That British Amateur Naturalist had it all Wrong

[ajaxfetish]

You mean faster reproduction as well. And im talking about how people are growing taller, supposedly smarter, etc.

But i walk into my calculus class and i'm not so sure.

Basically im saying weaker genes are being passed along because of science. Now this isnt a bad thing all people deserve to live but the results are what they are. Even reproduction isnt fail safe with tihngs like artificial insemination.

The genes used in artificial insemination need to come from somewhere. If that's what it comes to, then whatever makes someone most likely to be a successful sperm donor is whatever would make them 'fittest.' Ultimately, the only measure is whether your genetic material survives in subsequent generations. Whatever got it there (physical prowess, intelligence, knowing the right people, having a good health plan, having rich parents, etc.) is irrelevant.

Ajax

[Centurion1]

but what if weaker genetic material survives and reproduces?

No it doesn't, war is actually beneficial to reproduction of the strongest.

Yes, the best usually ends up dead. But who cares? Because of their status as ideal genes they've already found a partner and reproduced themselves. Whether they're still alive beyond that point is irrelevant.

not necessarily. Especially in western society most young men (18) are not married and have not reproduced yet. and im sorry to say many of the weaker men are then given desk jobs because they cannot fight. They rarely die. The stronger ones are left to be front line combat troops and in that position they have a higher chance of being killed before they can reproduce and pass on their genes.

Myth. People are actually just as tall as they ever were and could be genetically. It's just more stable diets have allowed us to grow to our maximum height.

True i didn't even think about it, like the difference between the mongol invader compared to the average chinese.

[HoreTore]

not necessarily. Especially in western society most young men (18) are not married and have not reproduced yet. and im sorry to say many of the weaker men are then given desk jobs because they cannot fight. They rarely die. The stronger ones are left to be front line combat troops and in that position they have a higher chance of being killed before they can reproduce and pass on their genes.

I'm talking historically, as the prestige of the soldier has collapsed over the last decades, to say the least....

EDIT: And anyway, natural selection is an observation of how things work, it is by no means a guide on how to organize our society or anything like that.

[Centurion1]

I'm talking historically, as the prestige of the soldier has collapsed over the last decades, to say the least....

still no, WW2, WW1 it still applies. Unless you go back to pre industry it works. Which would make sense if you are talking about Norwegian fighting prowess

And the soldier now has to be smarter and in some ways physically superior. A truly superb soldier these days is much harder to achieve than in say 1235.

[HoreTore]

still no, WW2, WW1 it still applies. Unless you go back to pre industry it works. Which would make sense if you are talking about Norwegian fighting prowess

And the soldier now has to be smarter and in some ways physically superior. A truly superb soldier these days is much harder to achieve than in say 1235.

Homo Sapiens is about 200.000 years old. To talk about the last 100 years when discussing its evolution is ridicilous.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Homo Sapiens is about 200.000 years old. To talk about the last 100 years when discussing its evolution is ridicilous.

Unless #1 is true.

[Centurion1]

Homo Sapiens is about 200.000 years old. To talk about the last 100 years when discussing its evolution is ridicilous.

those are the most destructive wars of our time right next to each other. The last hundred years of the human race will probably do more to alter humanity through science than any other time period.

and actually its only about 5000 years old.

[HoreTore]

those are the most destructive wars of our time right next to each other. The last hundred years of the human race will probably do more to alter humanity through science than any other time period.

Science, sure, but we're talking about our genes here, not our tech.

and actually its only about 5000 years old.

lolz.

[Beskar]

Evolution has moved far beyond the works of Darwin.

Also, lifestyle does affect evolution, as in, the environment affects the survival of certain aspects compared to others.

As for the chickens, the young chicks probably pick up behaviours from their parents, and since their parents behaviour was already shot due to the experiment, this shot behaviour was taught to the children.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By necessity of thinking in language, we need to think in metaphor, in category, in a scheme.
I think the 'Tree of Life' metaphor that governs understanding of evolution, that is equated with evolution in common knowledge, is a product of 19th century science. The postmodernist in me would call it a Victorian historical-hierachical progress model. Yet because this metaphor is the language that describes evolution, science works within this scheme, is its product, reinforces it.

'If Darwin were alive today' (much as that contradicts my postmodernism which just reduced him to a product of his age) he would describe 'evolution' as a network process. Not just descibe it as such, but conceive of it as such. 'Wikipedia' might indeed be a better methaphor for nature than a closed structure hierachical tree.

Then again, maybe contemporary science thinks of evolution more and more as a network process precisely because modern science is a product of our time.

"We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, told New Scientist magazine.
Genetic tests on bacteria, plants and animals increasingly reveal that different species crossbreed more than originally thought, meaning that instead of genes simply being passed down individual branches of the tree of life, they are also transferred between species on different evolutionary paths. The result is a messier and more tangled "web of life".

Microbes swap genetic material so promiscuously it can be hard to tell one type from another, but animals regularly crossbreed too - as do plants - and the offspring can be fertile. According to some estimates, 10 per cent of animals regularly form hybrids by breeding with other species.

Last year, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington found a strange chunk of DNA in the genetic make-up of eight animals, including the mouse, rat and the African clawed frog. The same chunk is missing from chickens, elephants and humans, suggesting it must have become wedged into the genomes of some animals by crossbreeding.

The findings mean that to link species by Darwin's evolutionary branches is an oversimplification. "The tree of life is being politely buried," said Michael Rose, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine. "What's less accepted is that our whole fundamental view of biology needs to change."

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

[ajaxfetish]

but what if weaker genetic material survives and reproduces?

How exactly do you plan to measure the strength of genetic material? Is it gonna lift weights or something? The only way we have to measure genetic strength is success or failure in reproduction. Thus the only metric we can use does not allow the possibility of weaker genetic material surviving while stronger genetic material fails to reproduce. Failure to reproduce is genetic weakness.

Ajax

[Centurion1]

How exactly do you plan to measure the strength of genetic material? Is it gonna lift weights or something? The only way we have to measure genetic strength is success or failure in reproduction. Thus the only metric we can use does not allow the possibility of weaker genetic material surviving while stronger genetic material fails to reproduce. Failure to reproduce is genetic weakness.

Because for example some woman can have children yes. But they cannot birth them living because they have some sort of deficiency. so in nature they would be unable to reproduce, but thanks to mans science they can reproduce. Or how about a male who cannot get his partner pregant on his own. But with the help of invitiro (sp?) fertilization he manages to do so. was he supposed to reproduce.

Not that im saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do so its just a point.

[ajaxfetish]

Because for example some woman can have children yes. But they cannot birth them living because they have some sort of deficiency. so in nature they would be unable to reproduce, but thanks to mans science they can reproduce. Or how about a male who cannot get his partner pregant on his own. But with the help of invitiro (sp?) fertilization he manages to do so. was he supposed to reproduce.

Not that im saying that they shouldn't be allowed to do so its just a point.

You're treating nature as if it doesn't include human beings. 'Man's science' is now a part of nature. It is a part of our environment. In nature, they are able to reproduce, and since they do so, they are 'the fittest.'

Ajax

[Brenus]

“And wars screw with it because often the strong die and the weak survive.” Even worst: the weak don’t go to war, so only the fittest go to war… So, in term of genetic, after WW1 and WW2, the only male left for reproduction were the one who escape the front lines for whatever reason.

[Furunculus]

he may be 'wrong', but he had a good innings.