Evolution has stalled

Oranage2 · 30-04-2011 12:12AM

jive wrote: »

Never even heard of it!! Any good? The synopsis looks like an accurate description of the future anyway!

the irony of this movie is that it's aimed at idiots = Terrible!

cesc77 · 30-04-2011 12:15AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Development within a perceived "safe" environment is a markedly different conversation to the one the OP rather ham-fistedly attempted to start though.

Thanks for that.Do you have something to say or are you a dipperin dipperout?Im intrigued as to how you thought I was ham fisted,sir?

Wibbs · 30-04-2011 12:15AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Well that's me put back in my box

Yea well at least your copyrighted bold text hasn't been compromised. Typical My name is URL, it's all about you *pouts... cries a little*.

There is another option OP. For the first time in the history of life on this planet an organism is self aware and aware of evolutionary change and most of all has the organism built framework to change it. that has never happened before on this planet in it's 4 billion year plus history. This is likely a good thing and in any case we're "natural" our tools are "natural" so anything that flows from us is the same.

ScumLord · 30-04-2011 12:16AM

jive wrote: »

Never even heard of it!! Any good? The synopsis looks like an accurate description of the future anyway!

It's not really, the people that are breeding for state aid aren't breeding for stupidity. There's nothing to say the people labelled as scumbags couldn't integrate quite well into society given the right programming and I'd be fairly confident there could be the same level of intelligence as the more well off classes.

Yahew · 30-04-2011 12:19AM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really, the people that are breeding for state aid aren't breeding for stupidity. There's nothing to say the people labelled as scumbags couldn't integrate quite well into society given the right programming and I'd be fairly confident there could be the same level of intelligence as the more well off classes.

This argument could have been made before free education. My father was the only person in his family to go to secondary school and ( then ) university. His father was a upholsterer - they lived in abject poverty. He was smart, his offspring were smart, even those who did not go to university. His grandchildren are now all in university, in the main.

But that class sorting has already happened. The people who filtered to the bottom filtered to the bottom because they were not as smart - in the main. And they are the ones breeding the most.

Logical Fallacy · 30-04-2011 12:20AM

cesc77 wrote: »

Thanks for that.Do you have something to say or are you a dipperin dipperout?Im intrigued as to how you thought I was ham fisted,sir?

Because whatever you are assuming are "good genes" are the physical manifestation of about 1-2% of the human genome. The rest is all mad ass junk DNA which may just manifest at any time and can contain all kinds of mad ****.

So you are making the argument that people with flawed DNA that could possibly be passed on to the next generation should not be allowed to breed actually applies to everyone....as everyone has potential **** DNA that they can pass on.

Hence my thinking your argument is ham fisted.

cesc77 · 30-04-2011 12:25AM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really, the people that are breeding for state aid aren't breeding for stupidity. There's nothing to say the people labelled as scumbags couldn't integrate quite well into society given the right programming and I'd be fairly confident there could be the same level of intelligence as the more well off classes.

The right programming?loooool.I have been portrayed in poor terms tonight but I have nit and would not mention this.

Your name says it all.You believe that scumbag underclass can rise up and be the epitome of a decent person.

Deluded,mr muppet.

Your post smacks of liberal yoghurt eating guff.

I wish you well

Oranage2 · 30-04-2011 12:26AM

cesc77 wrote: »

My god,I thought that some on here may comprehend..

Are kids borne with glasses?

Does physical appearance equate to ....anything....?

we dont let ugly people breed.

they just do...

ugliness is unquantifiable whereas healthy genes are .Thank You! Neeeexttt!

You're opinion is idiotic at best and doesnt make any sense-

You havent a clue -

the reason people disabilities,special needs,genetic deformaties are allowed to procreate is because we've evolved to this stage either medically or through technology!!!

You say Faulty genes are infiltrate the world gene pool -

so names some defects that people have that we shouldnt let procreate?

cullen5998 · 30-04-2011 12:29AM

cesc77 wrote: »

The right programming?loooool.I have been portrayed in poor terms tonight but I have nit and would not mention this.

Your name says it all.You believe that scumbag underclass can rise up and be the epitome of a decent person.

Deluded,mr muppet.

Your post smacks of liberal yoghurt eating guff.

I wish you well

Go and chase your tail fool. Be gone
No one wants to here your point of view.
Its against decency.
Bye. I pityoufoul.

Smyth · 30-04-2011 12:29AM

Yahew wrote: »

What are you talking about. None of that is relevant to whether human beings are now evolving cerebrally, or not.

I never said that humans on a whole are evolving cerebrally. I said:

We're developing into a society that's dependant on the evolution of the more cerebral for survival.

I then listed those dependencies in my other post. The point being that these developments are advanced by people who are more intelligent...ergo, we're less reliant on physical superiority for our survival. Pretty straight forward.

What are you talking about

jive · 30-04-2011 12:30AM

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not really, the people that are breeding for state aid aren't breeding for stupidity. There's nothing to say the people labelled as scumbags couldn't integrate quite well into society given the right programming and I'd be fairly confident there could be the same level of intelligence as the more well off classes.

