Natural Selection - Trim the herd!

Redleslie2

Sharza- wrote:

Homosexuality for example. I have a friend who is gay, and I used to participate in protests and other things for equal rights and gay marriage rights. However now I have to "evil" view that really, homosexual people can't achieve the fundamental aim of the human race which is to breed.

Feminism and female rights also, I have to admit firstly that despite advocating it in the past I never actually helped the cause, more of the "armchair warrior" posistion. Now however I find it hard to believe in our country that women are discrimated anywhere. And I fear to say this, but actually believe women are best suited to the housewife role. Still I do not class myself as a Male Chauvinist because although these are my beliefs I would never force or even try to convert anyone to them, mainly because I don't care enough.

If you "don't care" don't post your rubbish.

We said we'd get rid of the following:
Unhealthy people - Because their children would inherit their bad genes and probably not survive anyway.
Weak males - Because again of the children they would create.
Ugly females(oh my god) - Because naturaly most males are attracted to pretty females and some scientists are of the belief that 'looks' are based upon good-luck in a sense in the gene pool, disease free..
Homosexuals(I cant believe he said that!) - Well because they dont create children at all.

The nazi cult had the same silly pseudo scientific ideas and look what happened them. They got trimmed from the herd more or less.

Some of you may find my thinking disturbing, or quite a common mind-set.

I think you have some issues to deal with and you should read some psychology. Homophobia and crude sexism may result from one being unable to accept one's own latent homosexuality.

Neuro

Sharza- wrote:

I now consider myself more of a realist, and very much non-politically correct. For example, a few months ago I used to debate endlessly about the lies and deception of the Iraq war. Now I have to admit, I a) Partially don't give a monkeys and b) well maybe is this an evolved form of Natural Selection, Iraq is a threat to America and therefore will have to be removed.

What you're espousing here is a form of Social Darwinism that was common in the early 20th century. It's the belief that natural selection favours groups within a species and therefore it's beneficial for society to rid itself of inferior groups for its own benefit.

This belief arises out of a fundamental misapplication of the theory of natural selection. Natural selection only selects the individuals that are fittest in a particular environment; it does not operate at a group level.
In other words, at a purely biological level, only individuals compete with each other to pass on their genes, groups do not.

You may want to read the following books to get a more up-to-date account of how evolution and natural selection actually work:

The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
Evolutionary Psychology, David M. Buss

HarryD

Zaphod wrote:

Can we squash one canard from the outset - natural selection does not mean that it is the physically strongest who survive and thrive. What it does say is that those who have the genetic makeup which allows them to cope best with the environmental conditions at a given point in time are the ones which are most likely to survive, reproduce and increase in number.

and often this means the strongest. But not always as you say.

Zaphod wrote:

BTW how do you know their sickness is genetic and not environmental, or even a genetic predisposition to an illness which is triggered by outside environmental factors?

I don't. I'm just pointing out that I don't think they would have as high a chance of survival in the stone age, regardless of how their sickness is caused.

Zaphod wrote:

As to the mother being "not very intelligent" surely this again has far more to do with environment and upbringing (schooling etc) than genetics?

Intelligence has nothing to do with education.

Zaphod wrote:

This notion that if you take a 'perfect' male and female and mate them, that their offspring would be equal or even superior genetically is the sort of eugenical nonsense worthy of a 19th century Victorian. Science has moved quite a bit in the last hundred years or so.

Not superior to any other being. Just have a higher chance of survival.

Zaphod wrote:

Likewise how exactly?

? Homosexuals would not have procreated in the stone age.

Zaphod wrote:

So if natural selection got us into this mess, what makes you think it will get us out of it?

What mess ?

F Fiesta

I think you have some issues to deal with and you should read some psychology. Homophobia and crude sexism may result from one being unable to accept one's own latent homosexuality

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.


And it's no surprise that his username begins with 'Red'.

Sharza-

Sorry havent replied or anything, first off to those attacking me, remeber that thing Im sure you preach, "freedom of speach" n all, yeah thanks for that, now go, shoo!

simu wrote:

What happened exactly to change your mind? Give examples. Did you decide women are best suited to being housewives because Mammy wasn't there to do your laundry for you anymore? (The horror!!!one!!!). Did all the nasty stupid people whom you believe don't deserve to live manage to take the jobs and apartments you were applying for?

Heh, well thanks for assuming the worst anyway.

