- 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 8:10 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:10 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Which genes are weak?
If the flu, AIDS, CCP virus, etc.. takes someone out they needed to go. That’s an example of what I mean.
quote:
Who ultimately gets to make determinations of genetic weakness?
Nature.
quote:
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?
All of my group text do this already so sure lol.
2
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:11 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Honestly, to counter Scruffy’s own opinion, natural selection may not even apply to humanity anymore.
We currently define the rules within our system.
Or maybe the real conclusion is that humanity evolved in the East African Rift Valley to deal with the environmental conditions of that specific time period, and through extremely robust selection methods, which integrated multiple sensory and motor functions together so seamlessly they are extremely difficult to reproduce, we have a broad base of adaptation, some of which can happen within a person’s lifetime, which is one of the keys as to why Homo sapiens won out over other near Homo relatives during the Pleistocene.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:12 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
If the flu, AIDS, CCP virus, etc.. takes someone out they needed to go. That’s an example of what I mean.
Are you suggesting that we make no effort whatsoever in combating illness or disease?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:13 pm to HempHead
quote:
Are you suggesting that we make no effort whatsoever in combating illness or disease?
While completely missing the point that our ability to combat disease is one of the things that's makes humans so "fit".
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:14 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
If the flu, AIDS, CCP virus, etc.. takes someone out they needed to go. That’s an example of what I mean.
What in the living frick are you talking about?
quote:
Nature
Again, this is immensely silly, because, again, selection pressures on genetics only matters if there is an effect on fitness. Now can you tell me why you can have diseases that don’t have influence on selection?
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 8:23 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:15 pm to Scruffy
I agree. To say that things should be a certain way bc that's the way it is in nature is absurd. We have basically already divorced ourselves from nature through science.
If you believe otherwise you are deluding yourself.
Humans do and have done as much as they can to not be under the control of nature and have practically succeeded at this point. So life is literally just what we make it.
If you believe otherwise you are deluding yourself.
Humans do and have done as much as they can to not be under the control of nature and have practically succeeded at this point. So life is literally just what we make it.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:15 pm to Loup
quote:Also, by treating these chronic diseases, illnesses, conditions, we are searching and finding treatments and cures.
I don't think it's ignored but one of the things that sets us apart from other animals is the efforts we make to improve life for even the weakest of our species
Kind of hard to find a cure when all the patients are dead.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:18 pm to McCaigBro69
This argument has surfaced before in history, most infamously in Hitler's vision for an Aryan Nation and the extermination of 6 million jewish people.
To accept the argument you presented requires you to accept the consequences of its implementation.
Out of many, here's just two.
All children identified with Downs Syndrome will be either aborted, or euthanized at birth.
A four year old child with curable leukemia would be allowed to either fight the disease on their own without medical intervention, or die.
In its harshest terms, by your logic that is pure "natural selection."
Will you be the one making the decisions on who lives or dies and why?
Or, would you prefer the government takes that role for the good of society.
Would you be willing to decline life saving medical treatment for yourself or say your children?
I don't think the science of natural selection means what you think it does.
What you're endorsing is the "natural" death of humans you don't believe deserve to live.
To accept the argument you presented requires you to accept the consequences of its implementation.
Out of many, here's just two.
All children identified with Downs Syndrome will be either aborted, or euthanized at birth.
A four year old child with curable leukemia would be allowed to either fight the disease on their own without medical intervention, or die.
In its harshest terms, by your logic that is pure "natural selection."
Will you be the one making the decisions on who lives or dies and why?
Or, would you prefer the government takes that role for the good of society.
Would you be willing to decline life saving medical treatment for yourself or say your children?
I don't think the science of natural selection means what you think it does.
What you're endorsing is the "natural" death of humans you don't believe deserve to live.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:19 pm to Sidicous
quote:
Kind of hard to find a cure when all the patients are dead.
It will also be impossible for us to establish ourselves as an extraplanetary entity without absurd comprehension of our biological factors, and that is only possible through medical research and application.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:20 pm to Duke
quote:
While completely missing the point that our ability to combat disease is one of the things that's makes humans so "fit".
He’s missing so many other things, like the basics of molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and urban planning. Inoculation, effective water filtration, and the invention/discovery of penicillin and sulfonamide did far more for the average reproductive fitness of a human than anything else, in a verifiable form. But alas, we keep returning to 19th century notions of science, as though evolutionary biology didn’t advance since then.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:21 pm to DiamondDog
I’m a new father too :-)
Couldn’t agree more. How anyone stable or sane person could do that is beyond me. Never deserved the gift of child in the first place and should be snipped.
