PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
I've seen people use similar arguments as a serious objection to gay marriage.Are there any serious modern proponents of "social darwinism"?
wa:do
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I've seen people use similar arguments as a serious objection to gay marriage.Are there any serious modern proponents of "social darwinism"?
wa:do
Seriously?I've seen people use similar arguments as a serious objection to gay marriage.
I have a question for you learned folks:
So, should I be concerned that the future of the human gene pool will be towards a decline in average intelligence as that trait is no longer important for biological survival..
No, you are making a basic mistake. In evolution fitness is the ability to pass on ones genes to the next generation.I have a question for you learned folks:
It seems to me, and the theory of evolution, that, until recent times, the fittest humans that survived best, passed on more of their genetic material to the human gene pool. Fitness would include such things as health and intelligence.
That's the way it has always been. Humans have always engaged in some sort of family planning.In recent times, biological survival for all, is much easier. So, in this day of family planning, it seems to me the humans most likely to contribute more to the future gene pool are simply those that procreate the most.
False assumption. Plenty of "high achieving" people have risen up from "low achieving" backgrounds, including some of the biggest names in science and technology.Now, we all see statistics showing, in general, the higher social and intellectual achievers have lower birth rates than average. I am making the assumption that two high acheiving parents are more likely to have a higher acheiving child than two low acheiving parents for reasons that are both genetic and environmental.
No.So, should I be concerned that the future of the human gene pool will be towards a decline in average intelligence as that trait is no longer important for biological survival..
No, you are making a basic mistake. In evolution fitness is the ability to pass on ones genes to the next generation.
Your fitness is determined by how many descendants you have. Right now my sister is more "fit" than I am. But if my son has an advantageous mutation then who knows... over the next few centuries I may turn out to be more "fit" than she is.
That's the way it has always been. Humans have always engaged in some sort of family planning.
Plus, simply procreating more isn't necessarily going to do the trick... you need to have your offspring be healthy enough to procreate and so on.
False assumption. Plenty of "high achieving" people have risen up from "low achieving" backgrounds, including some of the biggest names in science and technology.
The average high school student can perform higher mathematics than the average person could just a century ago let alone a few centuries ago.
wa:do
Being smart or strong does not make you "fit"... reproducing successfully makes you "fit". I agree with the second sentence and I don't see the basic mistake I'm making.
The error is in assuming that intelligence is genetic.Not a false assumption. Two highly intelligent parents are more likely than two dull parents to have a highly intelligent child. Of course, you can find exceptions.
I'm saying that the claim that somehow that average intelligence is decreasing is demonstrably false.This statement is not clear to me. Are saying people have become naturally smarter or are you saying education has improved?
I can't lessen a concern that isn't based on or responsive to facts.So as far as my original question,
"So, should I be concerned that the future of the human gene pool will be towards a decline in average intelligence as that trait is no longer important for biological survival.." Since I noted that there is an inverse relationship between intellectual and academic sucess and birth-rate.
I don't see where anything you said lessens my concern.
Being smart or strong does not make you "fit"... reproducing successfully makes you "fit". 
wa:do
I think that's a generalization rather than a scientifically supportable statement.Are women part of a "weeding out" process? It seems that women are more attracted to smart, powerful & successful men than men who don't do well competing in today's labor force.
In evolution fitness is the ability to pass on ones genes to the next generation.
Your fitness is determined by how many descendants you have.
Right now my sister is more "fit" than I am. But if my son has an advantageous mutation then who knows... over the next few centuries I may turn out to be more "fit" than she is.
Being smart or strong does not make you "fit"... reproducing successfully makes you "fit".
The error is in assuming that intelligence is genetic.
Smart parents also produce dull children.
I'm saying that the claim that somehow that average intelligence is decreasing is demonstrably false.
I can't lessen a concern that isn't based on or responsive to facts.
There is also an inverse relationship between poverty and birth-rate... relationships between religious affiliation and birth-rates and so on. Correlation does not equal causation.
I'm saying that "intelligence" isn't a singular trait that can be traced to a single gene or even a set of genes.
Whoa, Red Flag. Are you saying intelligence is not a product of heredity and environment but that it's only a product of environment? If what you say is true, then my concerns would go away but I couldn't more strongly disagree with you assertion.
You seriously think that a medieval peasant is going to be as intelligent as a modern high school graduate?I'm still awaiting that demonstration. And secondly, my point was more about future generations.
You haven't presented any actual facts... just suppositions and opinions.But you haven't shown what facts I have wrong.
You are drawing a conclusion without looking at all of the evidence. You claiming that one correlation is a cause - effect relationship while ignoring all the other correlations and evidence.OK, but so......? How does this apply to the discussion we're having?
