- 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 9:09 pm to Lawyered
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:09 pm to Lawyered
quote:It's also not something Darwin ever said and has been perverted in the public consciousness from the original theory of natural selection to the point of incomprehensibility.
That hurts peoples feelings even though it’s true
This post was edited on 5/5/21 at 1:18 am
1
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:10 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
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.
Are you suggesting the people from the trailer park are waiting until their 30’s to have kids at the same rate as those who further their education beyond a bachelors degree?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:13 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
Because through evolution, humans developed a conscious.
Isn't it amazing how many things we "developed" that NO OTHER SPECIES DID.
It's almost like we were designed by a Creator to rule the Earth and subdue it.
But you know, maybe chimpanzees have a conscience and have developed music, art, written language, weapons, and nuclear fission and we just don't know it yet.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:20 pm to Ric Flair
quote:
Are you suggesting the people from the trailer park are waiting until their 30’s to have kids at the same rate as those who further their education beyond a bachelors degree?
I'm saying the data very clearly suggests that there is a massive drop in fertility rates among all ethnic and economic classifications. Again, the notion that poor people are having more children than the rich isn't the case, and is consistent across multiple developed countries. The data that is produced, gleaned usually through birth records, reproduces itself in later census data, so it is mostly robust. It may have been true during the mid-century, but the post-war conditions that made that population boom possible won't ever be reproduced again.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:21 pm to Gravitiger
quote:
t's also not something Darwin ever said and has been in the public consciousness been perverted from the original theory of natural selection to the point of incomprehensibility.
Darwin—a random mutation that provides immunity against xyz disease will lead to this mutation surviving and being more common 100 generations from now.
Some interpretations these days—I’m smart, jacked, healthy, and have a big dick
I do Find both the sociological and evolutionary interpretation of his theory both interesting. Probably the sociological interpretation is more fun to discuss since we can see a shift over a few generations as opposed to hundreds to thousands of generations
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:38 pm to Ric Flair
Again, the only data that matters is the TFR, which is extremely robust. If my top of the head math is right, the rate of 74 per 1000 translates to around 0.33 TFR, which is a cataclysmic birthrate by itself, but meaningless without the age-specific cohorts. The data you posted, apparently without understanding, supports the data that we have on hand. Which again shows that the there is a precipitous drop in birth rates among all ethnic and economic categorizations. The trend is even true in poorer countries, with multiple MENA countries now flirting with sub-replacement rates.
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:40 pm to kciDAtaE
quote:
Because through evolution, humans developed a conscious.
Conscience.
Holy frick man, every thread.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:41 pm to armsdealer
I might be reading your post wrong and I do not like the current welfare system but are you saying it’s humane to let children starve because the parents can’t afford taking care of them?
Posted on 5/4/21 at 9:45 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
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.
Are you trying to justify eugenics?
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 9:46 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:00 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Scruffy has seen children born with essentially no brain, who will never have any comprehension of their own existence, will never speak, can’t see, can’t hear, can’t eat, have seizures almost every day, etc., and many other degrees of that as well.
You can’t look at survival of the fittest as a whole while rejecting the abortion component of that argument.
Those children will never procreate, so their effect on natural selection is nil.
And abortion is proactively terminating life, which is not what OP is talking about. OP is talking about allowing nature to natural select the fittest individuals and have those individuals pass on their genes. OP isn’t suggesting we actively kill unfit individuals, which is exactly what abortion is.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:13 pm to UpToPar
quote:From a genetic procreation standpoint, you are correct, but Scruffy was referencing survival of the fittest there.
Those children will never procreate, so their effect on natural selection is nil.
Let us be honest here though, there is a multifactorial aspect to this beyond procreation, and this essentially pertains to only the human species.
We really exist outside of the traditional aspect of these terms now, and genetic manipulation will ultimately skew away from the traditional definitions even more.
Fitness and genetic trait allocation is a different system for humans.
