- #1
sharkey1314
- 18
- 0
DELETED because of immature thinking :(
Last edited:
sharkey1314 said:does this means that we are going to adapt to this new environment and evolve into something totally different
nismaratwork said:This could allow them to pass genes to a much larger population
but if they live and participate in a monogamous society, it doesn't matter right?
You should not feel insecure about not knowing all the answers, you should feel proud that you have the self-awareness needed to challenge your own preconceptions and work to expand your knowledge. This is an extremely important life-skill that some people never learn...and fostering that is one of the key purposes of this forum, so you shouldn't feel ashamed about displaying that trait!sharkey1314 said:Thanks for clearing some doubts. Decided to "close" my thread because i felt that it was such a joke :(
Borek said:Yes and no - depends on when HIV kills. If you survive long enough to reproduce and raise your kids, resistance is not that important. I think in some cases living short is beneficial to population, as it means it can adapt faster (more generations in a given period of time).
Doesn't matter. If monogamous pair has more surviving kids, evolution works as usual.
Borek said:As long as there is no selective pressure this is unlikely. At the moment having 6 fingers and being able to type faster doesn't make your chances of reproduction (or chances of your kids surviving) higher. The day it will change we will start to adapt.
But there more subtle changes - those better educated (which often, athough not always, means smarter & better organized) have less kids, while lazy bums living off social support multiply like rabbits. Assuming kids are similar to their parents, that can mean next generations can be on average more stupid than we are.
pgardn said:The more important factor would be genetic isolation. If humans did not interbreed with isolated populations and were under very different selective pressures this would be more likely to give rise to a diff. type of human (speciation). The large scale changes that undergo a single large widespread population that does interbreed would be very difficult to interpret.
And a big WOW to your second paragraph...
nismaratwork said:Wow, and yet accurate.
pgardn said:Accurate how? Accurate in that people in the US with lower incomes do have more children per family than people with higher incomes. But the rest, speculation. And fairly bold speculation. Which is provacative therefore fun imo.
nismaratwork said:I wasn't aware that Borek was limiting his observation to the USA, but the notion that children raised in poverty and, let's say, stupidity might carry on that legacy is speculative, but not overly so.
nismaratwork said:I wasn't aware that Borek was limiting his observation to the USA, but the notion that children raised in poverty and, let's say, stupidity might carry on that legacy is speculative, but not overly so.
pgardn said:This is a nature v. nuture argument. Being raised in poverty implies a stupid genetic component? And what the heck is stupid exactly, how is this assessed?
Borek said:As long as there is no selective pressure this is unlikely. At the moment having 6 fingers and being able to type faster doesn't make your chances of reproduction (or chances of your kids surviving) higher. The day it will change we will start to adapt.
But there more subtle changes - those better educated (which often, athough not always, means smarter & better organized) have less kids, while lazy bums living off social support multiply like rabbits. Assuming kids are similar to their parents, that can mean next generations can be on average more stupid than we are.
Borek said:I am thinking about genetic component. Since the dawn of civilization usual evolutionary pressures were removed, so one could think evolution stopped for us as a species. But it has been theorized that actually those smarter were able to leave more progeny, therefore increasing our average IQ. Could be this process is working in the opposite direction now.
Borek said:I am aware of IQ limitations, and I would not dare to define smarter. But I prefer to live in a world full of people trying to push our civilization up and ahead, instead of trying to pull it down by overmilking. In this context if you are not aware of the fact that overmilking the system you are killing it, you are not smart.
pgardn said:So people who run businesses based on the quick profit motive and then get out once the damage to society has been done should also be mentioned as milkers I guess. In fact they may even do more dumb damage per capita so they might be considered very stupid.
nismaratwork said:Most stupid people don't have the capacity to tell when to "get out"; you find examples in captured criminals, people playing with day-trading, and hundreds of other examples. It takes enormous luck and self control to do what you describe, and most legitimate and criminal enterprises seek to keep people locked into their role. In the case of a business, perhaps you are sent to get your MBA on the company dime, but then you have a compulsory period during which you must work for that company. In a drug cartel, from foot-soldiers to the top, "getting out" usually occurs when you are dead or in prison.
Intelligent people who can survey the field so completely that they make a viper-strike in and out of a market or crime, become LEGENDS. There are few of them.
Evolution is the scientific theory that explains how all living organisms on Earth have changed over time and diversified into the vast array of species we see today.
Yes, evolution is a scientific theory, which means it is a well-supported and extensively tested explanation for a wide range of observations and data. In science, a theory is the highest level of understanding, and it is supported by a vast amount of evidence.
No, evolution applies to all living organisms, including humans. All species have evolved and continue to evolve over time, adapting to changes in their environment and passing on traits to their offspring.
Yes, evolution can be observed directly through the study of fossils, genetic data, and observations of changes in species over time. Scientists have also been able to witness evolution in action through experiments and observations of natural selection and genetic mutations.
Yes, many religious beliefs are compatible with the theory of evolution. Evolution is a scientific theory that seeks to explain the natural world, while religion seeks to provide a spiritual or moral framework for understanding the world. Many people hold both scientific and religious beliefs.