Darwin and the survival of the fittest?

[SemperFi]

I dont believe he meant humans when he initially came up with this theory or domesticated pets or even "food" animals , in the animal kingdom theres no shame if your weak ,you just become food for the strong , in the human world weakness could be many things , a human who has weak body strength ,but who has money will out survive the strongest, kinda defeats the theory doesnt it? I dont mean to bash the weak , or even flame some of you here , but the bottom line is this ,the world population has risen to 7 billion , we cannot sustain that rate of birth much longer as a world , the theory needs to be re-instated , all the people in northern africa for example , need to die off , I know it sounds bad , but they never should have been born !Its takes 2 extra people to keep one of these people alive , and they will never contribute to the whole of the world !

Look I dont know the answer and Im not just picking on Afrikans , but the world resources will deminish at a faster rate now , now that the worlds human population has increased so much (especially if it continues at this rate of births) , Plague will occurr , it has to , ever notice notice when the rodent population gets out of hand , what happens? Remember Rabbits many years back exploded all across America and even in Australia , then a virus of some sort took hold and wiped them out , its lifes way of cleaning the herd ! It needs to happen in the human race as well , I think even the worlds leaders know this and will let it happen in the coming years even though there will vaccines for it !

Flame away! Im not trying to bash or make a religious statement or anything else Im stating the fact that our world population is out of control , and that either a virus of the earth or and man made virus will indeed attack us

[Rick]

You're making the assumption that all goods and resources are uniformly distributed world wide, which just isn't the case. There are tens of thousands staving right now while we had seconds on that pie last night. If you live in a country of haves the world could be 50 billion and the odds are you will still eat well. If you live in a country of have nots then the world population could be 1 billion and you'd still be starving. It's not about contribution or weakness. It's about living in a country that nurtures crop cultivation with proper rainfall, fertile soils and a reasonable growing season. If you don't live in that country then you'll spend your days trying to find food.

Those Africans that you talk about are having disproportionally more children because they hope one or two survive. It takes a combination of good nutrition, proper medical care, education, and a drastic change in the way men view women in that part of the world. And I'm not even including the epidemic of rapes that occur.

AIDS is a epidemic so perverse that many nations have an average age of 16. 16!!!!! In Uganda it is 15, in Niger, 15.2. In Congo, Chad and Ethiopia it's 16. And the birth rate is still outstripping the death rate.

The planet will continue to support human life as long as you live in the right country.

You should read the book Guns, Germs and Steel by Jarod Diamond.

[hunter63]

IMHO 911 has destroyed Darwin's Theory.......

[crashdive123]

Wait a second. There was pie......and seconds.....and I wasn't invited?

[southard]

If there was strawberry ruhbarb Im gonna be pissed

[natertot]

If there was strawberry ruhbarb Im gonna be pissed

I'm right behind you on that one!

[DOGMAN]

I dont believe he meant humans when he initially came up with this theory or domesticated pets or even "food" animals , in the animal kingdom theres no shame if your weak ,you just become food for the strong , in the human world weakness could be many things , a human who has weak body strength ,but who has money will out survive the strongest, kinda defeats the theory doesnt it? I dont mean to bash the weak , or even flame some of you here , but the bottom line is this ,the world population has risen to 7 billion , we cannot sustain that rate of birth much longer as a world , the theory needs to be re-instated , all the people in northern africa for example , need to die off , I know it sounds bad , but they never should have been born !Its takes 2 extra people to keep one of these people alive , and they will never contribute to the whole of the world !

Look I dont know the answer and Im not just picking on Afrikans , but the world resources will deminish at a faster rate now , now that the worlds human population has increased so much (especially if it continues at this rate of births) , Plague will occurr , it has to , ever notice notice when the rodent population gets out of hand , what happens? Remember Rabbits many years back exploded all across America and even in Australia , then a virus of some sort took hold and wiped them out , its lifes way of cleaning the herd ! It needs to happen in the human race as well , I think even the worlds leaders know this and will let it happen in the coming years even though there will vaccines for it !

Flame away! Im not trying to bash or make a religious statement or anything else Im stating the fact that our world population is out of control , and that either a virus of the earth or and man made virus will indeed attack us

There's alot going on here....first and most important, Darwin, didn't come up with the phrase "survival of the fittest"....Herbert Spencer did.

Next, the whole concept of Evolution thats based on Darwins theories has nothing to do with "strengths or weakness" it has to do with genetic variations in a species, environmental factors, mutations, adaptations and time. I suggest you actually read "Origin of Species" before you try to theorize what he was really trying to say...

[rwc1969]

We'll figure out a way to get the numbers down before Ma Nature does.

[Aurelius95]

I think there is a lot of fear in your statement, and I wouldn't bunch all populations together. Lots going on in Africa, and other parts of the world. Doesn't mean they need to "die off" though.

[Rick]

Hey Dogman - You might be surprised to learn that it was Robert Seldon that coined the phrase "Well, I'll be da&&ed". Robert was a little known gas station attendant in the early '60s. Actually, he was kinda slow. He wrote letter to the editor in which he theorized, even back then, that if they would stop taking those babies out of women the world population would stabilize. Just leave them in there. He figured it was a waste of time taking them out because somehow they always got replaced and then they'd have to take that one out, too. He even suggested they put babies back in women to lower the birth rate. Someone took him aside and told him how babies happened to which he replied, you guessed it, "well I'll be da&&ed." No one could figure out why he used the two & signs, though.