Anyway, I suppose you are a bit right, most of these feelings originally stemmed from being bitter towards (from my perspective) unfairly getting the sh!t end of the stick in the big bad world. However that is not how I finally came to this way of thinking. Let me example you as you asked. Funny thing (funny now cause I know better) but I took things and stuff from TV for granted, women for example(now hold up dont throw me on the internet-woman-hater bandwagon, im not blaming women, read on), I had this idea that women went for "nice, honest, sensitive guys" so I tried to be this and as a result stopped being true to who I am, I started appologising for being male almost, when I later learned what was being broadcast in my face the whole freakin time, was that women went for the "popular bloke" (or now as I would say, the High status male). So I became bitter thinking things like, "shallow fools", then I started thinking, well Im kinda shalow too honestly, I only go for looks, (personality would matter if looking for a long-term thing, simply to prevent insanity, or perhaps enjoy the company). I also started realising how even more shallow I was. Despite sometimes being with a girl I was really attracted to, I would catch a glimpse of other women who were also attractive, maybe even less so than my girlfriend, and have this massive urge to shag em :P.

Then I realised this:

Me going for looks.
Me having sexual desire for all attractive females I see.
Women going for high status males.

Its not shallow, its natural. All these at first seemingly superficial things have very powerfull biological reasoning. I feel there is very much the animal part in all of us begging for attention. And began to love these things.

For example:
Sometimes Im sitting here at the pc or watching tv, or just going about daily life and I have this massive urge to just start running, and expending all my energy, even for no obvious goal, it doesnt havent to be purposful at all.

Or guys in nightclubs who get all thick when someone is chatting to their girlfriend, I like others used to think "that guy has major inseucirties", yeah maybe, or maybe its just the natural impulse I allways felt in the same situation to as it were "protect my herd".

But my favourite of all, was a girl I knew who one day when asked by a friend what she looked for in a man, and she said hes gotta be tall or atleast able to handle himself, I said why for curiositys sake and she said to feel safe. In my head I was like "pff, what you need to feel safe from these days?" and then it hit me, just because she doesnt need it these days means nothing, its one of those hidden animal in us all, she would look for a mate able to protect her.

I find this stuff cool, and I feel much happier accepting these things instead of getting on the moral fabric wagon.

Tommy tiernan put it brilliantly in one of his dvds, i forget which one, where he said something along the lines of:

"Its very hard to capture this feeling as an adult, its that feeling you had as a kid when you were running down a hill that was too steep for you" or something like that.

Now whats so inherently great about running down a hill, nothing really but its still great fun, why? Dunno, but its that same as when you pull the lead out and your dog has a hissy fit because he gets to go outside, even though he spends most of his time there anyway.

simu wrote:

Is this the most radical set of ideas you could come up with? As others have said, they're not very original.

What did you want? Renaissance material? Pfff


Anyway(i say that alot), Im a terrible ranter, and I dunno where I started, but I assume its not the same place I finished

HarryD

F Fiesta wrote:

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.

I have to agree..
Shallow minded muppets.

MorningStar

All quite amazing.

Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep.

Sexual attraction is obviously going to have an animal element as it is a basic animal desire. As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in. Don't mix up what you heard in the media and the rights of people in society.

No explanation why woman are suited to home life. You could have made valid point about multi-tasking and how woman or better, the 9 month bonding with the child and maybe breast feeding. Worth a debate but in our culture an equally of the roles is seen as important. There is a settling in period that has had bad results such as increased male suicide, increase in single parent families and increased childcare raising.

Just because somebody isn't going to breed doesn't mean the forfeit their rights.

Animal social structures are about survival of the fittest. Animals constantly compensate for injured memembers and even take in animals of different types in. Haven't you heard of Tarzan?

I have to guess you are the person who rings up phone surveys to say you are undecided. I don't particualry mean to insult you but the way your arguement has been put accross leaves little choice as it is just opinion with no reason or logic on some points.

There could be some logic about weak genes and fertility assistance. By assisting people who can't naturally have children are we interferring with nature's way of sustaining an order? Debateable and I must admitt I am unsure. Anybody know how they make sure sperm donation doesn't cause half brothers and sisters from meeting and have children?

BuffyBot

remeber that thing Im sure you preach, "freedom of speach" n all, yeah thanks for that, now go, shoo!

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

bonkey

Sharza wrote:

it is infact *probably* what nature would do to us given the chance.

The use of the term "given the chance" is simply a way of saying "if we were different to what we are now".