As we advance, as long as we don’t destroy ourselves, we pull further and further away from what was traditionally “natural”, at least that is how Scruffy sees it.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:16 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
In a recent event, we shutdown the country and world because of a virus that kills less than 1% of people who contract it. Why do we not allow those whose genes can not deal with a simple virus die and instead force hardships on the strong that are not affected?
TLDR:
I am asking why we follow science blindly without question in many areas, including the response for the CCP Virus and the theory of evolution, but ignore natural selection and it’s importance to the ongoing survival of a species?
You are making a common mistake in thinking that science has guidance for us on how to deal with a pandemic. It does not. The branch of study with the guidance you seek is philosophy.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:18 pm to TheFritz
quote:
Republicans can't even universally handle the abortion of babies that will be so physically disabled that they will never be able to walk or think with the capacity of an adult.
That's like the most humane, least invasive version of this. And the big, bad tough conservatives don't even support it.
They used to do this in Germany. You seem to have a similar mindset.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:29 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
Reading that it makes me wonder why we spend millions every year protecting at-risk individuals for common viruses, terminally ill individuals and those with severe mental illness around that in many cases are not producing anything towards the betterment of society and in some cases are nothing more than a drain on resources?
We should appoint Hitler to make the decision of who dies and who lives. I'm sure that will work out quite well.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:32 pm to McCaigBro69
Fitness in an revolutionary sense just means the ability to pass on your genes.
If you die 10 second after you had you’re 10th kids at 30 you’re more “fit” than an 80 year old with 1 kid.
Because you passed on you’re genes 30 times.
As to “natural selection”
We don’t live “natural” lives. In nature you usually have to worry about dying from starvation or predators. So any useful trait that keeps you alive long enough to frick helps make you “fitter”
If you die 10 second after you had you’re 10th kids at 30 you’re more “fit” than an 80 year old with 1 kid.
Because you passed on you’re genes 30 times.
As to “natural selection”
We don’t live “natural” lives. In nature you usually have to worry about dying from starvation or predators. So any useful trait that keeps you alive long enough to frick helps make you “fitter”
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 10:35 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 10:43 pm to Scruffy
quote:
From a genetic procreation standpoint, you are correct, but Scruffy was referencing survival of the fittest there.
Even still, under OP’s premise, those kids would die of natural causes very early in life without modern medicine and life support, so I still fail to see why abortion is crucial to survival of the fittest.
No other species that I’m aware of kills their unborn young. Survival of the fittest and natural selection work just fine for those species.
This post was edited on 5/4/21 at 10:46 pm
Posted on 5/4/21 at 11:23 pm to UpToPar
quote:
No other species that I’m aware of kills their unborn young. Survival of the fittest and natural selection work just fine for those species.
They do, but not always in a visible way. You can see species of birds push excess eggs out of a nest, and some species abort their pregnancies when a new or unfamiliar male enters their group, a phenomenon called (quite hilariously) the Bruce Effect.
There are many places within the embryological process that serve as checkpoints, because that process is step-wise and highly sensitive. That's one reason why the spontaneous abortion rate is so high (with 25% of all fertilization events ending in spontaneous abortion and that is only the ones we know about, as the estimated rate is higher) as well as the rate of birth defects is so high, occurring in about 1 in 33 live births, which isn't even necessarily related to the rate of genetic mutations, which are likely present in everyone.
There really isn't a justification to use survival of the fittest at all with regards to discussions about evolution, because the term has become perverse at both ends, and is far too simple to describe the selection process.
Even further, getting sick isn't an indication of genetic weakness. The sheer fact that the most polymorphic genes in the entire human genome are related to immunity means that, for such a process to be robust, it must have survived trillions of selection events, if not more.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 11:26 pm to McCaigBro69
You cruising fast to be called the R word thinking like that.
Posted on 5/4/21 at 11:38 pm to McCaigBro69
quote:
I am asking why we follow science blindly without question
Um. If you can't question it, then it's not science.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News