I'm saying that "intelligence" isn't a singular trait that can be traced to a single gene or even a set of genes.
Intelligence isn't even a concept that is fully defined.
You seriously think that a medieval peasant is going to be as intelligent as a modern high school graduate?
Why exactly would "intelligence" be selected against? In this modern world of high technology and the need for rapid adaptation to it... why would humans ever loose intelligence?
You are drawing a conclusion without looking at all of the evidence. You claiming that one correlation is a cause - effect relationship while ignoring all the other correlations and evidence.
wa:do
I don't believe there was ever a time when above adverage intelligence was required for survival or reproduction. People of below adverage intelligence have always been able to survive and reproduce.I never said "intelligence' would be selected against. I said "high intelligence" is no longer favored because in our modern world people of below average intelligence can easily survive to their reproductive years and their children can easily survive to their reproductive years, etc.. In the distant past when mere survival was more challenging, the higher intelligence people were more like to have successful next generations. The higher intelligence people would have greater input to the gene pool; this no longer happens.
fantôme profane;3149020 said:I don't believe there was ever a time when above adverage intelligence was required for survival or reproduction. People of below adverage intelligence have always been able to survive and reproduce.
How would you determine who has the better hereditary capability?Heredity and environment effect intelligence. The modern high school graduate had the better environment. But who had the better hereditary capability to learn? That's what's being debated.
So now "high intelligence" is a different trait from regular "intelligence"?I never said "intelligence' would be selected against. I said "high intelligence" is no longer favored because in our modern world people of below average intelligence can easily survive to their reproductive years and their children can easily survive to their reproductive years, etc..
How do you know this no longer happens?In the distant past when mere survival was more challenging, the higher intelligence people were more like to have successful next generations. The higher intelligence people would have greater input to the gene pool; this no longer happens.
Please provide evidence that "higher intellectual" people ever had higher reproductive rates than the average or "below average" population.As people of higher intellectual and academic success have lower birth-rates, this bodes ill for the future of the gene pool.
This is a scientific discussion area... The standards of evidence are a bit more rigorous.Again, you need to explain how this applies to the conversation we're having.
In evolution the only measure of fitness is how many of your genes spread in the population. You can die of old age, but if you don't reproduce you are not truly "fit" from an evolutionary perspective. (unless one counts kin selection)The above statements make two different claims. The first can be understood as defining fitness in one's capacity/ability to survive such that one is capable in principle of passing on genes.
The only way to measure total fitness is long term over single or several generations.The second (if I'm understanding it correctly) defines fitness explicitly in terms of descendants, rather than the potential of descendants. Apart from my understanding of definition(s) of biological fitness (which, admittedly, consists far more on computational models and applications than of biological research) and how it contrasts with the one you give, it seems to me that the second statement is sort of useless for evolutionary theory. For example:
Only if they do not spread their genes into the population.How can one usefully apply to a level greater than that of the individual? If a particular species tends to survive long enough to produce offspring relative to some competitor (or if some mutation within a species produces offspring which increase their probability of having offspring), the definition you give seems to suggest that no matter how "adapted" an individual is to a particular environment, if some abnormal or unlikely event (e.g., being crushed by a falling object) results in death, the dead individual has a "fitness" of 0.
No big deal. Sure, I thought that you were ignoring me, which meant increasing my therapy sessions to a daily, rather than weekly, basis, but with that and with the helpful, support provided by the voiced in my head, I was able to avoid spiraling down into the pit of despair. And not the one in The Princess Bride.Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this.![]()
In evolution the only measure of fitness is how many of your genes spread in the population. You can die of old age, but if you don't reproduce you are not truly "fit" from an evolutionary perspective. (unless one counts kin selection)
The only way to measure total fitness is long term over single or several generations.
There are two measures used to study fitness over generations... absolute and relative.
Only if they do not spread their genes into the population.
And I spent all that time typing about inclusive fitness which is now wasted and not because I should have read your post in its entirety before starting to reply (because that would make it my fault, which clearly can't be the case, for reasons that are...um..too technical. And classified).However, if you take into account inclusive fitness... then you can still be "fit" even if you never reproduce.
That much I am aware of relative to what I know about biological evolution in general, because in programs and algorithms it's far more readily apparent. But what I am less sure about is why fitness is defined so differently, i.e., in terms of actual rather than a function of likely reproductive success.It's important to remember that in evolution... fitness is not a measure between species, but between individuals. The lion is no more fit than the impala for killing it.
Mostly I think we use actual rather than likely because we are dealing with living systems as they function in real time.That much I am aware of relative to what I know about biological evolution in general, because in programs and algorithms it's far more readily apparent. But what I am less sure about is why fitness is defined so differently, i.e., in terms of actual rather than a function of likely reproductive success.