> It finds the Alzheimer's gene less in 70 year olds, because those with the gene are more likely to have died earlier, and thus not appear in the study.
So wouldn't the study be: "Those carrying genetic disease have a tendency to die early(er)"? What does evolution have to do with it?
BTW, it's perfectly possible for a gene to be wildly successful from the evolutionary point of view, while at the same time killing its owner invariably by the age of 50. How would this study have classified such a gene?
So wouldn't the study be: "Those carrying genetic disease have a tendency to die early(er)"? What does evolution have to do with it?
BTW, it's perfectly possible for a gene to be wildly successful from the evolutionary point of view, while at the same time killing its owner invariably by the age of 50. How would this study have classified such a gene?