LEGALIZE IT

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Evolution = changes in gene frequencies

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is what a lot of people don't seem to get.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...this discussion went adrift! But now that we're here, I may as well point out this: Chimps 'more evolved' than humans

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The speed of the change is usually proportional to the strength of the selection pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't forget population size! (which is often inversely correlated with selection pressure - but we can't ignore drift, etc.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I apologize for the omittance.

[Benjamin]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you watch the video? Really, Dawkins is a much better professor than I am. And you don't seem to be attacking my arguments (or his for that matter).

[/ QUOTE ]

I watched the video. Dawkins says that he cannot predict how humans might evolve, and that most likely we will become extinct without evolving into a new species, as do most species.

He talks briefly about how medical advances have removed some selection pressure from humans, but admits that if a genetic variation underlies a cause for some part of the population to have more offspring, then that is natural selection at work. Then he goes on to dismiss that as unlikely because of the rapidly changing social and cultural environment that humans have created for themselves.

His dismissal is not convincing to me in the least.

I'll tie this back to the original post on drugs. There is a strong natural tendency for humans to use drugs. Prohibiting drug use simply leads to black markets, so I agree with the legalization crowd.

That natural tendency to use drugs is tied to our genetic makeup, and some people have it strongly, some people don't. This genetic basis is subject to natural selection.

Now, tell me this: who is more likely to pop out a bunch of babies: someone with the tendency to drink alcohol and use other drugs, or someone without that tendency. I think that it is clear that the sub-population that is more likely to be under the influence of alcohol/drugs is more likely to have unprotected sex resulting in multiple unplanned babies.

Natural selection for alcoholism has probably been at work ever since humans first brewed beer. No wonder I like it so much.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
As for what good it does, drug addicts don't/can't have children that will prosper and are fertile.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this? From what I've seen, drug addicted women seem to be more likely to have children than women who are not addicts. And these women are more likely to have more children than women who are more prosperous.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Legalization would make drugs a lot cheaper. I've never seen someone beg for money to feed their cigarette habit while they've been legal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that legalization will make the prices will come down, but you'll still end up with people begging on the streets for their next "fix" (not for marijuana, of course, but for "harder" drugs). For instance, a meth addict has a very hard time keeping a job, and would still need to beg for money if the prices were to come down.

Alcohol is legal, but there are plenty of winos begging on the street, trying to scrounge together enough for their next bottle.

I'm all for legalization, but not because I believe that it will have much effect on the number of beggars on the street.

[Friedrich888]

any change that occurs in less time than one generation is not going to be dealt with by biological evolution but by social evolution. Social Darwinism is the unproven idea that social evolution and biological evolution operate in the same manner. If anything we have very many social customs that are designed to prevent social darwinism from occurring. All welfare programs for example.

[godBoy]

A lethal injection would absolutely cease the ability of a cancer to spread.

I think more research needs to be done - so that people can receive the benefits of a drug without the other effects.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think more research needs to be done - so that people can receive the benefits of a drug without the other effects.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like "enjoying themselves"?