[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But in the case of genetic engineering it's not who reproduces the most that's important, but how the reproduction is done. So how does matter. In what is typically thought of as 'natural selection' it's just the who that matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you mean by "typically thought of," but in the scientific community "natural selection" isn't just about the who. Natural selection is definitely not a matter of who reproduces most - it's about genetic fitness, which may be increased through greater reproduction, but which also may be decreased through greater reproduction.

Incidentally, this is part of the OP's fallacy - in fact, it was the human ancestors who reproduced less, putting more resources into each child, who were fittest. Those who reproduced too much were unable to go the distance and care for their children (who were very vulnerable for many years and who had significant physical and emotional needs), and so they were selected against (and thus, modern humans have evolved to have relatively fewer children than most species).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why I like to say its all about the grandkids. It isnt how many kids you have, its how many of your kids survive to have kids.