Talk:Life history theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ecology Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

[edit] Rushton?

Is this the same "life-history theory" as proposed by Rushton in Race, Evolution and Behavior? --JereKrischel 01:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Rushton did not "propose" this concept. alteripse 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I'll revert my edits and walk away...we were trying to find an appropriate article for what Rushton calls "life-history theory" in Race, Evolution and Behavior. Looks like this isn't the place. --JereKrischel 03:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is no description of life history theory!

I don't mean to be snide here, but from looking at this I don't think anyone can figure out what "life history theory" actually means. An analytical framework? At its root, life history theory (and there are many different theories, not one) has always had an evolutionary core. The question has always had to do with how organisms (not "animals and humans." Most organisms are not animals, and most empirical research has been done on organisms other than animals. Like plants.) allocate resources to affect their contribution to future generations. In other words, it has always concerned the question of how the quantities you discuss are subject to natural selection. Unless you put demography and evolution at the core of any discussion, you miss the entire point of biologists in developing theory to explain the evolution of these traits. Gafox1 (talk) 02:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

As you can see from the tags at the top of the article, this needs a lot of work. Be bold and improve the article yourself. It could certainly use your expertise! GoEThe (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)