True, however I felt that the phrase "lifestyle and diet" was little vague, and if fact not what I was getting at. It was my opinion that the environment shaped the people of the devoloping/under developed countries to be more resistant to auto-immune/cancerous diseases, and not so much their lifestyle or diet, although thier lifestyle and diet are affected by their envionment just as their health is.
Parasitism is a form of Symbiosis. Symbiosis is where two organisms work together in some fashion; usually it is involved in the lifecycle of the species involved. Symbiosis is sometimes confused with Mutualism, which is a type of Symbiosis; when if fact there are three type:
The first and most commonly known type of symbiosis is Mutualism. This is where both species benefit. The second is Commensalism where one benefits and one neither benefits nor is harmed. And the last and sometimes part of a misconception is: Parasitism. This is a form of Symbiosis; it is where one species benefits but one is harmed.
Some examples of Mutualism are bacteria in some plants (like pea plants) that make nitrogen and the plant "feeds" the bacteria sugar. One of Commensalism is the fish that holds onto a shark and eats the leftover food when a shark is done, it benefits, but does not help or harm the shark. And Parasitism is something like a parasitic worm or a parasitic bacteria/pathogen.
I think that people in developing or under-developed coutries are exposed to more diseases and pathogens more ofton than people are in other coutries. This could mean: (1) they don't live to the ages where cancer and related diseases are more likely to happen, and/or (2) the ones that live are stronger and will less likely die from Cancer or related disease, and/or (3) their immune system can disern between actually pathogen and the body's cells (so auto-immune diseases are less likely) and also between cancerous cells (make cancer less likely).
No, this explains why something did happen. The ends of things like slavery mark the beginnings of control by the masses.
Only people stupid enough to believe everything they hear.
Having one recessive gene gives you the adaptation, and having only one does not give you sickle cell anemia, you have to have both recessive genes. So that’s why the gene stays in the population, because the hybrid (one recessive) is good for you, even though purebred for sickle cell is bad (both recessive).
Evolution does no only happen to animals in the wild, we have selective pressures too. Just thought I'd lend my support
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.