Darwinisim Rules

[Neoteny]

Unlikely, since the timescales involved with poverty as we know it and evolution do not really coincide.

Obviously, the lifestyles associated with poverty can have an effect on the natural variance of traits within our species.

[JJM]

Darwin's theory is a whole bunch of Uffda. I don't now where he got it from.

I don't think you may of heard of it in North Dakota, but in the world there is a thing called "science". It's a rather beautiful thing, and has allowed the knowledge of humanity grow. Now, as for Charles Darwin, he went around on a boat (called the Beagle) and collected scientific evidence and evolved (haha) the theory of evolution of what we use as the basis today. Of course, scientists since Darwin have expanded his theory of evolution, but his evidence found throughout his travels and led us to know where he got it from.

Hope that helped. Now you can tell your friends in North Dakota to search throughout the world, and even the States, and find new and interesting things.

Stop that you Da*n prejudice person.

[got tonkaed]

To be fair JJM, if you dont say something that is quite silly and shows a fair lack of understanding of the person and what he did, you probably are going to get something not so nice said in your general direction.

No he didnt need to besmirch the great state of north dakota, but as our only representative of north dakota its only fair to conclude that from skittles perspective you have a pretty big mission on your hands.

[thegreekdog]

Unlikely, since the timescales involved with poverty as we know it and evolution do not really coincide.

Obviously, the lifestyles associated with poverty can have an effect on the natural variance of traits within our species.

What about in the context of social darwinism? That's what I meant (although I didn't type it).

[bedub1]

bedub1, the thread title should be "Social Darwinism," ala Herbert Spencer. This is a philosophy with a long and distinguished following. It won't do to attract the wrong kind of criticism, as Timminz and Skittles pointed out.

To any who disagree that stupid people are dangerous, I cite Carlos Cipolla's introductory work, The Basic Laws of Human Stupidity. He offers a powerful definition of a stupid person:

A stupid person is a person who causes losses to another person or to a group of persons while himself deriving no gain and even possibly incurring losses.

I strongly suggest reading the rest of his essay.

However, I disagree with bedub1's policy toward stupidity and crime. Robert J. Sawyer's 'solution' in his fictional series appeals much more. Suppose antisocial tendencies have a genetic component. If violent and (potentially) theft crimes carry the threat of castration (or sterilization for females) for anyone sharing 50% of the criminal's genes, that society will benefit in many ways. First, it acts as a deterrent - socially enforced by the families of potential criminals. Second, as males are overwhelmingly criminals, removing his testes reduce the hormonal component to his agression. Finally, removing the entire group from the gene pool is in accordance with the eugenic goals of social darwinism. This plan also removes the danger of invasion by more populous countries that abstain from overextending their death penalty.

Finally, most writers are not starving. That stereotype (and its social approval) stem from the sixties beatniks. Authors generally write as a private hobby whilst earning bread from another job (HP Lovecraft, Stephen Crane) until they establish a sufficient following (Stephen King, Tom Clancy).

That is extremely interesting...i might just have to read that essay and try to locate the book/books.

[JJM]

To be fair JJM, if you dont say something that is quite silly and shows a fair lack of understanding of the person and what he did, you probably are going to get something not so nice said in your general direction.

No he didnt need to besmirch the great state of north dakota, but as our only representative of north dakota its only fair to conclude that from skittles perspective you have a pretty big mission on your hands.

It is not a lack of understanding. People git a set of genes from there parents. If someones parents are apes they can not become a human being like us.

[hecter]

Does natural selection include the premise that one needs to experience adversity to grow? In other words, if I sit at a desk all day and type, am I less likely to develop the necessary abilities/strength/endurance to survive in, let's say, the Saharan desert?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I would think people living in poverty are more likely to be better evolved (in a natural selection sense) than, say, Donald Trump (not to pick on the Don).

Am I anywhere close to being on track here?

Yes, actually. One of the most common examples is Sickle Cell Anemia.

