4 ms·
>This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group. This idea, called "devolution", is dead wrong. First, it presu
by astazangasta 8y ago
>This means the genetic pool of the future will begin to select against the 'responsible' group.
This idea, called "devolution", is dead wrong. First, it presumes some sort of genetic basis for being "responsible", which is hardly in evidence. Second, it presumes no gene flow between these groups, decidedly false as class mobility is nonzero. Finally and most egregiously it posits some form of group selection, whereas selection acts on individual variants.
- radford-neal 8y agoThere's every reason to think that personality traits such as religiosity, and indeed simple desire to have children, are genetically influenced. (Not that it's been proven, but that's where one should bet.) There's no need to assume there's no gene flow between sub-populations. Indeed, the existence of gene flow would be why some genetic variants favouring desire to have children could become dominant. There's also no need to assume group selection - individual selection is obviously quite sufficient. And there's no call for describing this as "devolution". You're maybe confusing the original poster with one of the replies...