I’m not saying every person that believes in evolution believes in this fallacy, but I’ll explain what it is.
When ever there is a mass death event, like a plague or a natural disaster, it is considered, in this fallacy, a good thing, because the weak inferior creatures die out and only the strongest are left.
In real life, having a large amount of one species means there is less chances of extinction. Also large numbers mean more genetic diversity.
Mass death events are pretty indescriminent too. Maybe sometimes it kills the weak, but it can also kill the strong and healthy creatures.
There is also this issue, let’s say there is a plague. One group has a better sense of smell, but also a weaker immune system, another group has a stronger immune system, but less sense of smell.
If the plague kills the ones with a better sense of smell, it means that one form of strength is destroyed only because a different form of strength was absent.
Humans are not very strong or sensitive compared to animals, but that does not mean they all need to be wiped out, or that they need some kind of mass death event.
That wont fix the issue.
A plague is not good. But, nonetheless diseases do tend to kill the old and the weak, leaving the most virile and strong.
That is not to say that this is the "purpose’ of a pandemic, epidemic, or of diseases.
I recognise the fallacy of which you speak: a sort of biological theodicy.
There is no doubt that generally we’d all be better off without any disease at all.
For every molecular structure, there is a disease. As a species is altered to counter one disease, it becomes more susceptible to another. Eventually the species is no longer that species. The species dies out from constantly changing adversaries. So by intentionally trying to strengthen a species via diseases, one is actually only choosing in what manner the species is to be replaced.
Humans function like an ongoing set of plagues for many other species. This likely has benefited some species, like rats and certain insects that live on humans or in their homes. Some of these creatures are really getting rather hardy, despite and partly because of efforts to wipe them out. Other creatures are not doing as well. Further there are diseases that affect the strong more than the weak. Killing off the old does next to nothing evolutionarily - except whatever cultural effects these people might have had. We also may suffer, or many members of the species may suffer since certain traits that defended against a certain plague may be disadvantageous when there is no plague. Some scientists Think that diabetes may have given an advantage during the last extreme ice age, the ice age functioning like a plague. There are other diseases and conditions that arose for short periods of time like this also.
Killing off the old alters the understanding and attitudes of the young and thus strongly affects evolution. That is the whole purpose of creating the “generation gap”, the dissonance between old and young. It is a large part of the manipulation of “evolution”, “manevolution”.
Without our intelligence we would be nothing. Literally. We wouldn’t exist. We’re too physically inept to fight off predators without intelligent cooperation, weapon-making etc. We’d be walking meat.
Natural Selection is NOT intentional.
Species do not change TO avoid a disease. Species change because members susceptible to that disease perish, leaving the naturally immune or resistant varieties.
Actually we can outrun most animals, but it takes up to half a day. Obviously beating many of the bigger ones in sprints, but we could run down a wide range of animals. All the brains we would need over baboons and other animals, like wolves, that can work in teams, is to PLAN to use sticks to kill those food animals at the end of the hunt. Even other primates will hit things with sticks or stones on occasion, but you have to plan ahead. But as atheletes were have a very solid skill as long distance runners and this may have been why Neanderthal genes only live on in us. They were stronger, likely as smart, and there is now evidence they likely had language. But they were not good runners.
The writer of this article 1) does not understand the concept of Natural Selection, 2) is expressing what he himself calls a “controversial” theory.
I’ll go into detail if you like, but 1) is proved on line one.
PS- I had to do the detail…
This article is the most idiotic expression of a biologically deterministic theodicy.
The first mistake is the inference that humans somehow came up with the idea of having a higher blood sugar level IN ORDER TO avoid freezing. That is banal to say the least. The second is the unwarranted implication that ice-age humans even had diabetes for which there is not a scrap of evidence. Next there is the fact that Neanderthals had braved sub-zero temperatures 100s of thousands of years before the emergence of modern humans by wearing skins from predated animals. Why we had to invent a life-threatening disease to do the same is beyond reason.
For natural selection to be invoked a pre-existing trait without a population would have to provide sufficient advantage in reproduction success to have that trait become more common. In other words those without diabetes would have to die, or have fewer children at least, and those with diabetes would have significantly more progeny.
This is highly unlikely prima-facie, and would have to have a great deal of supporting evidence which as far as I know completely absent. Diabetes is a seriously debilitating disease which, if left untreated, can often result in the death of the teenagers who suffer from it.
This risible theory is one example amongst many that bring the whole notion of natural selection into disrepute; most of which are to be found in the gutter press (is there any other sort?), though some seek the attention of naive research giving bodies who also have a limited understanding of NS, and provide wet-behind-the-ears graduate students the cash to get their (not worth the paper they are printed on) PhDs.
People don’t actually freeze. Rather their body temperature drops to the point where organs don’t function. Preventing ice crystal formation does not save them.
The article writer may have a poor sense of natural selection and thus worded things teleologically - this is common, even amongst scientists when not Writing papers for peer Review - but the scientists involved is suggesting diabetes may have been beneficial do understand natural selection. Further the idea should NOT be at all strange that traits that function well in one set of environmental conditions, and thus get passed on there/then, may be detrimental (or the detrimental facets outweigh the beneficial) in other environmental conditions. The mutation that can lead to sickle cell anemia was also protective against maleria. To me the specifics do not matter. It is still at a hypothetical stage with the diabetes having positive attributes in Cold Environments. It is past the hypothetical stage with other conditions. My Point was that negative outside factors, like plagues, need not make humans stronger. If you Think this idea in general is incredible, iow you are incredulous, then perhaps you do not understand natural selection.
UM, how is being able to hunt down game not relevent? How is endurance not a positive, physical trait?
My Point was not that humans could beat up all the other animals. But we had a strength that gave us an advantage over a wide range of animals we could and did eat. And some tribal hunters still do spend a day bringing down large better sprinter animals.
Sure the average city dweller plopped into a wilderness with large predators not afraid of humans would have a hell of time. Though generally not because they would be prey, but rather because they likely do not have the endurance or knowhow. Knowhow at a level a whole range of other species without our cortexes have in relation to their own bodies and food sources.