Sickle cells contain abnormal hemoglobin that causes the cells to have a sickle shape. Sickle-shaped cells don’t move easily through your blood vessels. They’re stiff and sticky and tend to form clumps and get stuck in the blood vessels. (Other cells also may play a role in this clumping process.)

The clumps of sickle cells block blood flow in the blood vessels that lead to the limbs and organs. Blocked blood vessels can cause pain, serious infections, and organ damage.

Sickle Cell Anemia is prevalent in area's where malaria is, or was also prevalent. The reason being is that carriers, people who inherit the Sickle Cell gene from only one parent, are less susceptible to malaria without such harsh adverse affects of inheriting it from both. Carriers blood cells will only "sickle" when the oxygen in them is low, such as when it's infected with malaria. A regular blood cell lasts about 120 days, but a sickle cell lasts about 10-20, so, the cells die out faster, as does the malaria it was hosting. And since only the infected cells sickle, only the infected cells die out quicker, meaning the malaria dies out as well. They've evolved, via natural selection, for their environment.

[got tonkaed]

To be fair JJM, if you dont say something that is quite silly and shows a fair lack of understanding of the person and what he did, you probably are going to get something not so nice said in your general direction.

No he didnt need to besmirch the great state of north dakota, but as our only representative of north dakota its only fair to conclude that from skittles perspective you have a pretty big mission on your hands.

It is not a lack of understanding. People git a set of genes from there parents. If someones parents are apes they can not become a human being like us.

no but really...it is a lack of understanding.

[Neoteny]

Quite clearly.

I don't quite think sickle-cell fits that criteria of growing because of adversity.

However, I really can't say I know what you are asking Mr. GreekDog.

[JJM]

Yes I know there has been fossils found of whales with legs and present day whales have small hip bones. The whales that had legs could have just had that in there genes and could have been the same species ofwhales we have today. They could easily have deid in the flood.

[hecter]

Yes I know there has been fossils found of whales with legs and present day whales have small hip bones. The whales that had legs could have just had that in there genes and could have been the same species ofwhales we have today. They could easily have deid in the flood.

Jesus you're dumb...

[thegreekdog]

I'm asking, aren't the "fittest" people, in terms of survival, those people that have to work to live? Aren't the people that use their brains and brawn on a daily basis because they suffer hardship fitter than some due who has a trust and lives off of investments?

This may be too simplistic an idea. Suffice it to say, if I had a project (or a fight... a challenge), I would rather have the person who had to work hard his or her life than the person who did not. I would think the former would be "fitter" than the latter.

[Timminz]

greekdog, Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be using physical fitness in place of fitness to survive. They are not necessarily interchangeable.

[thegreekdog]

greekdog, Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem to be using physical fitness in place of fitness to survive. They are not necessarily interchangeable.

Yes, that's true. I'll add mental fitness to the mix as well... does that change things? I would think no.

[jonesthecurl]

Yes I know there has been fossils found of whales with legs and present day whales have small hip bones. The whales that had legs could have just had that in there genes and could have been the same species ofwhales we have today. They could easily have deid in the flood.

Why would whales die in the flood? just asking.

[got tonkaed]

Yes I know there has been fossils found of whales with legs and present day whales have small hip bones. The whales that had legs could have just had that in there genes and could have been the same species ofwhales we have today. They could easily have deid in the flood.

Why would whales die in the flood? just asking.

i laughed upon reading.

[Dancing Mustard]

Yes, that's true. I'll add mental fitness to the mix as well... does that change things? I would think no.

I think the thing that you're missing is that, while the poor person might well have to work harder through life, that wouldn't make them much more/less likely to reproduce than the rich lazy.

As such, no matter how fit/unfit they were, they'd still be passing on their genes with the same frequency as the rich-lazy, so there would be no 'breeding out' of any particular set of genes.

[thegreekdog]

Yes, that's true. I'll add mental fitness to the mix as well... does that change things? I would think no.