You can carefully choose your time along the timeline of our evolution and say "look - if we were at this point....I'm more-or-less correct". Of course...if we move slightly higher or lower on the evolutionary scale, then your premises don't hold true. So...whats so magic about the point you've chosen? Why is it the defining point in our evolutionary scale?

Because if there's no reason to say that its a defining point, there's no reason to argue that this is what nature would do "given the chance", but rather, what would happen if we were at a particular and different point on our evolutionary scale. But we're not....so its as relevant and meaningful a question as musing what would happen if Pangea had never split up, or if one of the extinction events had wiped out more species.

If one were to believe in a defining point in the evolutionary scale, of course, then surely one should not avail of any of the advancements that we have made (sociologically and scientifically) since then before taking the moral high-ground to suggest that others shouldn't also reap those benefits.

i.e. Anyone who actually believed those people you list should be put to death despite the fact that the traits mentioned are not purely inherited because nature would "take care" of them if we were at our defining evolutionary point should first show themselves willing to embrace that evolutionary point before suggesting others should be forced to. Anything less would by hypocritical surely?

GuanYin

Just a quick note that this whole thread is based on a completely erroneous view on what natural selection is and how it works.

So basically the whole discussion is, scientifically, a nonsense.

Just as an aside, regarding "ugly females" - what we view now as attractive and ugly, is not the same as what other cultures view as attractive and ugly. Furthermore, what we NOW view as ugly, is not what we would have viewed as ugly 30-40 years ago.

Society largely dictates what we find attractive (familiarity is another, although several instinctive reflexes can come into play too) and although now we see rake thin uncurved females as attractive, as recently as the 60's a sinze 10-12 was the shape of a sex symbol. One modelling agency said a few years ago that had Cindy Crawford been discovered today, she'd have been asked to lose half a stone.

Sharza-

MorningStar wrote:

All quite amazing.

Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep.

Sexual attraction is obviously going to have an animal element as it is a basic animal desire. As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in. Don't mix up what you heard in the media and the rights of people in society.

No explanation why woman are suited to home life. You could have made valid point about multi-tasking and how woman or better, the 9 month bonding with the child and maybe breast feeding. Worth a debate but in our culture an equally of the roles is seen as important. There is a settling in period that has had bad results such as increased male suicide, increase in single parent families and increased childcare raising.

Just because somebody isn't going to breed doesn't mean the forfeit their rights.

Animal social structures are about survival of the fittest. Animals constantly compensate for injured memembers and even take in animals of different types in. Haven't you heard of Tarzan?

I have to guess you are the person who rings up phone surveys to say you are undecided. I don't particualry mean to insult you but the way your arguement has been put accross leaves little choice as it is just opinion with no reason or logic on some points.

There could be some logic about weak genes and fertility assistance. By assisting people who can't naturally have children are we interferring with nature's way of sustaining an order? Debateable and I must admitt I am unsure. Anybody know how they make sure sperm donation doesn't cause half brothers and sisters from meeting and have children?

Have to say, again with the me bashing. Seriously what an amazing judge of character you are, really from two posts you have solved all my issues, and they stem from my childhood and lack of personality. You muppet.

Seriously I am annoyed now, flaw my theory like the rest are doing fine. But what the feck are you flaming me for?

"Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep."

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

"As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in."

What the hell does everyone do in their teens? Put on facades and try to fit it. And I said I used to do it.

Part of me is wanting to slag the hell out of you now, but I wont, because I cant be arsed.

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism.

LOL ... yes I always love it when people come up with the Fox News definition of freedom of speech (we have the right to say what ever we want, and you have the right to shut up about it!).

To OP, no one is stopping you from saying what you like. We are just pointing out that it is a rather silly and ill formed argument

HarryD

psi wrote:

Just as an aside, regarding "ugly females" - what we view now as attractive and ugly, is not the same as what other cultures view as attractive and ugly. Furthermore, what we NOW view as ugly, is not what we would have viewed as ugly 30-40 years ago

Have you read the thread ?
This point has already been made.
The_syco wrote: "Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder."

psi wrote:

So basically the whole discussion is, scientifically, a nonsense.

Perhaps you should read it first ?

simu

Sharza- wrote:

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

Great revelation coming up:

There are these things, they're called newspapers and they like, tell you about stuff like that...

MorningStar

Sharza- wrote:

Have to say, again with the me bashing. Seriously what an amazing judge of character you are, really from two posts you have solved all my issues, and they stem from my childhood and lack of personality. You muppet.

Seriously I am annoyed now, flaw my theory like the rest are doing fine. But what the feck are you flaming me for?