[kyratshooter]

From what I can tell the people on the African plains have always been starving. It is a permenant condition and they simply continue starving and reproducing through eternity. I think it might be viewed as some form of hell here on earth. Karma sends you back as a Somalian if you don't act right in this life.

Wasn't the entire population of sub-saharan Africa suposed to have been wiped out with Aids by now if we did not devote all our rescources to saving them?

That ranks right up there with Global warming as misguided logic.

One of the basic problems man kind has right now is the absence of a global pestliance just to remind us we are not in charge. The only problem with indiscriminate killers is that they wipe out the just and the unjust. It's like the old tee shirt I had with the bear in the cross hairs pointing to his buddy.

Once, as a small boy, I was riding through down town Nashville, TN with my Grandad. We passed over the bridge at Union Terminal where about 100 lines of track entered the depot.

He pointed to the half mile long depot platform and told me he had seen that platform lined from end to end with coffins stacked three high, waiting for shipment home, during the 1918 flu epidemic.

Be careful what you wish on others, it may come home to rest.

[mouse111111]

But Kyrat he isnt going to get the pestilence because he doesnt eat out, remember.

[southard]

What are you all thinking? I mean, a well thought out informed opinion based on logic, research, and little forethought in todays society. You all should be ashamed.

[southard]

basically he's sayin what the W. VA shepard said to his son when asked "what to do with the flock when it's cold out?" Th reply being "F*#% 'em boy!"

[mpatton]

Lets colonize the Moon !... Oh wait, Obama killed the space program

[JPGreco]

Dogman is correct in the fact that you are infering that the statement survival of the fittest has anything to do with the individual's situation in life. It has to do with the ability of a species over the long term to adapt to changes in it's ecosystem and to weed out genetic mutations that are not advantageous to the species. Examples abound.

I will support the concept that mankind reached a pinnacle that now allows genetic weakness and liabilities to continue on in the species. 1,000 years ago, if you came down with diabetes, you died, which potentially removed that genetic marker from the population. If you had a mental or physical disability and nobody to look after you, you died, removing those genetic markers from the population. In today's society, we've used our biggest advantage to overcome genetic flaws that should be removing themselves from populations under the concept or survival of the fittest.

[vahtryn]

For some reason this thread brings up Gary Larsen for me. I'd go on about the whole "genetic survival" rant but what's the point? I have a genetic defect and I made certain it can't be passed on. Big deal. I'm also part of that 1% those occupy people ***** about, but then again so are most of them. They're not living dirt poor like others in different countries around the world.

As to the Gary Larsen, here you guys go.

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

[Phaedrus]

Much of the work of evolution is derived from "genetic drift", that is random mutations. These mutations can be beneficial, harmful, or in most cases a wash providing no benefit or harm. In broad terms, those mutations that improve an organism's ability to survive in its environment are adaptions and are more likely to be passed on. Obviously things that hinder an organisms ability to survive long enough to reproduce will be less likely to be passed on. With humans it's not so obvious just which traits are useful. Certainly physical strength is nearly irrelevant for a human in the "First World"; it's no necessary to be strong when machines do our work. The modern world is its own ecosystem or environment, and if it endures then humans will continue to develop traits that make one successful within that system. Of course, it will suck for those humans adapted to that system if it does go away.

It seems that intelligence is the most powerful human ability. There's no point in time where humans were ever the strongest or fastest animals in their ecosystem but we seem to have been "apex predators" for nearly a million years. Almost certainly our intelligence, not our brawn, was the reason behind this.

[canid]

those mutations that improve an organism's ability to survive in its environment are adaptions and are more likely to be passed on.

a frequently overlooked aspect is that any change which does not present a detriment is retained, and not only those which offer benefit. a reproductive advantage will certainly outpace a lateral adaptation, but both may survive and this is also part of the process of splitting. this is even true of minor detriments that do not lead to outright prevention of successful reproduction. since these splits occur within at least initially reproductively compatible populations, both beneficial and detrimental feedback can occurr.

further, since not all genetic variables are expressible in all lineages, the inclusion of a beneficial or detrimental trait may be included in a successive population with no expression at all.

in genetics we are discussing a system more complicated, more dynamic and often less predictable than superficial examination often suggests. the same is probably true of culture; which combines the influences of environment and genetics with those of belief and knowledge in even greater complexity.

I shudder to think of what would happen to our sense of human identity if complex cultures interacted and conflicted with one another across a speciation gap. we hardly understand one another while the differences are superficial.

[Phaedrus]

I was generalizing. The subject is extraordinarily complex; I'm not a geneticist, just a laymen with an interest. You're of course correct. People really misunderstand the entire process of evolution. Some think it's organisms "getting better and better" or moving from a state of low complexity to a state of high complexity- while those things can happen there's no certainty they will. There's no "designer" or plan to the process, nor does it "think" or "decide" anything. Many of its products "dead end" when conditions change.