This is a little tricky. Almost every disease will affect people differently. There are generally people who are affected more or less, and some who are not affected at all. We have found people who are infected by the HIV virus but who have developed no symptoms, and seem to have natural immunity. Absent other influences, these people would tend to reproduce more effectively and their immunity would spread through the population. What makes it tricky is that cultural factors like wealth, nationality and access to medicines may have more influence than the biological factors.
In this scenario, the word "fittest" will give you problems. However, since the idea simply mean, some will die off when other will survive and prosper in certain environment, then...
Since full blown AIDS/HIV are fatal, when contracted at an early age, those who are infected will not have a chance to reproduce.
It then means that gene of those who contracted HIV will be less common over the years. THEN, it means that the gene of those who's behaviors included activities that are likely to cause AIDS/HIV will decline over the years.
Of course, there are problems in this thinking, such as those who received the virus via medical procedures, such as blood transfusions, and those who received it from "normal" activities will not fit this model.
However, since no model will fit every situations, in large scale, I believe this scenario will relate one to the other.
A very interesting question, I'm sure there is some relation and as always, it does cull out the weak since it does not discriminate as to who it effects.
We were talking about natural selection the other day at work. Are we as humans ensuring our one demise by protecting people from themselves, and with drugs and other medical advances allowing the weak to survive.
This article contents is post by this website user, EduQnA.com doesn't promise its accuracy.
More Questions & Answers...