Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Is Evolution going in reverse?

DebatorJack
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:08:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

Elephants produce one baby every few years. Mice produce a litter every few months. Mice are not out-competing elephants, because they occupy different niches. Mice are better at surviving humans though, so they are arguably more successful.

The problem with using such an analogy for rich vs. poor is that neither one is an isolated population. Elephants and mice can't interbreed, so they can't swap advantageous traits. Rich and poor people can, which means there will be continuous gene flow between them. There is also migration between wealth and poverty.

In short, your Swiss friends are incorrect. The gap between rich and poor is a social construct, not a genetic one, so Evolution is irrelevant.
LostintheEcho1498
Posts: 234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2014 5:31:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:08:36 PM, apb4y wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

Elephants produce one baby every few years. Mice produce a litter every few months. Mice are not out-competing elephants, because they occupy different niches. Mice are better at surviving humans though, so they are arguably more successful.

The problem with using such an analogy for rich vs. poor is that neither one is an isolated population. Elephants and mice can't interbreed, so they can't swap advantageous traits. Rich and poor people can, which means there will be continuous gene flow between them. There is also migration between wealth and poverty.

In short, your Swiss friends are incorrect. The gap between rich and poor is a social construct, not a genetic one, so Evolution is irrelevant.

I have to agree with more with DebatorJack here and even take a step further. I think that the rich are farther up than we are because there are less. Let me explain:
1. The more people who are born in the lower class the larger it becomes and the larger the work force is. Therefore, wages are lowered at increase in competition thus helping the smaller upper class.
2. The upper class wants to stay elite. The elite want to keep their wealth protected and in the family and so do not spread it throughout multiple heirs.
That is all I have. Sorry, only two points. Anyway, if anything your friend had it backwards. Evolution is always going up and the lower class seems to stay at the bottom of the ladder.
apb4y
Posts: 480
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 3:16:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 5:31:54 PM, LostintheEcho1498 wrote:

I have to agree with more with DebatorJack here and even take a step further. I think that the rich are farther up than we are because there are less. Let me explain:
1. The more people who are born in the lower class the larger it becomes and the larger the work force is. Therefore, wages are lowered at increase in competition thus helping the smaller upper class.
2. The upper class wants to stay elite. The elite want to keep their wealth protected and in the family and so do not spread it throughout multiple heirs.
That is all I have. Sorry, only two points. Anyway, if anything your friend had it backwards. Evolution is always going up and the lower class seems to stay at the bottom of the ladder.

Evolution does not go "up". It does not have a direction. Humans infer a direction because we're arrogant and believe ourselves the end result of life on Earth.

Wealth has nothing to do with this. There is still gene flow between rich and poor communities, so they are not separate populations as far as Evolution is concerned. Also, being rich or poor has nothing to do with one's DNA, so there is nothing for Natural Selection to act on here.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 7:40:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Okay, so this is a question that I often hear asked and it is often considered factual that eventually there will be no smart people left because all the dumb people will outgrow them. Truth is, the world has never experienced a smaller gap in income than it does today.

The average person knows a whole lot more about everything essentially than the smartest did 500 years ago. And with higher demands on education as the years pass ( which is the status quo right now ) , it will only get easier for everyone to catch up. Even inbred rednecks with 8 kids are likely to see at least some of them breaking the leaches to the lower class.

In the 1800s the total amount of people who could read was limited to the new and small middle class and the upper classes. Will there always be more dumb and poor people than rich and smart? Yes, but rich and smart people are going to be there as long as there are money that can't be taken away from them. The rich and smart have things to fall back on, which always help them survive. It is only when the mobs of plebians turn their pitchforks against them that they have to flee and for most of the time, they actually manage to flee.

Our cognitive abilities today are much greater than they were in the middle ages, so fear not. We will only get smarter.
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 1:00:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 7:40:52 AM, Demetriuscapone wrote:
Okay, so this is a question that I often hear asked and it is often considered factual that eventually there will be no smart people left because all the dumb people will outgrow them. Truth is, the world has never experienced a smaller gap in income than it does today.

The average person knows a whole lot more about everything essentially than the smartest did 500 years ago. And with higher demands on education as the years pass ( which is the status quo right now ) , it will only get easier for everyone to catch up. Even inbred rednecks with 8 kids are likely to see at least some of them breaking the leaches to the lower class.

In the 1800s the total amount of people who could read was limited to the new and small middle class and the upper classes. Will there always be more dumb and poor people than rich and smart? Yes, but rich and smart people are going to be there as long as there are money that can't be taken away from them. The rich and smart have things to fall back on, which always help them survive. It is only when the mobs of plebians turn their pitchforks against them that they have to flee and for most of the time, they actually manage to flee.