Yeah but the people need to be taught young how to not be a dickhead. There are plenty of intelligent scumbags don't get me wrong but they don't apply their intelligence to anything worthwhile and generally rot their brains with drink. The fact that they don't apply themselves to something productive makes them thick in my eyes (even though they may actually be intelligent).

Everyone knows a sharp scumbag(or has at least heard stories about them). It all really depends on where you come from imo. If you live in a **** hole around **** people you will end up just like them regardless of intelligence and it's actually sad in a way. I lived with a lad in college who came from a crap hole and he was as intelligent as they come. Easily one of the most intelligent people I've met but if you were to see him on the street you'd be surprised that he could put 1 foot in the other. He was rough around the edges though and wouldn't get the same opportunities as others as a result. Such is life, it's actually depressing to think about.

My name is URL · 30-04-2011 12:32AM

I think there's too much emphasis being put on how such protocols would be implemented. It should never be a case of disallowing people from making up their own minds.

Education and support are key.. not enforcement.

cullen5998 · 30-04-2011 12:37AM

My name is URL wrote: »

I think there's too much emphasis being put on how such protocols would be implemented. It should never be a case of disallowing people from making up their own minds.

Education and support are key.. not enforcement.

Nice to see you crawl out of your own hole.

My name is URL · 30-04-2011 12:39AM

cullen5998 wrote: »

Nice to see you crawl out of your own hole.

Dude, just stfu. If you cannot partake in a discussion without needing to resort to cheap throwaway comments then why bother at all?

nathanl · 30-04-2011 12:46AM

Evolution isn't stalled ... it's broken, apparently(!)

2 stroke · 30-04-2011 12:50AM

Successful evolution of the human race may not be dependant on the mating of the fittest and smartest. I certainly know of smart sucessful business people that have dumber kids. I see birth defects as evolutions way of experimenting. The next step in human evolution could come from the mating of people with "faulty genes". To simplify this, if two unrelated people,both born with a nonfunctional third hand, were to have childen. There is a chance that one of those children could be born with a fully functional third arm. I don't believe evolution was gradual but came in little leaps.

Yahew · 30-04-2011 12:50AM

Smyth wrote: »

I never said that humans on a whole are evolving cerebrally. I said:

I then listed those dependencies in my other post. The point being that these developments are advanced by people who are more intelligent...ergo, we're less reliant on physical superiority for our survival. Pretty straight forward.

What are you talking about

Evolution? Let me explain. it doesnt matter if we "depend" on smart people if they are not breeding. Let me put it in very simple terms.

Which of these guys is more successful in evolutionary terms.

1) A unmarried Professor of Physics with 0 kids and 0 grandkids.
2) A unemployed man with 16 kids and 160 grandchildren.

The answer is b).

Logical Fallacy · 30-04-2011 12:53AM

2 stroke wrote: »

Successful evolution of the human race may not be dependant on the mating of the fittest and smartest.

In all fairness, not even Charles Darwin ever said this, it's just a load of people on the internet think he did.

Also, (2nd Iteration) - everyone has faulty gene's.

Yahew · 30-04-2011 12:54AM

cullen5998 wrote: »

Go and chase your tail fool. Be gone
No one wants to here your point of view.
Its against decency.
Bye. I pityoufoul.

cesc77 wrote: »

The right programming?loooool.I have been portrayed in poor terms tonight but I have nit and would not mention this.

Your name says it all.You believe that scumbag underclass can rise up and be the epitome of a decent person.

Deluded,mr muppet.

Your post smacks of liberal yoghurt eating guff.

I wish you well

Neither of you can throw a coherent sentence together. Spaces after full stops!!!!! Hear, not here!!

Proof of the thesis right there.

namloc1980 · 30-04-2011 12:54AM

Yahew wrote: »

Evolution? Let me explain. it doesnt matter if we "depend" on smart people if they are not breeding. Let me put it in very simple terms.

Which of these guys is more successful in evolutionary terms.

1) A unmarried Professor of Physics with 0 kids and 0 grandkids.
2) A unemployed man with 16 kids and 160 grandchildren.

The answer is b).

That's ridiculous. What if the Professor of Physics suffers from numerous hereditary diseases and the unemployed man is actually an unemployed Professor of Physics with perfect genes or vice versa?

Yahew · 30-04-2011 12:55AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

In all fairness, not even Charles Darwin ever said this, it's just a load of people on the internet think he did.

He said little about human evolution. He did say that evolution was dependent on the survival of the fittest. Not just random gene selection.

Logical Fallacy · 30-04-2011 12:56AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. What if the Professor of Physics suffers from numerous hereditary diseases and the unemployed man is actually an unemployed Professor of Physics with perfect genes or vice versa?

No one has perfect genes.

(I'm gonna stay saying this **** all damn night until people start having a discussion based in fact as opposed to hyperbole ).

Oranage2 · 30-04-2011 12:56AM

Yahew wrote: »

Neither of you can throw a coherent sentence together. Spaces after full stops!!!!! Hear, not here!!

Proof of the thesis right there.

