Is the evolution of modern man going to stop

I think the question is what selection pressures are there on humans? Without birth control humans are pretty fecund and with access to medical care families get pretty large.

I'm finding it hard to think of something that is more significant than human ingenuity and use of technology in terms of successful reproduction.

You seem to be confusing inheritance with some pseudo scientologist ideas of our self as pre packaged discrete entity that is somehow divorced from the material of our bodies.

As best as I can make out.

Would you mind using normal English? For example: does repro mean reproduction? It would make things a lot less painful to read you post if you used proper English.

I get it now. You use these imprecise words such as 'seed' so that (in your head) you are 'aligning' what the bible says with our current scientific understanding.

When we talk about chromosomes and dna and genes and so on and so forth you can justifiably (in your head) say:

"Ah, but see. It was written in the bible. Chromosomes and dna and genes and so on and so forth were written about in the bible but they used the word 'seed'. And so, let it be shall."

That's why you keep busting into threads and basically saying the same thing. Why don't you put the following in your sig:

"I beleive the bible is the foundation for modern science"

Then you would not have to write anything else at all and, potentially interesting threads like these could live up to their potential.

As an aside, you do know that in some reptiles temperature determins the sex of the off spring, rather than the 'seed'?

That's a pretty clear cut example of an external effect other than the 'seed'.

Rebuttal?

Edited by Larni, : Bit of clarity

Substitute genes or chip for seed and there is no difference in its meaning from today's science. To me this is 100% a vindicated scientific description, al beit stated in ancient terms, and the first recording of a depiction away from the occultism of ancient times.

So my supposition that you are trying to lump genes, chromosomes and so on and so forth in the word 'seed' so it fits in with your bible was correct.

We do not look to temperatures and windflow to establish a life form.

But we do know for sure that crocodile sex is not down to the 'seed'.

Crocodile embryos do not have sex chromosomes, and unlike humans sex is not determined genetically. Sex is determined by temperature,....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crocodile#Biology_and_behaviour

So you see, you are totally wrong when you say:

I say this genetic configuration is better described as a code of a directive program, which contains all the data required in determining the offspring, to the extent it leaves no margin of play for any other factors as impacting.

Any other factors. That would include temperature.

Can't be put any clearer than that.

You say it is the 'seed' alone; but a quick check of reality and you are shown to be very wrong.

Now can we get back to the topic?

Edited by Larni, : last line

Welcome to EvC! Great to have some new blood, I'm sure you will like it here if you don't mind a robust playground.

I would say that any correlation between education and number of offspring in tenuous at best.

Moreover, access to and use of birth control is a more important factor. And we cannot forget that the working classes access health services less than the middle classes and thus live shorter lives.

As I'm sure you will agree an effective survival strategy in social species is multi generational input into the young.

Being able to access such resources as multi generational support is an advantage. As such, being able to accrue resources and access such resources would be selected for.

I think that a quote from your wiki link is infromative, here:

According to the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division, the single universal factor affecting fertility rate decline is mortality decline, regardless of race, religion or political context.

But tenuous was probably a strong word. However, I can't not hear the voice of one of my professors at uni drumming into my head that correlation is not causation.

It's also important to remember that low IQ people having loads of kids does not mean that those kids are low IQ.

My dad's and absolute duffer about anything other than horses and I'm reasonably bright. I know that anecdotes are not data points but it is an important point.

And we must not forget cultural issues: Dr Bill the practicing Chatholic is going to have how many children?

I'm certainly not saying that I.Q. is not correlated with low birth rate: but we cannot infer causation.

To the topic at hand, would you say that humans are then doomed to evolve into lower and lower IQ types a la the film 'Idiocracy' because of the correlation of low IQ and low birth rate?

If the correlation were positive, then we would probably see IQs rise higher than the current average until a new steady state was reached.

Take a look at the Flynn Effect. I would link it for you but I'm on my iPhone and it's a bugger cut n pasting. Pay particular attention to the lack of the effect on developed countries: i.e. Reaching a steady state.

Take it easy, mate.