
>there is no inherent selective advantage for increasing the longevity
>of the bodies carrying them.
But why wouldn't an older, more experienced animal be a better parent?
In wild animals, who generally die of unnatural causes, the effect
would be marginal but even a marginal postive is selected for by
evolution if there isn't a delitorious side-effect.