"Firstly the fact you only realised what the world was like once you left home indicates the control your family had over you. This would suggest a weak personality that probably means you need to stick to a herd for protection like a sheep."

Well how the hell am I supposed to learn about landlords ripping the p!ss out of people when I live at home? How am I supposed to learn about how ridiculous my insurance costs are when Im at home? You hear about these things, but they never sink in until they happen to yourself. Also I moved out at 18 so you cant say, "well you could have gotten a car at home".

"As for changing your personality to get the girls also suggest a weak personality and trying to fit in."

What the hell does everyone do in their teens? Put on facades and try to fit it. And I said I used to do it.

Part of me is wanting to slag the hell out of you now, but I wont, because I cant be arsed.

As I said I didn't want to insult you but you stated opinion without reason or logic. You have done so again, landlord provide a service that is required WHAT makes them a rip off? Insurance is a rip off WHY? THey make too much profit ?
At 18 I was aware of how insurance was calculated what a landlord provides. The fact you didn't suggests your family either never discussed current events or you paid no attention to news and you were in a vacum. As you couldn't empathised with the situation before maybe if you worked in the insurance industry or become a landlord you could make a balanced arguement. You could just decide to completely swing your opinion again.

Learn to debate your points and keep to the ones you originally made. WHY are woman better suited to be housewifes than working according to you? No reason given by you yet people asked for your reasoning. Your a big boy now stand your ground and explain.

When I was a teen I was trying to figure out who I was not how do I blend into the herd.

Victor

Sharza- wrote:

I wont, because I cant be arsed.

Obviously the sign of a weak person ......

Humblebee

MorningStar wrote:

Learn to debate your points and keep to the ones you originally made. WHY are woman better suited to be housewifes than working according to you? No reason given by you yet people asked for your reasoning. Your a big boy now stand your ground and explain.

Morningstar, the OP obviously came to this very logical conclusion when he moved out of his parents' house and had to do his own laundry. He wasn't able to handle this chore, even though his mother made it all look so easy. Therefore, he came to the very reasonable conclusion that women have a natural talent for housework. They can't be good at EVERYTHING (that would make them better than men), so they must be ONLY suited to domestic duties.

Yes, life sure is hard in Dublin for the young, white, middleclass male. :rolleyes:

Redleslie2

F Fiesta wrote:

There's always one that throws in a comment like this.


And it's no surprise that his username begins with 'Red'.

I was making a reference to Freud, the daddy of psychoanalysis. The nazis didn't like him, or Wilhelm Reich, you know. All that stuff about sex made them queasy you see. Your response is a fairly predictable conservative, repressed and ultimately useless one, a total unwillingness to explore or discuss the subject at all. A product of our society I suppose.

I suspect a pretty clear case of displaced aggression here, frustrated person attacking or fantasising about attacking someone or something that's not the original source of frustration. Everyone's prone to it, human nature and all that. What's this guy's real problem wonders I?

Redleslie2

Sharza- wrote:

Tommy tiernan

GuanYin

HarryD wrote:

Have you read the thread ?
This point has already been made.
The_syco wrote: "Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder."

Perhaps you should read it first ?

I don't thinkhe made exactly the same point, but I did read it thanks.

Perhaps leave the moderating to moderators?

And the thread is still, scientifically, a nonsense.

Zaphod

HarryD wrote:

and often this means the strongest. But not always as you say.

I would maintain that it isn't even often. There is a whole host of ways of gaining a competitive advantage over your rivals - being faster or smarter; having a greater tolerance of heat or cold or drought; having higher fecundity; even the ability to respire using sulphur instead of oxygen. The list goes on and on. You only have to look at the myriad different types of life on the planet and their different environments to see that being stronger is only one of very many means of helping to pass your genes onto the next generation.

HarryD wrote:

I don't. I'm just pointing out that I don't think they would have as high a chance of survival in the stone age, regardless of how their sickness is caused.

I could equally argue that the less polluted conditions of the Stone Age would do them the world of good and before long they would have returned to rude good health.

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that natural selection has led to the introduction of one disease in an attempt to avoid another. The single gene which gives many Europeans a greater immunity to cholera actually leads to cystic fibrosis when 2 copies of the gene are inherited from both parents. Similarly, natural selection led to the gene which gives many Africans a defence against malaria, but when 2 copies of it are inherited it results in sickle cell anaemia.

So there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the human race would emerge any healthier if we were all plunged back into the Stone Age again.

HarryD wrote:

Intelligence has nothing to do with education.

