evolution through survival of the fittest

H

hez7

Registered Member
I have a someting for you to think about - evolution through natural selection, in other words "Survival of the fittest".

How, in todays society is our species able to continue to evolve naturally when people who wouldn't normally live long enough to pass on their genes without artificial intervention are able to do so. (e.g medicines etc)

How also, when people who wouldn't nomally be able to find a "suitable" mate are able to obtain an artificial mate. (e.g sperm bank)

People who cannot mate successfully are able to pass on genes with artificial help. Which in turn reduces the offsprings chance of being able to. (e.g IVF)

I don't want to come across as being another Hitler, and I'm not saying what is right and what is wrong. Just that surely by the continual artificial interference that helps us breeds we are weakening ourselves as a species
 
well, maybe you're right, but maybe evolution is'nt just "Survival of the fittest".
Tho I have to agree, that dumb people make more children then smart ones. Intelligent people use condoms and they know that kids = troube.
 
This issue keeps popping up. You guys should check the old threads before you start a new one.

To repeat my response for about the fourth time:

It isn't Homo sapiens that is evolving anymore, it's human civilization. Language was the key to that changeover. It allows the whole community to retain knowledge after the person who originally had it dies. Written language strengthens that power tremendously.

Breeding isn't quite such an important factor in our advancement anymore. Education is. I'd worry a lot more about the degradation in America's educational system than about the fact that MENSA members have fewer children than their counterparts at the other end of the scale.

Besides, the two people I know of who are members of MENSA have six children between them.
 
pilpaX said:
well, maybe you're right, but maybe evolution is'nt just "Survival of the fittest".
Tho I have to agree, that dumb people make more children then smart ones. Intelligent people use condoms and they know that kids = troube.
Click to expand...

Obviously 'dumb' people are therefore fitter than 'smart' people.

Which means that on an evolutionary scale smart people are dumb and dumb people are smart.
 
Guys: evolution isn't about intelligence alone.

I'm sure the OP was talking about passing on biological defects and possibly compromised immune states etc. There is no selection towards a physiology that is best adapted to our (changing) environment anymore.
 
spuriousmonkey said:
Obviously 'dumb' people are therefore fitter than 'smart' people.

Which means that on an evolutionary scale smart people are dumb and dumb people are smart.
Click to expand...

While 'dumb' people may create more babies, their dumbness will cause more of those babies to expire prior to reaching adulthood, the 'smartest' of the babies will, statistically, be the ones to survive. Also while dumb may breed with dumb, their offspring can be much smarter than either of the breeding pair.
 
alty said:
the 'smartest' of the babies will, statistically, be the ones to survive. Also while dumb may breed with dumb, their offspring can be much smarter than either of the breeding pair.
Click to expand...

Really? I mean what are the chances that two retards produce a genius? - i know thatif either parent is retarded their children have high probabilty to be retarded as well (not just "dumb" ).

I think there could be some misconception between "dumb" and "uneducated"- you can have smart people living in some poor country and working on land- theri intelligence is wasted basically, but some of their children may go out and get quality education.
 
alty said:
While 'dumb' people may create more babies, their dumbness will cause more of those babies to expire prior to reaching adulthood, the 'smartest' of the babies will, statistically, be the ones to survive.
Click to expand...

I thought the mortality rates in western countries amongst children was rather low...(not speaking about the US now). Hence you have no point here I'm afraid, since first of all I doubt there is a huge difference between mortality rates of smart and dumb children (i'll bet that smart children even have a higher morality rate due to suicide and such), and secondly a difference between a non-existing mortality rate usually doesn't have a major impact in either direction.

All you need to know in our modern society is how to push a button. You don't need to be smart for that. Your beloved statistics show that smart people have less children hence they are less fit.
 
Pretty simple stuff isn't it hez7?

Darwin may not have litterally meant survival of the "fittest" when he (or whoever) coined the phrase.
But he might as well have, things can occassionally turn out to not exactly be so predictable so its more scientific to just refer to how some survive, some don't, those that do have traits which are passed on to the next generation, etc.
Thats good for biology class.
But in the real world, every species other than humans and certain domestic animals, contains individuals or social groups which compete with one another to be those that breed. The selection isn't as random as the scientific definition of "natural selection" would have as believe.
All members of a species at any given time in a given area are trying to live the same lifestyle, those whom are better at it are the ones who breed, they are competing with one another. If they are solitary animals individuals are competing with other individuals, if they're social then groups are competing with other groups. Thats all there is to it. That's the set game of life on earth.

If darwin wasn't referring to this with his "survival of the fittest" phrase (and I know he wasn't) that's fine, I'm not quoting him or referencing his findings when I say the world runs on survival of the fittest.
Humans don't. And this is why humans are the mess they are and the world is the mess it is.

When a down syndrome person rapes a paralysed mute and they "successfully" have children you really shouldn't mock life on earth by saying they are "fit".
Even if according to the scientific definition they fall into that category of living organisms who managed to pass on their genes, you just need to take into consideration that living naturally in the real world they could not have outcompeted others of their generation in the game of life.
 
