Biological evolution is irrelevant to humans.

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]
That phrase is quite wrong, and it's a fundamental mistake I would not expect from anyone who has studied evolution scientifically.

[ QUOTE ]
The relevant scale for a 'biological evolution' is about 100 000 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it isn't.

First, human subpopulations are believed to have evolved much more rapidly, by at least an order of magnitude.

Second, bacteria which are quite relevant to us evolve much more rapidly, by several orders of magnitude.

Maybe you are confusing evolution with creating species.

[/ QUOTE ]


I haven't said that natural selection leaves only the most fit.

I don't know if there is a rigorous way to establish a relevant time scale for an evolution. The charachterisic time of new species formation seems to be a good choice. You can propose other measures, they all would be fine as long as you apply them in the same way to the changes brought by 'technological and natural evolution'.

How do you measure the degree of evolution of human subpopulation?

As for the relevant time scale of bacteria evolution, sure it is smaller than for multicellar organisms. You need to compare the relevant time scales for 'technological and natural evolution' for the same species. If we want to develop a new kind of bacteria for some purpose the relevant time scale will be years if not months. (I think it is hard to define speciation event for bacteria, so we'd need another measure. Percentage of genome change, for example.)

P.S. You are right in that I should have said the relevant time scale of human evolution (or mammals evolution).

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]I haven't said that natural selection leaves only the most fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? Maybe you should get your story straight before talking to others.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if there is a rigorous way to establish a relevant time scale for an evolution. The charachterisic time of new species formation seems to be a good choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's an absurdly bad choice when you are talking about evolutionary pressures within the human population, as you did. Did anyone claim these pressures would lead to the creation of a new human species first, and only then have an effect?

This looks like a waste of time. I will ignore you henceforth.

[Drag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
natural selection leaves only the most fit.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]I haven't said that natural selection leaves only the most fit.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF? Maybe you should get your story straight before talking to others.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if there is a rigorous way to establish a relevant time scale for an evolution. The charachterisic time of new species formation seems to be a good choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's an absurdly bad choice when you are talking about evolutionary pressures within the human population, as you did. Did anyone claim these pressures would lead to the creation of a new human species first, and only then have an effect?

This looks like a waste of time. I will ignore you henceforth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you are right about the first point, I didn't formulate it correctly. (Thought that I did it right, when I responded.)
It should be something along the lines: ' elimination of the less fit, larger than average represantion of the most fit (meaning that they leave more offsprings) with a large degree of chance (as the most fit could have been accidentally killed)'

As for your second point, it is totally uncalled for. I suggested one measure of time. You are just stating that it is bad, without trying to provide another one.
(Do you know about the notion of a charachteristic time scale as used in physics?)

As for ignoring it looks really strange to me.

[KikoSanchez]

Your last point about who gives birth and to how many may not hold much relevance in the larger scope of history, but to the immediate future it holds great consequence.