Huntard writes:
Humans are not subject to natural selection anymore.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Before I explain, let me take a step back.
Humans are natural, period.
Ok, now, let's step back. Everything we do, including improving our medical technology and living standards are natural. This includes allowing people who are less than ideal to breed and multiply. This is natural selection.
Natural selection isn't about the physically strongest members to survive or the smartest members to be able to outbreed the others. It simply means whoever survives survives or who breeds breeds. If environmental factors allow "little people" to be able to breed in great numbers with each other, then I guess natural selection isn't disfavoring them. If environmental factors allow people with down syndrome to breed with each other, then natural selection isn't disfavoring them.
The better for the eskimo question is THEY HAVE ADAPTED TO THEIR ENVIRONMENT. They got fire. They got shelter. They got clothes. If they haven't adapted to their environment, they wouldn't be here. If anything, they seem to be doing just fine.
Natural selection isn't about comfort. It's about survival.
What we're talking about is like that time when nemesis_jug tried to disprove evolution by asking why we don't have a couple pair of wings. According to his logic, if evolution was true we'd each have a pair of wings to get around easier. He couldn't graps the concept of survival. He said that a pair of wings would have made his life more comfortable, so therefore if evolution is true it should have given him a pair of wings already.