As I thought Steve and are in extremely close agreement, and I can certainly interpret what he wrote so that I am in 100% agreement. From a different perspective I have a relatively minor disagreement, so let"s go through things in more detail.

I fully concur that what matters for evolution is a non-uniform distribution of genes in the pool. No question here.

Also, if an individual dies for whatever reason any of its genes (ignoring direct mutations) may well be present in a sibling, cousin or more distant relative. So one could say the death of the individual is not important. Also, I am fully aware that focussing on the individual risks losing sight of the fact it is genes that are important, or even totally unaware of them, which can lead to also of confusion and, as the sorry history of eugenics shows, much worse. Finally, of course, when students are being taught it is most important that they understand it is the gene not the individual that matters.

So far, I think, Steve and I are fully aligned. I am certainly opposed to any simplistic understanding of what the role of the individual is.

We can even go further. When the theory of evolution is expressed these days, it usually does so without any mention of individuals at all.

So what is this minor disagreement I mentioned? simply this. For many species, by no means all, there is a correlation between the number offspring and the length of life of the parent. That is, for many species there is not a single mating, it continues for a substantial part of their life. And this has a direct bearing on what genes @from that invidual@ are in the gene pool. I must emphasise again that the same gene could also be present from a relative of varying degrees of closeness. But tit this direct passing on why I can't go quite as far as Steve in saying deaths of individuals are not important, though yet again I must emphasise they are only one factor in the complex web.