>A gene that sacrifices itself to allow unrelated others to thrive a little longer, is no longer a "selfish" gene
I know. Thats why I added "But the more repsectable possibility" after that. Any comments on that conclusion?
My point was that while you make a good case, its not the only plausible one.
Thank you for resuming the thread, BTW.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only