Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
before it gets halted by intelligence e.g. humans.
can't find this anywhere
saying that we're fucked as natural selection is ruined by medicine, so we're all breeding weaker and shitter humans.
particularly since there are people on earth who have been living without the benefit of synthetic medicine for thousands of years and aren't exactly 7ft muscular behemoths.
they survived harsh winters, were robust and had great immune systems.
Now it's completely standard procedures for people to have appendectomies, tonsillectomies, numerous antibiotic courses alone before they spread their disgustingly weak genes everywhere.
In the past these feeble fucks would have been wiped out. Now they're creating a race of disgustingly pathetic humanoids.
prone to shit illness would have died off in their adolescent phase and never had passed on their cunt genes to their cunt kids.
But now they are. Cunts! Hope this helps.
but the even weaker cunts died off before they could spread their cunt genes!
In conclusion: cunt!
yet due to not being in contact with the outside world could probably be wiped out by something as simple as the common cold.
Like the Mayans for instance.
"The arrival of the Spanish ushers in Old World diseases unknown among the Maya, including smallpox, influenza and measles. Within a century, 90 per cent of Mesoamerica's native populations will be killed off."
although that might have been the incas not the mayans
they had a mutual protection pact with The French.
Ace times on both.
There are papers about recent (and not just on an evolutionary timescale!!!) human evolution and everything.
= meaningless in this context
used pretty commonly by geneticists and evolutionary biologists
Fittest in this sense means most able to produce viable offspring in the current and future environments. Natural selection is not being 'ruined'.
Are still the same today, in a highly technological, consumer-based society.
Someone who was physically strong enough to survive a harsh winter in nothing more than an animal hide is very likely not going to be able to survive the demands of the modern world.
because NATURE. But it stops once a certain level of intelligence is reached, almost like a flaw. You must be able to plot a graph of intelligence against evolution and the point where natural evolution stops must be the same everytime everywhere in the universe.
It's a shift in allele frequency based on the presence of various selection pressures.
Star Trek-level metaphor: it's not a train travelling between stations, it's a sailboat adrift on an ocean of genetic drift.
This is "if humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" level stuff.
No wonder the bumhole thread has left this one in the dust.
if humans were monkeys, why are there still monkeys? as a question. Brilliant
the phd student i share office with is writing up his research right now which applies an econometrics-based framework to evolutionary theory and looks in particular at the work of Herbert Spencer (who actually coined the phrase 'survival of the fittest'). i have pretty obvious political objections to it but he's made loads of cool 3d graphs if you wanna see.
do you mean he is actually treating spencer's work as if they were a 'valid' theory, in the way you might do so a modern idea (can't quite think of how to phrase this?), or is it from a more historical perspective?
anyway I would like to see the graphs
he's kind of trying to rehabilitate spencer and arguing that he's been wrongly maligned. not sure how successful it is tbh...
Interesting, v. interesting
it's not very clear what it means though. what do the circles represent? I would suggest attempt to use a more obvious key were I him
i think that might just be something on your computer screen. do you have any other windows open? you should just be seeing two normally distributed parabola?
Are you expecting to see evolution happen in front of your eyes?
It's not like the development of computers, rapid and tangible - it's more like the carving of a valley by a glacier, you only notice it when you can look back at it across a longer timescale.
Because we're above it
If you were assigned a suitable mate by a large corporation or the state and were only allowed to breed with them, then we might have reached that stage, but we haven't.
We all now have much stronger thumbs than our predecessors for our smartphones / consoles
but that isn't entirely true
i'd like them to be more durable.
so you can't really say that anything reaches a peak or anything is 'more evolved'?
will cause a shift in the frequency of particular genes or alleles (gene variants).
"more" is a loaded term but you could use it to mean stronger or more prevalent selection pressures or even more rounds of reproduction (making bacteria significantly "more evolved" than humans), but I don't think you can attach any sensible meaning to "more" without context.
With regard to 'just' medicine then what has happened is that it has altered.