Given that it's somewhat unlikely that you regularly administer standardised IQ tests to your neighbours, how did you originally determine her lack or otherwise of intelligence, and how did you ascribe it to purely genetic factors?

HarryD wrote:

Not superior to any other being. Just have a higher chance of survival.

Elizabeth Nietzsche also thought that being stronger would offer her band of merry followers a higher chance of survival when then headed off to the depths of Paraguay. And that little experiment turned out to be a abject failure, inspite of all their 'strong breeding'.

Having 2 strong parents is no more an indicator that their offspring will be strong than it is for 2 brown-eyed parents to have brown-eyed children. Even a rudimentary understanding of Mendelism would bear this out.

And in any case, being stronger only offers a higher chance of survival if the environmental conditions favour it. You can't simply isolate genes from environment - to attempt to do so it a fool's errand.

HarryD wrote:

? Homosexuals would not have procreated in the stone age.

Your scenario is based on 2 inherent assumptions:
1. Sexual orientation is determined by purely genetic factors alone - highly unlikely.
2. That the gene(s) for homosexuality are only passed on by homosexuals - this is plainly wrong for a number of reasons.

Firstly, we've already had the Stone Age a few thousand years ago. I sincerely doubt that your average homosexual male spent his free time rogering every fertile female with gay abandon in an effort to pass on his genes in a farsighted and selfless effort to give future generations of genticists something to ponder over.

Secondly you are also implying by the above statement that gay men and women who are alive today were born to a gay parent. There are a lot of people in for a hell of a shock if that is so.

Thirdly, as we have already been through the Stone Age, and homsexuality is still present among humans, then it follows that homosexuality was not so detrimental to the species for natural selection to have led to the discarding of those genes which tilt a person's sexual orientation in that direction. Most likely they had no effect either way. They may even have had a beneficial effect as suggested by some evolutionary geneticists.

HarryD wrote:

What mess ?

This one:

HarryD wrote:

I do think we are
misguided, in many ways.
like systematically devoloping weapons of mass destruction with the
sole purpose of destroying 1000s of our fellow Humans.

solo1

Sharza,

I recognise the basic truth in what you're saying, but what you're suggesting is a sort of Ayn Rand universe where only those who are strong enough and unpleasant enough survive. Now the truth of what you say is, at least in my opinion, incontrovertible. But human life and existence is about more than just objective truth, if there even is such a thing.

If you accept that the only function of humanity is to breed, then of course homosexuals are useless. There's no doubt about that. So are all sterile people, or priests (normally), or people who, for one reason or another, choose not to have children. Are you going to get rid of them all?

Here's a question - say you have a three-year-old daughter and she develops an infection which would be easily treated with antibiotics, but without that treatment she'll be dead in a few days. Do you think that you would forego her treatment to make sure that the rest of humanity is strong? Or do you do whatever you have to do to make sure that she gets the medecine she needs?

I know what I'd do. And, by the same token, gays are cool with me.

bonkey

solo1 wrote:

Here's a question - say you have a three-year-old daughter and she develops an infection which would be easily treated with antibiotics, but without that treatment she'll be dead in a few days. Do you think that you would forego her treatment to make sure that the rest of humanity is strong? Or do you do whatever you have to do to make sure that she gets the medecine she needs?

I know what I'd do.

Forget the "daughter scenario". Would Sharza be willing to die him/herself from a treatable illness rather than seek aid? That is the question.

jc

MorningStar

Whoa!

We are really going off the point. The point is some whinny left wing middleclass boy left his home and then became a biggot. He isn't even involved in the thread now. If you really think there s point in discussing the laws of natural selection and what are current society likes and dislikes you really need to chill.

solo1

I'll discuss anything with anyone. I have no standards.

Would Sharza be willing to die him/herself from a treatable illness rather than seek aid? That is the question.

No, because I can easily imagine someone dying for deeply committed reasons that they feel are right unto themselves. However, to inflict that fate on an innocent of your own blood might be a whole other story. That is why I specifically picked the example of the child over the self.

HarryD

Zaphod wrote:

I would maintain that it isn't even often. There is a whole host of ways of gaining a competitive advantage over your rivals

I would maintain it is often.
While there are a whole host of ways, I think strength is the most common.
There are many examples to be observed in the wild animal kingdom.

Zaphod wrote:

Given that it's somewhat unlikely that you regularly administer standardised IQ tests to your neighbours, how did you originally determine her lack or otherwise of intelligence, and how did you ascribe it to purely genetic factors?