Both seem immature -- I'd guess the oldest is 17

2 stroke · 30-04-2011 12:56AM

Yahew wrote: »

Evolution? Let me explain. it doesnt matter if we "depend" on smart people if they are not breeding. Let me put it in very simple terms.

Which of these guys is more successful in evolutionary terms.

1) A unmarried Professor of Physics with 0 kids and 0 grandkids.
2) A unemployed man with 16 kids and 160 grandchildren.

The answer is b).

b)? are you sure?

My name is URL · 30-04-2011 12:56AM

Yahew wrote: »

Evolution? Let me explain. it doesnt matter if we "depend" on smart people if they are not breeding. Let me put it in very simple terms.

Which of these guys is more successful in evolutionary terms.

1) A unmarried Professor of Physics with 0 kids and 0 grandkids.
2) A unemployed man with 16 kids and 160 grandchildren.

The answer is b).

Evolution isn't about one versus the other, though. Survival of the fittest is only one aspect of evolution. The bigger picture is how groups integrate with their environments, not how individuals exploit it for their own gain. Having a heap of kids is no guarantee of genetic success.

cullen5998 · 30-04-2011 12:57AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Dude, just stfu. If you cannot partake in a discussion without needing to resort to cheap throwaway comments then why bother at all?

10,338 posts

You really must be a loser if your last comment is all you can give,

Goodnight, i look forward for your next 10 on average posts per day

H2BU Your name is really ... i live on the internet and not in real life(URL).

Yahew · 30-04-2011 12:58AM

namloc1980 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. What if the Professor of Physics suffers from numerous hereditary diseases and the unemployed man is actually an unemployed Professor of Physics with perfect genes or vice versa?

Lol. First you dont get the change the thought experiment. The unemployed guy is lazy and stupid.The physics guy has no diseases.

Secondly the most successful animal in any evolutionary context is the animal with the most progeny.

miss no stars · 30-04-2011 12:58AM

cesc77 wrote: »

Of course anyone with an ailment should be treated.That is not the issue.

My issue ...sigh..is that we are in a place now where said medication is taking over from the natural process.

Im not advocating sterilisation of people with dna issues,god knows I have some, but certain conditions are obviously detrimental to the combined gene pool and society as a whole.

*waiting for...are you a geneticist?*

You seem interested in the subject so you might enjoy reading the Richard Dawkins book about evolution (called something like the greatest show on earth). It's well explained and you could benefit from the explanation of how evolution and natural selection works.

We have not stopped evolving. It's simply a case that there are different factors affecting our evolution now than there were a few thousand years ago. We're evolving differently.

Here in the first world physical superiority no longer has the same significance in mating potential as it would have had when we were hunter gatherers. High IQ (and achievement) and beauty are now characteristics that make someone a more attractive mate, as the ability to suceed in this world depends highly on them.

I think I know what you're trying to get at though, there are people reproducing today who would not have done so 100 years ago. Yes, modern medicine has allowed that and yes, it might EVENTUALLY have some impact on the gene pool. But probably not. Why? A person who's a 7 will mate with another 7. A 2 with a 2. A 10 with a 10.

The prevelence of some things will remain roughly the same, while other things will be selected for by evolution - just the same way evolution has always selected. The prevelance of things like cancer... It's hard to say that the occurrence in otherwise healthy adults has increased - diagnostic tools have improved. Lung cancer has definately increased but that's down to environmental factors of our own creation such as asbestos and smoking. Lots of people think autism is increasing, but is it just a case that awareness and diagnoses are increasing?

Don't sweat it. As far as I'm aware (I'm open to correction here), we're programmed to seek a mate who is physically and intellectually quite similar to ourselves. This is to ensure the survival of our own traits. So a 7 will pretty much always end up with a 7.

There are much more troubling things to worry about in our modern society than the change in how we're evolving!

An interesting thing that I just remembered reading in the aforementioned book.. When dogs are left to breed indiscriminately, they end up reverting to some sort of wild dog creature. This is basically the 'true' dog that humans have artificially selected away from to create all the different breeds. Someone above mentioned that we're getting shorter and fatter. Maybe we've just been selecting for taller, leaner people in the past (very likely) and now that physical traits are of lesser importance than upward mobility, we're returning to the human version of the wild dog creature? :eek:

My name is URL · 30-04-2011 01:01AM

cullen5998 wrote: »

10,338 posts

You really must be a loser if your last comment is all you can give,

Goodnight, i look forward for your next 10 on average posts per day

H2BU Your name is really ... i live on the internet and not in real life(URL).

Goodnight to you too, and your wheelbarrow-full of genetic material.

Yahew · 30-04-2011 01:01AM

My name is URL wrote: »

Evolution isn't about one versus the other, though. Survival of the fittest is only one aspect of evolution. The bigger picture is how groups integrate with their environments, not how individuals exploit it for their own gain.

I didnt say anything about survival of the fittest. The guy with the most progeny wins. In a more competitive environment that would be the fittest, now it isnt.

Having a heap of kids is no guarantee of genetic success.

It is, by definition, exactly genetic success.

Evolution has stalled

Comments