Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Personal Philosophy
Stagamancer
Member (Idle past 4906 days)
Posts: 174
From: Oregon
Joined: 12-28-2008


(1)
Message 10 of 15 (550936)
03-19-2010 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by IAmMe77777
03-18-2010 5:39 AM


First, we no longer practice random mating which is a prerequisite for natural selection.
People have already corrected you on this, but I just want to add that random mating is a prerequisite for a population to be in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium which is a state in which there is NO evolution. So, you're effectively arguing the opposite of what you intend.
The fittest are not the only individuals that survive and produce the most offspring. In our world of plenty, the least fit individuals piggy back on the world created by the strong and reproduce the most.
By definition, the fittest are those that reproduce the most. Fittest, in the evolutionary sense, does not mean strongest, fastest, smartest or richest. Darwinian fitness is a measurement of relative reproductive output, that's it. So, again you argue against yourself. As long as there is variable reproductive success between individuals, there will be evolution.

We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions?
-Dan Ariely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by IAmMe77777, posted 03-18-2010 5:39 AM IAmMe77777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024