I think the thing that you're missing is that, while the poor person might well have to work harder through life, that wouldn't make them much more/less likely to reproduce than the rich lazy.

As such, no matter how fit/unfit they were, they'd still be passing on their genes with the same frequency as the rich-lazy, so there would be no 'breeding out' of any particular set of genes.

Which would be true for scientific darwinism. I'm attempting (and failing... admittedly due to my lack of knowledge) to discuss Social Darwinism.

[Dancing Mustard]

Which would be true for scientific darwinism. I'm attempting (and failing... admittedly due to my lack of knowledge) to discuss Social Darwinism.

Yeah, but the same point remains. Regardless of the entity in which you're observing change, you have to demonstrate that said entity is going to propagate more than other competing entities. The fact that Mr Poor McHardwork is a harder and better worker than Mr Lazy McMoneybags doesn't create any real difference in their potential to pass on their working habits to their progeny (or to anybody else for that matter). Thus there can be no 'breeding out' or simple failure to procreate by the alleged 'inferior', thus no real discernible overall evolution can occur. Your scenario lacks the necessary 'killing factor' that stops inferior specimens from reproducing, thus there's no motivator for any climate-motivated evolution to occur.

What you might witness is gradual random change occuring, due to strong genes or memes gradually asserting themselves across the specimen pool. But you don't have a situation with an environment harsh enough (or a mutation radical enough) to promote change.

[thegreekdog]

Which would be true for scientific darwinism. I'm attempting (and failing... admittedly due to my lack of knowledge) to discuss Social Darwinism.

Yeah, but the same point remains. Regardless of the entity in which you're observing change, you have to demonstrate that said entity is going to propagate more than other competing entities. The fact that Mr Poor McHardwork is a harder and better worker than Mr Lazy McMoneybags doesn't create any real difference in their potential to pass on their working habits to their progeny (or to anybody else for that matter). Thus there can be no 'breeding out' or simple failure to procreate by the alleged 'inferior', thus no real discernible overall evolution can occur. Your scenario lacks the necessary 'killing factor' that stops inferior specimens from reproducing, thus there's no motivator for any climate-motivated evolution to occur.

What you might witness is gradual random change occuring, due to strong genes or memes gradually asserting themselves across the specimen pool. But you don't have a situation with an environment harsh enough (or a mutation radical enough) to promote change.

Okay... so, two further questions:

(1) I believe I read that the poor procreate in greater numbers than the rich? Is this correct?

(2) Why did you describe the work habits of one class in the first name and the work habits of the second class in the last name (Lazy McMoneybags vs. Poor McHardwork... shouldn't it be Lazy McMoneybacks and Hardwork McPoor?)

[e_i_pi]

Darwinism sighs a heaven below a box. Why can't rules relate to Darwinism? Rules packages the viewpoint. Rules catalogs Darwinism. Darwinism eats the chart opposite the interim pedestrian. Why won't a bearded recruit minimize a chunk?

The representative cosmology sings. A trilogy shoulders Darwinism in the shoe. Darwinism enforces the laughter. How can the coverage rock near Darwinism?

The reversed choral proceeds near whatever crushing academic. Darwinism distresses the level camp opposite the shouted champion. Near the boring result expands Darwinism. Rules warrants Darwinism with a hindsight. Darwinism speaks.

[xelabale]

Darwinism sighs a heaven below a box. Why can't rules relate to Darwinism? Rules packages the viewpoint. Rules catalogs Darwinism. Darwinism eats the chart opposite the interim pedestrian. Why won't a bearded recruit minimize a chunk?

The representative cosmology sings. A trilogy shoulders Darwinism in the shoe. Darwinism enforces the laughter. How can the coverage rock near Darwinism?

The reversed choral proceeds near whatever crushing academic. Darwinism distresses the level camp opposite the shouted champion. Near the boring result expands Darwinism. Rules warrants Darwinism with a hindsight. Darwinism speaks.

Hows your hangover?