Couldn’t agree more. How anyone stable or sane person could do that is beyond me. Never deserved the gift of child in the first place and should be snipped.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:24 pm to Scruffy
I’m with you. There are certainly situations where having that choice or option is more humane than not having that option. My line in the sand is 3-4 months tho after mother’s should have had blood tests, genetic tests, and ultrasounds to help with that decision.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:33 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
He’s missing so many other things, like the basics of molecular biology, evolutionary biology, and urban planning.
He said he thought we shouldn't bother fighting the flu or AIDS, that implies the rest no?
quote:
But alas, we keep returning to 19th century notions of science, as though evolutionary biology didn’t advance since then.
Too bad humans annoying traits aren't selected for deletion.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:42 pm to McCaigBro69
Most people don't believe in science. They believe in what the media tells them about "science".
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:43 pm to HempHead
quote:
Are you suggesting that we make no effort whatsoever in combating illness or disease?
No. I have already stated that proven and tested vaccines should be promoted and taken.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:46 pm to Duke
quote:
He said he thought we shouldn't bother fighting the flu or AIDS, that implies the rest no?
It implies a whole lot. People tend to retain simplistic views of evolution more than any other scientific theory, and that is probably due to the effect social Darwinism had, as it is a very convenient way of understanding the past, even though it is extremely wrong.
People can't seem to believe that fitness means something very specific in biological terms, and that fitness doesn't equate directly to strongest or the individual with the best genetic information, or that you can have disease independent of selection pressures because an individual prone to disease can still reproduce, with little effect on the next generations fitness, partly because of the robust measures that occur at the molecular level to ensure the next generation has the capacity for fitness.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:53 pm to Mr Breeze
quote:
Will you be the one making the decisions on who lives or dies and why?
No. Their genetic makeup would be the decider here. I have no issue with preventative measures or proven or experimental cures being applied.
quote:
Or, would you prefer the government takes that role for the good of society.
Absolutely not lol.
My issue is that I and many others are told to ‘trust the science’, yet livelihoods are destroyed by the mindset of ‘If it saves only one life, it’s worth it’.
Everybody dies, it’s what people do. They die. Why are we so obsessed with extending it at whatever the cost?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:54 pm to McCaigBro69
I think the term “fittest” is interesting.
People think of survival of the fittest on a small scale. In the remote past, the combination of strength and smarts would make a male a good leader/attractive to potential female mates, ensuring multiple progeny. These days, the number of children one has is inversely proportionate to the parent’s IQ. The age of the parents at the birth of their kids is increased with increasing intelligence levels.
Long story short, rich people have fewer children much later in life than poor people. They are more interested in the “thriving” of their progeny as opposed to merely “surviving”.
TLDR version: Poor protoplasm reproducing at twice the rate and 2-3 times the volume as others, resulting in their algorithmic growth in population. This overwhelmes any “optimizing of genes” based breeding patterns. The poor breed to survive. The rich breed to thrive.
People think of survival of the fittest on a small scale. In the remote past, the combination of strength and smarts would make a male a good leader/attractive to potential female mates, ensuring multiple progeny. These days, the number of children one has is inversely proportionate to the parent’s IQ. The age of the parents at the birth of their kids is increased with increasing intelligence levels.
Long story short, rich people have fewer children much later in life than poor people. They are more interested in the “thriving” of their progeny as opposed to merely “surviving”.
TLDR version: Poor protoplasm reproducing at twice the rate and 2-3 times the volume as others, resulting in their algorithmic growth in population. This overwhelmes any “optimizing of genes” based breeding patterns. The poor breed to survive. The rich breed to thrive.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:56 pm to TheFritz
quote:
TheFritz
Posted on 5/4/21 at 8:59 pm to Ric Flair
quote:
The age of the parents at the birth of their kids is increased with increasing intelligence levels.
I don't think this is true.
quote:
TLDR version: Poor protoplasm reproducing at twice the rate and 2-3 times the volume as others, resulting in their algorithmic growth in population. This overwhelmes any “optimizing of genes” based breeding patterns. The poor breed to survive. The rich breed to thrive.
This isn't true either, or at least this is not represented in the Total Fertility Rate, which suggests a catastrophic decrease in fertility among all age-cohorts and all classes. It hasn't been the case for any US-born ethnic designation since at least 2012, and was only buttressed for Hispanic designations by immigration.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News