- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why does society worship science, but ignore natural selection in the human race?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:44 pm to 19
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:44 pm to 19
quote:This.
Is now and always has been the engine that drives natural selection.
The definition of the word "fittest" is ever-changing, to make sense in terms of what characteristics of a mutated individual give them a significant advantage to survive and reproduce, while the rest of it's non-affected population fail and die away.
The mutation is completely unknown until it manifests, but when it does, and provides significant inheritable benefits, we see a shift in the concept of "fittest"
Eggheads claim NS is a moot point in terms of human evolution because of the artificial mutation called "wealth"
Malarke. Just a new definition of "mutation."
Besides, physical characteristics still matter, and influence our breeding... but again, fittest just doesn't mean what it used to.
Artificial insemination, fertility drugs, medical advances, nutrition improvements etc have altered our form and appearance more in the last 200 yrs than we have naturally over the previous millenia.
Regardless, natural selection is STILL the driving force.
Natural selection still functions.
It just isn’t a readily visible event, like watching a TV show.
It is a generational event and the definition of “fittest” constantly changes.
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 7:46 pm
2
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:45 pm to McCaigBro69
Hitler? Back so soon??
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:45 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
That's just brain chemicals. We're all just meatbags with weird chemicals in our head that makes us wake up each day and live.
This.
Another thing is that free will does not exist, but everyone thinks it does. No, it’s just brain chemicals making decisions for us in every instance. There is no such thing as free will.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:46 pm to McCaigBro69
I have crap genes and would prefer to not pro-create if the spouse would agree. My reasoning is exactly what you’re talking about. Don’t want my offspring dealing with the chronic diseases I had handed down to me.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:48 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
However, many find it taboo to discuss or support the the elimination of weak genes in the human race through natural death whether it be by disease, or mental illness leading to the death.
If you want to talk about evolution and natural selection, you should be specific. What genes do you want to eliminate? There are, on average, 100 to 120 genes that differ from human to human. Given the paucity of options, tell me what genes specifically you want to “eliminate.”
You somehow, in a paragraph, misunderstand the entirety of genetics because you seem limited by the notion that genetics are strictly Mendelian. Do you understand what fitness means in a biological sense?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:48 pm to TheFritz
quote:well, that's like, just your satanic opinion. God Almighty has a different view.
That's like the most humane, least invasive version of this
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:49 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
Samesies. up to around 20 weeks.
Any later than that is murder.
My baby is 14 weeks along and you can’t tell me after sitting there watching this baby on a sonogram that isn’t life. It’s murder, period. Life is at conception.
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 7:49 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:50 pm to Scruffy
quote:
It is a generational event and the definition of “fittest” constantly changes.
Not in evolutionary biology. It almost singularly refers to reproductive success, without any addition of environmental qualifiers, and it doesn’t mean much else.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:52 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
No, it’s just brain chemicals making decisions for us in every instance.
We can’t influence our own brain chemicals?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:53 pm to 19
quote:
The definition of the word "fittest" is ever-changing, to make sense in terms of what characteristics of a mutated individual give them a significant advantage to survive and reproduce, while the rest of it's non-affected population fail and die away.
The definition of the word fitness still refers to reproductive success, and does not include the environmental conditions that may modulate specific traits. The degree that you see generation to generation modulation is extremely small, though, as quantifying what “advantage” is related by a mutation is not straight-forward, because the genetic code does not represent a 1-to-1 relationship between the code and the phenotype.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:55 pm to TheFritz
quote:
Republicans can't even universally handle
It is driven by religion, the Catholic church considers removing an unviable fetus that didn't make it to the Uterus an illicit abortion. Their solution is to provide a total hysterectomy and claim it is not abortion because the procedure is a hysterectomy and removing the unviable fetus that will KILL the mother is an unintended consequence of the hysterectomy.
Natural selection is NOT eugenics. What many people call for is straight up eugenics! The best way can go back to survival of the fittest in a humane way is to get rid of welfare and make it cost people that cannot take care of their children from profiting off of their children.
