|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Viagra & Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 631 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
I don't want them to reproduce, because the chance their offspring will also be disabled is too large. Yes, they can still be perfectly happy with this, but I don't want ANY human to go through that, I just don't think it is a good life to lead. Perhaps I am now speaking from my own perspective, that of a perfectly healthy human, but I certainly wouldn't want to live like that. Although the argument that they lessen the overall fitness would be on a second place for me. About the steps I'm a bit in a bind, on one hand, I care very much for personal freedom, on the other, the reasons listed above are a strong pull for me to do something about it. I'm not entirely sure I would advocate sterilization of the disabled, there is still some doubt in me about that. Edited by Huntard, : Forgot the steps part. I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member Posts: 20323 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
But a phenotype is not defined by one gene, no matter how much that one gene may affect the development. The question is whether the whole phenotype must be selected against, or whether there is just one gene or one gene cluster. Taking Down Syndrome as an example: quote: All one needs do is restore the normal chromosome in the offspring to allow "normal" reproduction.
It should also prove instructive for our creationist friends to explain how - if all mutations are loss of information - what is lost when this chromosome is duplicated Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
First of all, I didn't say that they are sterile. I said they don't reproduce, which is close enought to truth for the discussion here.
Which is why I used the word 'many'. A vague statement desrves a vague response.
You didn't answer the question either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2380 From: UK Joined: |
Hmm again...
I'm still not entirely convinced, but I do see where you're coming from.
I do agree that whatever is happening, it's happening at a developmental level, either in adults, pubescent teens or in the womb (or maybe all three). Your points about stress, dominance behaviours and over-crowding are well made, but I still don't see that there is any huge difference in those issues between today and say, the nineteenth century and especially the early twentieth. The pictures illustrate your point very well, but imagine a Victorian factory or slum, a crowded market place or a mine. All very crowded and extremely stressful. To my mind, the most tempting hypothesis is pollution, with the drop in fertility starting at about the same time as a boom in novel chemicals and industrial processes. Molybdenum for example, has been implicated in infertility (study here). Another study plays down the pollutant connection, showing only a small effect. quote: Source It also mentions that fertility rates have actually been going up recently.
It certainly would. A study comparing either anxiety or infertility against urban/rural location would be interesting.I couldn't find one for infertility. It does occur to me though, that areas with higher population density are going to be more polluted, possibly confusing the issue. I found this study that suggests a link between urban living and worse mental health. That would seem to support the anxiety-based explanation. It would also be interesting to see if there were a correlation between levels of anxiety and infertility over the past few decades. So to sum up, I'm not really convinced either way. :) Not enough data yet to make a decision, so I'm going to maintain an open mind on this one. It's probably a combination of factors anyway. Mutate and Survive "The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 3856 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
Eugenics on the rise at EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pesto Member (Idle past 3923 days) Posts: 63 From: Chicago, IL Joined: |
One question I haven't seen raised yet. Do we know if this is any higher than the historical average?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
i read recently "Research in the US has show that there is a statistical link between religious belief and procreation. In effect, the more devout a person is, the more children he or she will have."
so think about this... those that do not believe in evolution will have the biggest impact on the evolution of the human race and those who do believe in evolution will gradually become extinct. how ironic would this be if it turned out to be true LOL
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 3265 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
i dont know the answer to that question
but it would be interesting to find out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 3052 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
Not that I suggest that creationists are qualitative substitutes for the idiots in said movie or that anyone should see this movie for any reason other then pop reference purposes, but you're point has value.
Don't do that Dave.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member Posts: 2203 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
According to this site you may want to invest in a prayer rug and a Quran as Islam is the religion of the head of household that has the most children per couple of all in the US. {ABE}Now what correlation there may be between number of children per couple based upon the religion of the head of household and acceptance of the theory of evolution in that family has yet to be shown or even to this point discussed. Edited by anglagard, : No reason given. Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019