Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Richochet]

Both of you said exactly the same thing, but in different words.

[umiman]

That's what I was thinking as well.

[sonerohi]

This has nothing to do with religion, firstly.

Anyway, secondly, I think you may have misunderstood the term "Survival of the fittest".  It doesn't mean that the fittest (most attractive or best at running) person will survive, nor does it mean that people get better.  All it means is what survives survives.  Cultural influences allow some people to breed more.  Certain genes will gradually fall out due to disadvantages conveyed, and other genes will become more common.

In addition, we have to think socially.  If we look at society as a whole, we know that there is very little social mobility.  If someone is born into a poor family, then sadly they will usually go to a bad school and get a bad job when they're older.  This doesn't necessarily mean they have bad genes.

Tl; DR The gene pool will always move, but in subtle ways.

That really doesn't need a TL;DR. If someone can't be arsed to read what you posted there, it's time to GTFO of these forums. TL;DR GTFO.

[Richochet]

That's what I was thinking as well.

[Jreengus]

That's what I was thinking as well.

Me too. TL; DR. Yes.

[G-Flex]

The problem is that, while richer people do tend to breed less than poorer people (on average):

• This has probably been the case for an extremely long time (see: that xkcd strip).
• This doesn't mean the richer people automatically have "better genes". This is, for the most part, untrue.
• If this has been the case for a very long time, you'd expect the human race to get worse off by now, genetically. It hasn't.
• There are still congenital conditions which make people not produce viable offspring, like serious mental or social problems.
• There is too much prescription about what is "good" or "bad" in terms of genes. It's not so simple, especially when considering groups. For instance, male-linked red-green colorblindness might exist for a valid reason: Specifically, having one guy or so in each group of hunters/gatherers/whoevers can be nice, since his drawbacks will largely be made up for by others while you get the benefit of him perceiving things differently, which can lead to him noticing things you might not and not being distracted by things that you are. Even "negative" things can have positive effects, such as autism-linked traits leading to people having very odd and interesting talents that almost no-one else does, and sickle-cell anemia gene-carrying helping to ward off malaria. A lot of these things would counter-intuitively be selected FOR, especially if we're talking about groups working together, which humanity consists of.

There are also ideas floating around that human evolution hasn't really stopped at all, in case anyone says that it has, although I can't find any sources at the moment.

[ein]

The tl;drs appear to be getting longer than the actual text.

tl;dr I think it's silly to write only a little bit, then add a tl;dr with more text. It completely opposes the purpose of a tl;dr.

[cowofdoom78963]

There will always be average people, even if only skilled people were allowed to breed.

[corvvs]

A better way to say it is "there will always be an average."

That's the funniest thing in that XKCD comic rant - when the guy says something about average IQ scores being dragged downward...
 IQ IS ALREADY AN AVERAGED MEASURE!

(of course, Randall Munroe knows this) the average IQ is 100 points. The average IQ will ALWAYS BE 100 points, because IQ measurement is defined as "100 = average score of the given population."

[Vactor]

I think the valid underlying point remains that there are no longer selective pressures that are driving only the strongest and smartest to survive.  We can expect that we will not develop our brains further, in the  way they developed from chimp-like to what we have now, unless new pressures develop.  I hope that people aren't considering this a development of the last 100 years, rather a development of the last 10,000 or so.  There is one interesting development in the last 100 years, which is reliable birth control, but that is a bit of a different beast.

[Little]

Nobody is truly average. Survival of the fittest manipulates through societal pressures and physical pressure now, and to say geniuses and sports stars are those geared towards survival is somewhat stupid. The drug dealer on the corner probably has the tools and skills to annihilate the sports star if he saw him walking down on the street, does that make him more suited for survival?

[SniHjen]

There is a hypothisis that Homo Sapiens is being increasingly affected by evolution, and that is caused by (In layman terms) sexual selection.

With a sample of 6 milliard people, genetic drift is marginalized, but this is what OP was refering to?

[cowofdoom78963]

Eventualy humans will lose the ability to have sex due to evolution.

[Mr Tk]

Survival of the fittest is not the only get a head in life (or evolution).

Survival of the sneakiest as well! There are plenty of examples in nature of sneaky animals which are the biggest, strongest or loudest who get the girl.

Cuttlefish who pretend to be female so the alpha male won't attach him and quickly sprays his seaman at the actual female. Rhino Beetles who hide their female in their lair and get distracted fighting off anybody who comes near the entrance, find that some sneaky bugger has dug a tunnel into his lair and had there wicked way with his mate.

Just google Survival of the sneakiest and you see or visit this website for comic explaining it!

[G-Flex]

"Survival of the fittest" is a serious misnomer that brings the wrong ideas to mind.

It's more like "Survival of the genes held by those who manage to produce viable offspring".

Doesn't matter how.