|
When did you become "something"? Have you been posting under this identity for very long?
I didn't have a prejudice against you because I didn't even know you. I think the remarks just kept snowballing until we past the point of no return. Hopefully, through this exchange, we may put those events behind us.
Some comments....
You wrote -
"A recurring theme is that natural selection does not apply to humans"
In some respects I think this may be valid. It is common sense to think that humans and their corresponding genetic information are still very much under the influence of environment pressures. We can now travel all over the world and live in many diverse locations. People who are indigenous to Siberia can now mate with people in Bolivia. This is not going to promote diversity, but in a sense, it is going to cause a global melting pot over many generations. I am not saying natural selection will stop, but speciation might be at an "end". Unless we begin to manufacture different species of humans through cloning we should not see new types of humans sprouting up.
You wrote -
"If you are quoting a book, yatta realize it might not be the moral equivalent of a commandment from the God of Agnostics..."
I am quoting my mind and my education. Yes, that is a "textbook" definition, but I feel it is a logical one and describes the behavior and its subsequent actions.
You wrote -
" Certainly all the abuses you describe occur in socialism and communism too -- and the typical chimpanzee community, if you license a metaphor without suit and tie !"
I feel the philosophy of socialism is a utopian notion that can never be actualized due to the corrupt nature of humankind. Capitalism will always thrive because too much money is in the hands of the people who have the power. I don't know what the fix is, and I am sure it will be not so quick as I like! I think we need more of a mix of socialism and democracy. I think we shouldn't have so many "have-nots" in this land of "opportunity". I am not a politician and I have no ambition to become one. I am just a person with a voice and a vote. That doesn't count for much, but it does count.
You wrote -
" In the real world, many of the fastest rabbits will be caught. Natural selection says that statistically, what will emerge is the composite genepool of what was most successful in meeting the stresses of each generational filter. It is not a value judgment proving superior genes were passed along. "
A similar situation exists in the hunting community. It seems many hunters believe they are helping deer populations by keeping their numbers in check due to the lack natural predators (which they probably ran off in the first place!!). I think this is a ridiculous claim. What type of deer do must hunters like to go after? The ones with the biggest racks. (Still a good joke) They want to shoot the biggest buck so that they can feel masculine telling their buddies about the big hunt. Well, that type of thinking does not help the fitness of the overall deer population. They are in essence taking the most fit deer with the best genes and weeding them out. This allows the weak deer to find mates much easier and pass along otherwise deficient genes. I understand not all hunters hunt this way, but the majority does and I think their argument that they contribute to the health of the deer population is flimsy at best.
You wrote -
"What Darwin understood 150 years ago is hard for others to comprehend...that nature's filters work over a large number of generations, and that "artificial selection" works best in simple things like the way we want our animals to LOOK...not how their minds will work...the latter being not a highly developed technical profession in human breeding...
but breeding for ruthlessness has sometimes been in fashion ."
Nice!!
Scott
|
