Biological evolution is irrelevant to humans.

[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.

[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.