It's plain to see when someone is lacking intelligence.
They get fundamental tasks wrong. They make regular bad decisions.
Often their offspring have similar traits, as in this case. Hence genetic.

Zaphod wrote:

Your scenario is based on 2 inherent assumptions:
1. Sexual orientation is determined by purely genetic factors alone - highly unlikely.
2. That the gene(s) for homosexuality are only passed on by homosexuals - this is plainly wrong for a number of reasons.

My scenario is that an individual homosexual in the stoneage would not have passed on their genes.
I'm not suggesting it's genetic.

Zaphod wrote:

This one:

The Human race if doing brilliant, thanks to our intelligence.
We are misguided in some ways, but that majority of society is great.
I wouldn't call it a mess.

HarryD

psi wrote:

I don't think he made exactly the same point

psi wrote:

what we NOW view as ugly, is not what we would have viewed as ugly 30-40 years ago

The_syco wrote:

Fat women used to be seen as a status symbol, as if they're fat, they must be wealthy. Beauty is also in the eye of the beholder.

can you explain out the difference between these points?

psi wrote:

And the thread is still, scientifically, a nonsense.

Explain

Zaphod

HarryD wrote:

I would maintain it is often.
While there are a whole host of ways, I think strength is the most common.
There are many examples to be observed in the wild animal kingdom.

Why not give your many examples and I'll see if I can match them.

HarryD wrote:

It's plain to see when someone is lacking intelligence.

"It's plain to see" is on a par with "I've got a gut feeling" in terms of scientific rigour. Unless you can back your hypothesis up with hard evidence, it's merely speculation.

HarryD wrote:

They get fundamental tasks wrong. They make regular bad decisions.
Often their offspring have similar traits, as in this case. Hence genetic.

Hence nothing. They are being reared in the same environment.

HarryD wrote:

My scenario is that an individual homosexual in the stoneage would not have passed on their genes.
I'm not suggesting it's genetic.

They didn't pass on their genes in the actual Stone Age, they aren't now doing so and neither would they in your fictional Stone Age. So what exactly was your point in mentioning homosexuality in the first place, and specifically so in the context of your thoughts on so-called "weak breeding"?

HarryD wrote:

The Human race if doing brilliant, thanks to our intelligence.
We are misguided in some ways, but that majority of society is great.
I wouldn't call it a mess.

I agree. And we can all be grateful that evolution and natural selection led to the development of bigger brains - not greater strength - thereby giving us the competitive advantage over our ancestors.

HarryD

Zaphod wrote:

Why not give your many examples and I'll see if I can match them.

There are countless species where the dominant male is the only one that gets to mate with the females.
To become the dominant male you have to have the strength to fight off other males.
A few examples: Lions, Apes, Impala, Chmips, N.American Wolves...

Zaphod wrote:

"It's plain to see" is on a par with "I've got a gut feeling" in terms of scientific rigour. Unless you can back your hypothesis up with hard evidence, it's merely speculation.

"I've got a gut feeling" is pure speculation.
"It's plain to see" is not speculation.
If you spend enough time with someone you can quite easily see how intelligent they are. The 'hard evidence' is there, when they repeatedly make the same mistakes, and get simple tasks, blatently wrong.
Species intelligence if often judged by giving them
simple tasks to perform, and see how successful they are at it,
and how they can remember how to complete them.

Zaphod wrote:

Hence nothing. They are being reared in the same environment.

So yer saying the environment one is reared in, can affect their intelligence?

Zaphod wrote:

what exactly was your point in mentioning homosexuality in the first place

That was the OP. I was just agreeing with him.

ressem

To become the dominant male you have to have the strength to fight off other males.

Bertie Ahern, the FF champion weightlifter. Who would have guessed?

Or were you talking about a strength other than upper body.

Species intelligence if often judged by giving them simple tasks to perform, and see how successful they are at it...

So yer saying the environment one is reared in, can affect their intelligence?

Absolutely. Especially using your flawed definition of intelligence, imagine how a day spent watching, copying and being corrected by an expert would improve your chances at succeeding at a task deemed necessary in your environment. Also how moving a person from one work environment to another, by way of promotion say, can result in different people having different views on someones cognitive ability. Your CEO was possibly a competent worker once.

Natural selection allows for imperfection, getting things wrong time and again, so long as it doesn't happen with critical tasks at critical times. Or do you want to bet that our ancestors never failed a task.

No accounting for experience, speed, endurance, stubborness, confidence, Monday mornings etc that make success and failure so unpredictable for everyone?