4 ms·

I can't stress enough how important it is to read Darwin's original work. Contemporary understanding of evolution outside of academia is deeply flawed. There a

• Scriptor 14y ago
  It's rather odd when someone says natural selection is completely 'dead'. Do they think everyone in the world has an equal chance of finding a partner and has the same number of children? Of course not. Even to this day there are factors that determine whose genes are passed down more frequently than others. I can't stress this enough, but there is simply no goal for evolution. Up until relatively recently, it just so happened that larger brains and other features we consider 'human' have been beneficial. Even if it may not be a big factor now, don't decry it as evolution being 'dead', or even worse, that people are devolving. If certain genetic traits allow certain people to pass their genes down to more offspring then you have all you need. It's a very simple concept with major consequences.
  • seanmcdirmid 14y ago
    As parent informed us, mate selection is called "sexual selection" and is a force that complements, but is not the same, as "natural selection." It is good to know the name for that.
• tmh88j 14y ago
  >It doesn't matter how hot, strong, or brilliant you are, if you have zero kids, from an evolutionary perspective ... it's the same as if you were killed and eaten by some wild animal. I don't agree with that 100% (the same as just dying part), solely because of the technology and globalization that we currently live with. Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, you're essentially providing a means to life for others. If your business is successful, you will have brought life to others via work for possibly generations(which essentially means others can provide a life for themselves and their families). I know that's a bit of a reach, but it's probably true to a small extent, at least in first world countries. Hundreds of years ago, I completely agree with you. We live in a world where your work can potentially impact billions of people. Sure, you may not reproduce, but you may have enabled many others to do so.
  • maratd 14y ago
    Experiments, both on humans and other animals, have repeatedly shown that there is no such thing as pure-as-white-snow altruism. Whatever appears to be altruistic is either a misfire (essentially error, in biological terms) or is found to be long-term self-interested behavior. That billionaire is giving his wealth away because he wants better social standing, etc. In the end, evolution doesn't favor altruism and we have mechanisms that actively discourage it. If that weren't the case, Mother Teresa would have been the happiest person on earth (she wasn't). > Even if you don't have children, by simply starting a business where you employ many people, you're essentially providing a means to life for others. The businessman isn't helping others to reproduce. He's being exploited by his employees for their own benefit. Your example fits within the confines of a parasitic relationship. In evolutionary terms, he is getting nothing from the relationship ... while they are reaping the rewards. In reality though, even if he didn't start the business ... he still would not have reproduced, so his starting a business is irrelevant and was simply used by others to improve their circumstances.
    • aneth4 14y ago
      I think the point is that businessman selects employees who then make more money, are healthier, and therefore more reproductively interesting and successful. This means that a one can influence evolution without reproduction. This is something like an externally caused drift. The businessman can select who is more likely to reproduce, likely biasing work ethic, respect, etc. It's a valid point. One should not be so quick to dismiss ideas.
• e40 14y ago
  Your comment made me think of Idiocracy (the movie), which is always a good thing. :)
  • crusso 14y ago
    The first few minutes of Idiocracy covers all the bases and is very insightful in its presentation.
• jonathansizz 14y ago
  And I can't stress enough that selection and evolution are not equivalent; selection is only one evolutionary force, and in humans probably not a very powerful one due to our historically low effective population size. Other forces in evolution include genetic drift, migration (gene flow) and mutation. As the article discusses, the major characteristics of human populations in the recent past centre around demographic changes i.e. small populations where drift dominates, giving way to massive population expansion, where mutation and drift likely play a much more powerful role than selection does (for nearly neutral variation, which is the vast majority of variation). This could potentially change if the human population ceases its expansion, stabilizing at a greatly increased level for a long period and with high levels of gene flow. In this case, selection could have more of an impact on nearly neutral variation than it previously has.
  • baddox 14y ago
    Although there is obviously some debate among scientists, natural selection is considered to be the most important force by far.
    • jonathansizz 14y ago
      By whom? I suggest you read up on nearly neutral theory and think about the fate of nearly neutral mutations (the vast majority) in groups with small effective population size (like humans).
• cup 14y ago
  Would this then make the case even more pessimistic, considering there is an inverse correlation between family sizes and parental education levels. I.e. smarter individuals have less (or no) kids.
  • bicknergseng 14y ago
    The Mike Judge/Idiocracy Theory of Evolution.
  • mahyarm 14y ago
    Urbanization in general reduces family sizes. Something like free RISUG procedures for 13+ males, and the procedure being promoted during sex ed classes would probably reduce irresponsible pregnancies significantly. Even the US government would benefit significantly from reduced expenditures with a program like that.
  • baddox 14y ago
    It might be pessimistic if you're egalitarian, but nature doesn't seem very egalitarian.
• da3da 14y ago
  Your points are valid but I think you're arriving at the same conclusion that the parent is. Since the population groups that have lots of children are generally less intelligent and poorer, evolution is currently selecting for less intelligence. Though the parent called this natural selection, he was really refering to sexual selection, which as you noted is the more important force.
• baddox 14y ago
  Did Darwin really make a distinction between natural and sexual selection? As far as I know, the distinction doesn't really exist in modern biology. Natural selection is simply selective pressure that comes from the environment, and the psychology and behavior of potential mates are part of the environment.
• emmelaich 14y ago
  I you consider the gene as a the unit of selection then it is not necessary to have children for selection to occur.