I have a disabled child, I wouldn't go back and not have him, I wouldn't change any of our decisions. The chance of him spreading his genes without some sadistic shite going down is 0.0%, I see no reason why he cannot enjoy the best life he can... he certainly doesn't know he is disabled and seems to enjoy life.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:57 pm to crazy4lsu
I don’t want anything or anyone eliminated through a process that isn’t natural. My only objection is I’m fine with well tested and long standing vaccines.
For example, I had the CCP virus. Thankfully I had no symptoms aside from loss of taste. However, had it taken me out I told all of my family and friends that it’s whatever because it would represent that I needed to go to benefit the future of the human race.
I just am questioning why we follow science in so many instances without question, except when beyond weak individuals that are genetically inferior are at a high risk and no cure or vaccine is an option. We spend so many resources and take unnecessary tolls upon those that are not threatened to benefit the weak.
For example, I had the CCP virus. Thankfully I had no symptoms aside from loss of taste. However, had it taken me out I told all of my family and friends that it’s whatever because it would represent that I needed to go to benefit the future of the human race.
I just am questioning why we follow science in so many instances without question, except when beyond weak individuals that are genetically inferior are at a high risk and no cure or vaccine is an option. We spend so many resources and take unnecessary tolls upon those that are not threatened to benefit the weak.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:58 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
Why does society worship science, but ignore natural selection in the human race?
Because "empathy" and shite. Long story short, it's about control, always has been.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 7:59 pm to GreenRockTiger
quote:
We can’t influence our own brain chemicals?
We can not, no. It all behaves by and through pre-determined laws that we can not yet comprehend.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:00 pm to Scruffy
Honestly, to counter Scruffy’s own opinion, natural selection may not even apply to humanity anymore.
We currently define the rules within our system.
Is it natural selection if one group of human was to eradicate another? Possibly, depending on how you define it.
It is interesting how each person applies the concept to humanity because there are multiple ways to view it.
We currently define the rules within our system.
Is it natural selection if one group of human was to eradicate another? Possibly, depending on how you define it.
It is interesting how each person applies the concept to humanity because there are multiple ways to view it.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:01 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
We can not, no. It all behaves by and through pre-determined laws that we can not yet comprehend.
Oh so like a sciency-version of God
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:06 pm to armsdealer
quote:
The best way can go back to survival of the fittest in a humane way is to get rid of welfare and make it cost people that cannot take care of their children from profiting off of their children.
Agreed. This is something I believe in as well.
While I do not believe in free will, I do believe that every person should be responsible for their own situation regarding economics and well being. In any other mammal situation the species that can create a safe home, provide, etc…usually survives to bear offspring.
Our society instead offers a safety net to those who can not provide any of this in some instances and allows them to continue to exist and reproduce.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:06 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
I don’t want anything or anyone eliminated through a process that isn’t natural.
What the frick does this mean? Is giving you ciprofloxacin, an antibiotic derived from the synthetic precursor nalidixic acid, natural to you?
quote:
I just am questioning why we follow science in so many instances without question, except when beyond weak individuals that are genetically inferior are at a high risk and no cure or vaccine is an option.
Which genes are weak? I’m begging you to understand that the relationship between the genetic code and the “output,” for lack of a better term, is not 1-to-1. And you can’t seem to understand the conditions that allowed for mass population growth, which curbed widespread bacteria. Without a significant degree of medical advances, which certainly aren’t natural, how would we determine “genetic weakness” to infectious disease? What genetic component specifically allowed people to survive infection with yersinia pestis? Who ultimately gets to make determinations of genetic weakness? I rotated with doctors in a hospital during COVID, wore my mask poorly and didn’t get COVID. You apparently did. Can I ascribe my lack of illness to my superior genes, and mock you for your inferior genes, and based on nothing but that, recommend we don’t try to save you?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:06 pm to tiggerthetooth
quote:
That's just brain chemicals. We're all just meatbags with weird chemicals in our head that makes us wake up each day and live.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:07 pm to GreenRockTiger
quote:
so like a sciency-version of God
pretty much 
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News