Originally posted by trawets113What leads you to believe that evolution is still taking place in
Yeah but do you race of not think that then a perfect human beings may be created, which would end in our ruin as evolution would no longer take place.
humans? I see all sorts of people whom I would not describe as the
'fittest' spreading their seed and having children.
When we are all running around in the jungle, the alpha male was
spreading his seed (remember, we were polygamous for a very long
time) for the most part. Betamales had to wait around until they
became 'chief.'
Now, all sorts of people are having kids: stupid people, handicapped
people, short people, people with genetic diseases.
We are no longer playing by the same rules as any other animal in
the kingdom, so to discuss this issue from the standpoint of evolution
is nonsensical.
Nemesio
P.S., I am not suggesting that we re-begin a eugenics movement of
preventing people from having children; I am simply pointing out that
we are no long procreating according to any biologically reasonable
genetic model.
Originally posted by trawets113On the contrary - artificial selection and engineering would cause our species to change more rapidly than evolution could ever manage.
Yeah but do you race of not think that then a perfect human beings may be created, which would end in our ruin as evolution would no longer take place.
Originally posted by NemesioWell think about it this way if the ugly people get with ugly people and the good looking get with the good looking then two seperate species may well develop. For example.
What leads you to believe that evolution is still taking place in
humans? I see all sorts of people whom I would not describe as the
'fittest' spreading their seed and having children.
When we are all running around in the jungle, the alpha male was
spreading his seed (remember, we were polygamous for a very long
time) for the most part. Betamale ...[text shortened]... ng out that
we are no long procreating according to any biologically reasonable
genetic model.
Originally posted by trawets113Well if rich people have designer babies and poor people make them the old-fashioned
Well think about it this way if the ugly people get with ugly people and the good looking get with the good looking then two seperate species may well develop. For example.
way, then two species may yet develop. I fail to see a difference. We are still no longer
adhering the basic tenets of natural selection.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSo far as I know: A) Human beings have rarely "run around jungles" - most Homo species lived primarily in savannahs from the fossil evidence; and 2) There is no evidence at all to support your claim that humans had about "alpha" and "beta" males in the human species. We've had this discussion before and you've been unable to substantiate such a claim, so I'm surprised you keep making it.
What leads you to believe that evolution is still taking place in
humans? I see all sorts of people whom I would not describe as the
'fittest' spreading their seed and having children.
When we are all running around in the jungle, the alpha male was
spreading his seed (remember, we were polygamous for a very long
time) for the most part. Betamale ...[text shortened]... ng out that
we are no long procreating according to any biologically reasonable
genetic model.
Originally posted by trawets113Preventing genetic diseases I think is inevitable and a good thing. The cosmetic stuff I am unsure about.
Should parents be allowed to choose certain features in their unborn children.
Such as preventing a birth defect or changing the babies eye colour.
What are your feelings on this matter.
Originally posted by NemesioActually, beta monkeys get to do it if they are quick enough
What leads you to believe that evolution is still taking place in
humans? I see all sorts of people whom I would not describe as the
'fittest' spreading their seed and having children.
When we are all running around in the jungle, the alpha male was
spreading his seed (remember, we were polygamous for a very long
time) for the most part. Betamale ...[text shortened]... ng out that
we are no long procreating according to any biologically reasonable
genetic model.
Originally posted by no1marauderAhem:
So far as I know: A) Human beings have rarely "run around jungles" - most Homo species lived primarily in savannahs from the fossil evidence; and 2) There is no evidence at all to support your claim that humans had about "alpha" and "beta" males in the human species. We've had this discussion before and you've been unable to substantiate such a claim, so I'm surprised you keep making it.
A) I was using the term as a 'figure of speech.' Yes. I know where ancient man wandered.
2) I am astounded that you would say 'no evidence.' When we discussed it, it became obvious
that there are different theories surrounding this issue and each theory has a corpus of literature
supporting itself and attacking each other. Surely in your research you read both sides of the
argument, right?
Consider the article 'Aggression as a Well-Integrated Part of Primate Social Relationships: A
Critique of the Seville Statement on Violence,' by Frans B. M. de Waal in the book 'Aggression
and Peacefulness in Humans and Other Primates' (edited by James Silverberg and J. Patrick Gray).
Given that the alphamale and betamale models are the standard in every other primate, it
stands to reason that we would have biological remenants of this today (even though we aren't
procreating by means of natural selection any more). This has, no doubt, been socially reinforced.
Indeed, social reinforcement exists in other primates as well, but we don't doubt their natural,
biological origins. Yes, we've watered it down because of our weird and complicated social
structures, but it is still there. We see it all the time in school and in the workplace.
If you believe that the urge to have sex is still biologically influenced, although impacted by social
norms, then I see no reason that competition (as in between alpha- and betamales), too, wouldn't
have similar biological influences.
Nemesio