Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
102 online now:
Michael MD, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 893,979 Year: 5,091/6,534 Month: 511/794 Week: 2/135 Day: 2/19 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Is the evolution of modern man going to stop
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 78 of 107 (675795)
10-16-2012 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by broken180
10-15-2012 7:50 PM

does it not go, ape, ape/human type thing, human, wanabe god, god?

No! It does not.

It follows a nested hierarchy.

Working backwards: all humans are homonids, all homonids are primates, all primates are mammals, all mammal have backbones and all backbone-havers are animals.

To follow your logic: all gods would be wannabe's and they'd all be humans too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by broken180, posted 10-15-2012 7:50 PM broken180 has taken no action

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 81 of 107 (678189)
11-05-2012 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by MiguelG
04-07-2011 2:20 AM

Re: Selection = Reproduction
I don't see why you think the traits you mentioned would not be "selected for"? Unless you know for sure that these individual examples will not reproduce (have children)?

Its not about not having children, its about having children. I'm a 30-something year old college educated dude with a high IQ that doesn't have any kids yet and has been with the same women for 7+ years. Down the road from me is State Park, IL where totally uneducated drug addicts with no jobs have multiple kids by multiple women. On an evolutionary standard, how can I compete with that? On a social standard, where's my incentive to work harder to support those people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MiguelG, posted 04-07-2011 2:20 AM MiguelG has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2012 2:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 83 by jar, posted 11-06-2012 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 84 of 107 (678289)
11-06-2012 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
11-06-2012 3:02 PM

Re: Selection = Reproduction
But your link doesn't seem to support your assertions.

Yeah, that's because the numbers aren't right. They're including it in Collinsville, which has the same numbers. That's really the only thing on the net I could find for State Park. But I didn't realize it was State Park Place (nobody around here adds the 'Place'). Googling that I ran across the urban dictionary entry:

A small town east of St.Louis, not to be mistaken for Collinsville, IL. It is a community made up of mostly whites and hispanics, most of whom are relatively violent. You can find drug dealers, gangbangers, thieves, crackheads, racists and everything in between.

A small white ghetto near St.Louis, MO. The town consists of drug dealers, gangsters, thugs, crackheads and thieves.

State Park is actually unincorporated in Collinsville. Its just county. There's no cops besides the State Police and County Sheriff, but they hardly ever go there. Its a real shithole, I've been there. I know people who live there.

so no evidence of "totally uneducated drug addicts with no jobs have multiple kids by multiple women".

I don't know how I could evidence that. I guess you're going to have to take my word for it.

I was gonna link to some Google Maps streetviews, but it looks like the Map Car didn't go down any of the side streets:


Its a pretty small area. Since its an unincorporarted county town, it draws in the the real scumbags. But anyways, unless your doubting that areas like I mention actaully exist, its kinda beside the point if I can prove to you that this is one of them. My questions still stand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 11-06-2012 3:02 PM jar has seen this message

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 85 of 107 (678291)
11-06-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by dwise1
11-06-2012 2:42 PM

Re: Selection = Reproduction
Then you must watch Idiocracy whose premise is precisely the situation you just described.

I've heard of it but never seen it. I'll check it out.

So are you admiting there's a problem? Is Bender correct:

What are we gonna do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by dwise1, posted 11-06-2012 2:42 PM dwise1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by caffeine, posted 11-07-2012 4:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member

Message 106 of 107 (679318)
11-13-2012 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by caffeine
11-07-2012 4:03 AM

Re: Selection = Reproduction
Thanks for the article, I haven't read it yet. I've been really busy in RL lately.

Two points to bear in mind. Firstly, lower status groups have higher mortality and morbidity than higher status ones, so a slightly higher fertility rate (and it is only slight) will not necessarily lead to a shift in relative proportions in the population.

I can accept that its not necessary, but I still wonder if it will.

Secondly, not all - probably not most - of the differences in social status are genetically inheritable factors. The biggest driver of decreased fertility is higher education, and education levels have much more to do with the opportunities avaiable to you than they do with any genetically inherited intelligence.

Yes, absolutely, I never thought that it was due to genetically inheritable factors. I think its a cultural problem with the education. They don't seem to have any desire to better themselves through education and seem content with what they do have... and they're crankin' out babies like nobody's business.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by caffeine, posted 11-07-2012 4:03 AM caffeine has taken no action

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022