Have we out-evolved darwinism?

[scorcher863]

(quote)
Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.
(\quote)

kinda reminds me of the comedy movie Idiocracy.

In the movie, all of the dumb people of the world outreproduced the smart until they were extinct.

Perhaps the evolutionary trend has changed from the survival of the fittest by means of natural selection to overproduction of the careless permitted by advanced technology.

These ignorantly blissful people are capable of producing at a high rate because technology (modern medicine including std treatments, supermarkets, transportation) has allowed them to thrive when they would otherwise die off or be worried enough to not perform.

[what do people do when times are good? ... reproduce ie. the baby boom era] If ignorance is in fact bliss, then dumb people are reproducing rapidly.

Take rap music for an example. I think it would be accurate to say that the majority of people that listen to rap are uneducated. Is it a coincidence that this music is laden with more sexually explicit lyrics than any other genre? Check out the current number 1 song in AMERICA, Crank That by Soulja Boy. In the main chorus of this song he raps "supersoak that hoe." What he is saying in reverse-laymans terms is "ejaculate on that women."--not trying to be crude, but it is reality.

On the other end of the spectrum, you've got the more informed, aware person. This type of person is less apt to reproduce because of the presence of crippling worries. Worries such as being able to afford a child, the reality of the difficulties of raising a child, and of course std's.

This ratio will continue to grow farther and farther apart as time goes on, unless of course technology (the crutch of the reproducing dumb people) is somehow removed from the equation.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the evolutionary trend has changed from the survival of the fittest by means of natural selection to overproduction of the careless permitted by advanced technology.



[/ QUOTE ]

The second part of this statement much more accurately describes evolution that the first part, and I mean all of evolutionary history, not just the eyeblink since humans arrived on the scene.

[bbbaddd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

that implies that they passed their genes on more easily b/c they were poor. this is only true b/c there are more poor people than rich people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's part of the point I attempted to address. Being poor is obviously not equal to being successful in human terms, but it is a certain indicator that you are more likely to have lots of kids. That is the definition of evolutionary success. I didn't mean to imply that being poor means that their genes pass on easier, only that for various reasons poor people have more kids than rich people, which affects genetic frequency.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

that implies that they passed their genes on more easily b/c they were poor. this is only true b/c there are more poor people than rich people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's part of the point I attempted to address. Being poor is obviously not equal to being successful in human terms, but it is a certain indicator that you are more likely to have lots of kids. That is the definition of evolutionary success. I didn't mean to imply that being poor means that their genes pass on easier, only that for various reasons poor people have more kids than rich people, which affects genetic frequency.

[/ QUOTE ]

this begs the question are they poor b/c of their genes? it's an indicator but there's little causation. i suppose we can seewhat op is getting at in this example:

more people so their genes get passed on more easily, but that only matters if we think they are predisposed to be poor as a result of genetics rather than socio-economic factors.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Poor people reproduce way more than the rich, so though they tend to fall short in lots of measures of success, they appear to be way more successful in evolution terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

that implies that they passed their genes on more easily b/c they were poor. this is only true b/c there are more poor people than rich people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well that's part of the point I attempted to address. Being poor is obviously not equal to being successful in human terms, but it is a certain indicator that you are more likely to have lots of kids. That is the definition of evolutionary success. I didn't mean to imply that being poor means that their genes pass on easier, only that for various reasons poor people have more kids than rich people, which affects genetic frequency.

[/ QUOTE ]

this begs the question are they poor b/c of their genes? it's an indicator but there's little causation. i suppose we can seewhat op is getting at in this example:

more people so their genes get passed on more easily, but that only matters if we think they are predisposed to be poor as a result of genetics rather than socio-economic factors.

[/ QUOTE ]

Either way, as long as their poverty is in some part their fault, then the types of traits which lead to poverty are going to be increasing in prevalence.

[tarheeljks]

so are you saying we have "out evolved it" b/c the fact that they are passing on the they are passing on their traits but are not the fittest doesn't really make sense?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
so are you saying we have "out evolved it" b/c the fact that they are passing on the they are passing on their traits but are not the fittest doesn't really make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you rewrite this question or elaborate? I honestly cannot tell what you are asking me.

[tarheeljks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so are you saying we have "out evolved it" b/c the fact that they are passing on the they are passing on their traits but are not the fittest doesn't really make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you rewrite this question or elaborate? I honestly cannot tell what you are asking me.

[/ QUOTE ]

my bad, i didn't edit properly.

are you saying we have "out evolved darwinism" b/c the fact that those who are not the fittest pass on their traits w/the most ease.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so are you saying we have "out evolved it" b/c the fact that they are passing on the they are passing on their traits but are not the fittest doesn't really make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but could you rewrite this question or elaborate? I honestly cannot tell what you are asking me.

[/ QUOTE ]

my bad, i didn't edit properly.

are you saying we have "out evolved darwinism" b/c the fact that those who are not the fittest pass on their traits w/the most ease.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying you have a narrow view of what "the fittest means" but that we have most certainly NOT "out-evolved Darwinism." Having lots of babies = fittest, at least in some niches, like ours.

[Bill Haywood]

Generally, a population can evolve significantly when it is reproductively isolated. A numerous, widespread species tends toward stasis.

When a advantageous trait pops up among humans, it will have difficulty spreading everywhere, even if it does well. All the other versions of the trait stick around; there's just too many pockets around the globe for other versions of the gene to endure. Our improved mortality reinforces that.

This is not to say that evolution will not occur, just that like our increased lifespan, our numbers carpeting the globe are an obstacle to evolution. Certainly the explosion of innovation roughly 200k years ago that produced us is unlikely to be repeated.