Somehow I knew Dr Lou would reply to this.
That's why I waited to reply.
I'm lazy and just wanted to say, "I agree with Dr Lou". :)
 
Hez7:
I don't want to come across as being another Hitler, and I'm not saying what is right and what is wrong. Just that surely by the continual artificial interference that helps us breeds we are weakening ourselves as a species
Click to expand...
Why do you think we gather in herds?
Or why the outcast devours himself with fear and depression?

Because we've bred ourselves into one of the weakest mammals on earth, physically- an opportunity cost for reason.
So strength comes in numbers.

Pilpax:
Tho I have to agree, that dumb people make more children then smart ones. Intelligent people use condoms and they know that kids = troube.
Click to expand...
They also know how to spell trouble.
And though.
 
gendanken said:
Because we've bred ourselves into one of the weakest mammals on earth, physically- an opportunity cost for reason.
So strength comes in numbers.
Click to expand...

I think we have always been one of the weakest animals on earth, and we are just going downhill from there.
 
live long enough to pass on their genes without artificial intervention
Click to expand...

Most animals on this planet do things that affect their survival, artifical only refers to man's work so based on your statement we are little different in that respect.

It would be wrong to say that we are not evolving, many people die every day - and these deaths are not necessarily random. Death is only one way genes may removed from the pool, but it is obvious that our unique influence over our environment makes it very difficult to compare us to other known organisms. All this means is that the balance of selective pressures (and hence the direction of evolution) will be different.

We have not stopped evolving, and we are definatly not one of the weakest animals on this plant. Where do birds live? Or rabbits? In nests or burrows that they make themselves. Using such logic is would be unreasonable to disconsider firearms as our natural weapons, as genetics is responcible for the source of intelligence. For if we did not have spears, axes, firearms and tools we would surely still have claws and perhaps other inbuilt bodily weapon systems, such as venom. Perhaps I have jumped ahead mentioning guns, which obviously requires infrastructure and research than cannot be made in a man's lifetime, but the point is solid - our tools and artifical environments did not make it necessary to evolve inbuilt weapons and hence they should not be disconsidered when examening 'weakness'.

One other thing that does interest me is the distribution of genes: do people generally only pair up with people of equal (or better) attributes? What people select on clearly varies, but the end result could be a very non even distribution of features, as after much selective interbreeding people’s features could generally drift into distinct classes. For example, could we ever expect to see a variable vs. frequency curve with two or more peaks?
 
Most of you are misunderstanding what's meant by 'fittest' in an evolutionary context. Any organism that is able to successfully reproduce is 'fit' by evolutionary standards. It's meaningless to complain about 'unfit' people being able to reproduce, since they by definition are fit simply by virtue of reproducing.
 
What people are trying to acknowldge and define is not "fit" but "fittest".
 
Blue_UK said:
It would be wrong to say that we are not evolving, many people die every day - and these deaths are not necessarily random.
.......
We have not stopped evolving
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone was saying that we have stopped, rather altered it's natural progression.

Blue_UK said:
and we are definatly not one of the weakest animals on this plant. Where do birds live? Or rabbits? In nests or burrows that they make themselves. Using such logic is would be unreasonable to disconsider firearms as our natural weapons, as genetics is responcible for the source of intelligence. For if we did not have spears, axes, firearms and tools we would surely still have claws and perhaps other inbuilt bodily weapon systems, such as venom.
Click to expand...
Or we would simply not have been the domionant species, or become extinct.
 
So you agree with that second quote, Raven?

Nasor, I certainly understand what is meant by fittest. I don't know if you were targetting me there.
 
Nasor said:
Most of you are misunderstanding what's meant by 'fittest' in an evolutionary context. Any organism that is able to successfully reproduce is 'fit' by evolutionary standards. It's meaningless to complain about 'unfit' people being able to reproduce, since they by definition are fit simply by virtue of reproducing.
Click to expand...

Me- before nasor made that post said:
Darwin may not have litterally meant survival of the "fittest" when he (or whoever) coined the phrase.
But he might as well have, things can occassionally turn out to not exactly be so predictable so its more scientific to just refer to how some survive, some don't, those that do have traits which are passed on to the next generation, etc.
Thats good for biology class.
But in the real world, every species other than humans and certain domestic animals, contains individuals or social groups which compete with one another to be those that breed. The selection isn't as random as the scientific definition of "natural selection" would have as believe.
All members of a species at any given time in a given area are trying to live the same lifestyle, those whom are better at it are the ones who breed, they are competing with one another. If they are solitary animals individuals are competing with other individuals, if they're social then groups are competing with other groups. Thats all there is to it. That's the set game of life on earth.

If darwin wasn't referring to this with his "survival of the fittest" phrase (and I know he wasn't) that's fine, I'm not quoting him or referencing his findings when I say the world runs on survival of the fittest.
Humans don't. And this is why humans are the mess they are and the world is the mess it is.

When a down syndrome person rapes a paralysed mute and they "successfully" have children you really shouldn't mock life on earth by saying they are "fit".
Even if according to the scientific definition they fall into that category of living organisms who managed to pass on their genes, you just need to take into consideration that living naturally in the real world they could not have outcompeted others of their generation in the game of life.
Click to expand...

I clearly addressed what you're talking about, there is evidently no "misunderstanding" from this side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top