> Suggesting that the creatures will conspire to die and make room for their offspring suggests that the anthropomorphized idea of species is causing faulty assumptions about the nature of the subject to be held, and that the metaphor should be discarded as detrimental to understanding.
I wasn't suggesting that, nor was anyone else. I really think you're reading too much into it. I'm merely suggesting, the rather obvious thought that you and everyone else here probably understands, that a group of animals where the weak and old die to make way for the new (obviously not in a self-sacrofice way, but just how the animals are) will probnably be more successful, on average, that a group of animals where the old very slowly, or indeed even never, die.
Now, I apologise that the use of language "evolution is not interested in this outcome" caused such confusion.
I apologize for being so gung-ho in my attack on your original comment. The criticism really wasn't worth the paragraphs I poured into it. I think it struck a chord because I somewhat recently read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" and I, as many holders of a head full of fresh new ideas are wont to do, swung them like a hammer at the first thing that might, in a particular light, from a particular angle, look like a nail.
I wasn't suggesting that, nor was anyone else. I really think you're reading too much into it. I'm merely suggesting, the rather obvious thought that you and everyone else here probably understands, that a group of animals where the weak and old die to make way for the new (obviously not in a self-sacrofice way, but just how the animals are) will probnably be more successful, on average, that a group of animals where the old very slowly, or indeed even never, die.
Now, I apologise that the use of language "evolution is not interested in this outcome" caused such confusion.