• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Natural selection

idunno

Banned
I
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
811
If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?
 
the rich and healthy are a minority
Click to expand...

Surely by default the rich have to be a minority, if we were all rich then.........<can I be bothered to type more?>
 
idunno said:
If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "Darwinistic theory"?

Darwin's theory of natural selection explains the success and radiation of the human species very well. I don't think it's proper to apply it to human economics, if that's what you're doing. (Granted, Darwin was inspired by some ideas in economics, but it's not the same issue at all.)

In the theory of evolution by natural selection, "fitness" is defined by the result. Those traits with the most reproductive success are those deemed "fittest". So your observation that the "weak and the poor" have greater reproductive success is NOT the same thing as saying that the "least fit" have better reproductive success than the "fittest".
 
idunno said:
If Darwinistic theory is right how come it is the weak and oor that tend to breed and propagate the most whereas the rich and healthy are a minority and have few offspring?
Click to expand...

Short answer: You cannot apply Darwin's theory to human societies.

Your question disqualifies you from the long answer...
 
Wowbagger said:
Many things determine reproductive fitness, (not just physical fitness or wealth). You views about what influences the process are probably overly simplified.
Click to expand...

I think he was asking about real-world reproductive activity, rather than a notional 'fitness'.
 
By caring for our sick and elderly, and through manipulating our environment, one could argue that humans have co-opted natural selection.
 
Megalodon said:
Short answer: You cannot apply Darwin's theory to human societies.

Your question disqualifies you from the long answer...
Click to expand...

How did human beings manage to escape something that's supposed to be a universal principle of biology?
(*whispers*, it wouldn't be free will, would it? ;) )
 
Fitness, in terms of natureal selection, isn't the same as strong, rich, smart, or pretty.

If any characteristic of an organism helps it procreate successfully, those characteristics will be passed on. Natural selection's standards are much simpler than societal standards.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
Fitness, in terms of natureal selection, isn't the same as strong, rich, smart, or pretty.

If any characteristic of an organism helps it procreate successfully, those characteristics will be passed on. Natural selection's standards are much simpler than societal standards.
Click to expand...

Whence homosexuals?
 
Natural Selection:

dogjumpsoutthewindow.gif


There you have it, evolution in motion.
 
OK. . .again: fitness is defined by the outcome, so there is no way around selection. You could argue that artificial selection could displace natural selection (like dog breeding or weird ideas of eugenics in humans), but that's not what idunno is talking about, I don't think.

Secondly, Lamarckism isn't true so traits like "weakness" and "poverty" really are irrelevant. You only inherit your economic status due to social norms, NOT due to actual biological inheritance. Thus you can be born poor and become wealthy (and vice versa). You can be a body builder and build huge muscles but give birth to a kid who remains a skinny weakling.

In some environments, the "fittest" is a smaller (and weaker) organism that requires fewer resources. There is no objective standard of "fitness" that is always true. If that were so, then small and weak organisms would not exist by now. If selection only preferred the strong, the Earth would be inhabited by nothing but muscular giant forms. There are many "strategies" for survival, and being strong is only one of them.

Natural selection only "cares" about reproductive success. In the mostly human-created environment that humans live in, strength and wealth aren't big influences on reproductive success. Again, do not confuse reproductive success with economic success. Do not confuse "fitness" with anything like conventional standards of inferiority or superiority. In terms of evolution by natural selection, fitness is only defined by reproductive success.
 
plumjam said:
How did human beings manage to escape something that's supposed to be a universal principle of biology?
(*whispers*, it wouldn't be free will, would it? ;) )
Click to expand...
You're making a huge and erroneous assumption.

Humans did not "escape" the principal of evolution through natural selection.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You're making a huge and erroneous assumption.

Humans did not "escape" the principal of evolution through natural selection.
Click to expand...

I was asking the question of Megalodon, who stated we can't apply Darwinian theory to human societies.
 
plumjam said:
I think he was asking about real-world reproductive activity, rather than a notional 'fitness'.
Click to expand...
My interpretation, is that he thinks he spots a flaw in Darwin's theory: If survival of the fittest is true, then (according to his views) why are do many unfit people reproduce so much?

I answered by pointing out that it is reproductive fitness that ultimately matters. And, a lot of factors go into that, not just the subjective notions of 'fitness' we humans often notice.


To add to that:
The rich and healthy have adapted a survival strategy, where they don't need to reproduce as much, because their children are more likely going to be healthy and survive.

The sick and poor have adapted a strategy where they just try to have as many children as possible, in hopes that some of them will survive.

That summary also over-simplies the matter. There are a lot of complicated other aspects involved. But, my point is: Darwin's theory helps us develop explanations for the observations in the opening post. The observations are not really flaws, at all.

Jimbo07 said:
By caring for our sick and elderly, and through manipulating our environment, one could argue that humans have co-opted natural selection.
Click to expand...
We humans have the ability to change the course of our own fitness landscape, more so (it seems) than any other life forms.
 
Try not to think of 'Survival of the Fittest', and instead think along the terms of 'Survival of the Fit Enough'.

As long as you're good enough to pass on your genes, you're good enough for evolution. It doesn't matter how strong, or how weak, as long as you can pass on your legacy.
 
plumjam said:
I was asking the question of Megalodon, who stated we can't apply Darwinian theory to human societies.
Click to expand...
Yes, and you were making the assumption that his statement means that humans have somehow "escaped" from natural selection.

You also can't apply the theory of evolution by natural selection to solve a quadratic equation. This also doesn't mean that humans have "escaped" natural selection somehow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom