It is possible that evolution might have made it so that older people do not have friends, so they die sooner and thus consume less resources from prime-age people. The older people are past their child-making age, so they can't affect future evolution in their favour. It's odd however that people did not complain about this until the latter half of the 20th century , or that men did not escape this fate (since men can have children even at old age).
i do not back this up with any evidence though, since you 'd dismiss it as irrelevant anyway.
Other parts of your really basic lack of understand of it is also demonstrated by your latest comment:
- thinking that evolution works as if it had intention and foresight.
- thinking that being past child-making age can't affect "future evolution in their favour" (this is a variation on the misunderstanding that evolution operates on individuals rather than genes).
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant about a topic, but there is with being so and acting like you know what you're taking about.
I dont care if you keep insulting me to make your point, but for the sake of conversation, dont assume your assumptions are correct
And BTW, this new comment of yours represents another elementary misunderstanding of evolution, that of assuming group selection (despite some contested arguments for specific cases of purported group selection, no one agrees with such naive group selection).
Re: counterarguments - or how about you don't make confident assertions about topics you're clearly lacking a solid grounding in (for example, your comment shows you don't understand that evolution operates on the level of genes rather than individuals) -- where you must know you're lacking that grounding -- and go and learn a bit more about it yourself rather than demanding that others provide you that education? I'm sure you wouldn't behave in this sort of way if it was some other topic, like something to do with computing.