What has had more of an effect is that the shape and construct of human societies co-ordination of effort and their more immediate ability (than individual genetic advantage) to influence human survival to survival rates to breeding age and birth rate.
consequent birth rate (medicine in another way influences this, along with gross food production and nutritional balance and ability to ration to overcome the natural culling ability of scarcity. Societies have deployed strategems to combat large and micro preditors.
In small groups human society advantage is a natural product and thus part of it all.
But when humans as a large population have started to specialise (when they arnt actually specialist in the same terms as ants or bees or termites) to a degree where as human animals they would not normally accept the limitations, it is due to the unusually developed ability of humans to conceptualise in a dispassionate way, thus we are more able to ignore what we think would be good for us in the short term IF we believe or IF WE HAVE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE that in the long term it will benefit us more.
I have capitalised the important bit there, because it differentiates what I like to call artificialness and natural.......obviously you could argue that any society that cotains humans could be said to be natural, BUT......our societies have been built around sociopaths being able to gain unatural and inappropriate advantage due to the complexity and the inability of individuals to accurately determine cause and effect......let me explain.....other species may contain sociopaths....such as an animal that has learnt to lie with an alarm call to gain short term advantage with food.....but in the long run if that animal society had too much of this then very soon the benefits would be overcome by the disadvantages of preditor danger.....humans are able to construct far more complex patterns of deception for individual gain. often to do this they have to create the correct conditions in the society, its not planned its grown, and its grown because of this conceptualisation that we can do more than other animals.
Now Human individuals can rise to be leaders of the pack and then influence the structure of the society, by concentrating on understanding, better (not as in surviving just better than most cos we've reduced it to gambling chips and playing the odds, which if you know give you surefire certain wins over enough time) the gaps and idiosynchrocies and the unfairness (the gradients of pay and costs in different areas) and the unequalness of human treatment......they are incentivisedt o do this more to make a personal gain than they would ever be for actually trying to fix these systems and make them fairer or better or more efficient......thus a huge portion of human endevor and society is given over to PORTRAYING FALSE CERTAINTIES.....the majority of humans cannot percieve this and those that can do not defy these false certainties or combat them, instead they leach off others inability to navigate life in the face of these false certainties.
Obviously there is always chance in an organisms life, but when these chances are according to natural events (yes some of them very infrequent) then through luck and individual qualities, some will be selected naturally (according to the natural phenomena, (accepting that there will also be cataclysmic events of varying degree, although over a larger timescale these will also have a sort of pattern)
However the nature of human society has been based on much arbitaryness which is then reinforced to a ridiculously uniform degree with enormous resource applied through human endevor which is directed, to a facistic utterly fundemamentalist level by 'economics'.
I use the word 'mammon' because IT has evolved, from simple, demonstrably beneficial to simple farmer/craftsman specialists to the monstrous demon it is today, and yes of course its enslaved us, and you wont dare say that world because you know that without its present unsustainable incarnation the vast population of humans on this planet could not be sustained were it to die......the problem is IT IS going to contract, hugely and then it wont be able to support the world as it is, and the worlds societies have never been more aligned, more the same, in the aspects of society that are illogical.
On another simpler less contoversial note....although medicine has changed the pattern of our resistance and gut flora and fauna and the microbes that attack us, there has still been a continual evolution of our resistance and out gut flora and fauna and of our microbal preditors and parasites, this has not stopped.....ditto also things like colds and flus and our resistance to such things.
but on the other hand never has the visual image been so much relied upon.
Culture now defines more on how many children people have, and sometimes the survival rate does not adjust this (cultural reasons might at one time have had a basis in practicality, but that has now been put on the back burner.......also cultural practices now no longer have the phased changes that they might if there were more natural migration and assimilation, artificial instant transportation has changed that of course.
One interesting aspect is borders, artificial borders and the difficulty (or not) of being able to cross invisible lines where normally it would be possible (continuous land mass with human continuous resources) but with any rigourously enforced border it would be difficult to detect the subtleties of differrences of genetic development due to that, because of the rampant predjudices that would also be accompanying either side of such an enforced border.