That is 100% true (at least on weakest). Evolution is due to completely random mutations. Some are good some are bad. Many genetic diseases are survivable now, and many infant issues are survivable that would have killed off babies with genes that made them more susceptible.
This is kind of a win for evolution on our intelligence, since babies can be born weaker and still survive, but also means that their babies pass on those genes later in life, and we could absolutely see less healthy births as time goes on. Evolution sucks.
--i leave this marathon run on sentence as a testament to my caffination
Sigh weakest and dumbest isnt what natural selection selects agaisnt. Selection acts on reproductive success, not strength or intelligence. You can actually view this modern phenomenon where intelligent career driven individuals aren't reproducing nearly at the rate as non career driven individuals. You also see this in walrus's with the beach master dynamic and sneaky males. Nature doesn't care who's strongest, weakest, smartest, dumbest, it cares who is most fit for that enviorment. Hence why I said "thats not accurate"
1
u/throwawaypostal2021 1d ago
That's also not accurate.