Our cognitive abilities today are much greater than they were in the middle ages, so fear not. We will only get smarter.

Yes. We are progressing towards wealth and education. But don't you feel our education is too bureacratic. Isn't our knowledge become a Shell as Hard as Steel as Max Weber predicted. Are we really that smart?
jkerr3
Posts: 177
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 6:21:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

Read a since book sir it doesn't work that way... BTW since when did social status or class dictate your capabilities as a human? From an evolutionary standpoint those with the greatest intelligence, health, physical attractiveness would be the best candidates for reproduction. Nature doesn't care about money. There are plenty of unhealthy wealthy/powerful people "the governor of NJ is the first that comes to mind".
fazz
Posts: 1,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2014 8:29:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 6:21:16 PM, jkerr3 wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

Read a since book sir it doesn't work that way... BTW since when did social status or class dictate your capabilities as a human? From an evolutionary standpoint those with the greatest intelligence, health, physical attractiveness would be the best candidates for reproduction. Nature doesn't care about money. There are plenty of unhealthy wealthy/powerful people "the governor of NJ is the first that comes to mind".

True, wealth stagnates in society. But it mostly applies to the "born into wealth" category.
Demetriuscapone
Posts: 152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 6:28:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/26/2014 1:00:42 PM, fazz wrote:

Yes. We are progressing towards wealth and education. But don't you feel our education is too bureacratic. Isn't our knowledge become a Shell as Hard as Steel as Max Weber predicted. Are we really that smart?

If we compare it to how dumb we were 200 years ago, yes, we are really that smart. Ther can be improvements of course
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentality.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 3:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.

Well, not to be your self-appointed vocabulary coach, but at least some of us who think that we know a thing or two know that the more apt word here would have been "subscribe".
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 4:56:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 3:57:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.

Well, not to be your self-appointed vocabulary coach, but at least some of us who think that we know a thing or two know that the more apt word here would have been "subscribe".

Does pointing out grammar errors and spelling make you superior and improve your arguments or does it seem well kinda infantile, pompous and a huge social turn off that alienates people and makes them not want to have any dialogue with you at all.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 6:15:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 4:56:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 3:57:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.

Well, not to be your self-appointed vocabulary coach, but at least some of us who think that we know a thing or two know that the more apt word here would have been "subscribe".

Does pointing out grammar errors and spelling make you superior and improve your arguments or does it seem well kinda infantile, pompous and a huge social turn off that alienates people and makes them not want to have any dialogue with you at all.

Let's see, it was okay for you to be a bit personally insulting by implying that I go in for labeling people and think that I know more than I do, but now you try to protest that turnabout isn't fair play?!
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2014 6:47:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 6:15:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 4:56:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 3:57:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.

Well, not to be your self-appointed vocabulary coach, but at least some of us who think that we know a thing or two know that the more apt word here would have been "subscribe".

Does pointing out grammar errors and spelling make you superior and improve your arguments or does it seem well kinda infantile, pompous and a huge social turn off that alienates people and makes them not want to have any dialogue with you at all.

Let's see, it was okay for you to be a bit personally insulting by implying that I go in for labeling people and think that I know more than I do, but now you try to protest that turnabout isn't fair play?!

I said I don't go for labeling people Never said a word about you.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2014 1:54:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/28/2014 6:47:55 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 6:15:27 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 4:56:25 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 3:57:13 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/28/2014 9:52:02 AM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/28/2014 1:46:50 AM, charleslb wrote:
At 9/27/2014 8:22:58 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/25/2014 2:18:29 PM, DebatorJack wrote:
My friend traveled to Switzerland with his family and had a very fun time there. One of the nights he engaged in conversation with some native swiss people about class and society and the swiss people had an interesting view when looking at the west. They concluded that Rich and middle class people are having less babies then the working class and poor people that are encouraged to have more babies because of the way the welfare system is set up. Since the lower classes are out producing the rest of society, they concluded that as a society, evolution was going in reverse since the less successful were out populating everyone else. I have no idea what to think of this view and I know its very controversial, what do you guys think?

I agree completly

That's because you have a bit of a social-Darwinist mentality, as does anyone who is concerned about the above-described developments. Please don't be insulted, but needless to say I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the social-Darwinist mentalit

I am not offended I don't prescribe to labels, Those are for people who think they know something.

Well, not to be your self-appointed vocabulary coach, but at least some of us who think that we know a thing or two know that the more apt word here would have been "subscribe".

Does pointing out grammar errors and spelling make you superior and improve your arguments or does it seem well kinda infantile, pompous and a huge social turn off that alienates people and makes them not want to have any dialogue with you at all.

Let's see, it was okay for you to be a bit personally insulting by implying that I go in for labeling people and think that I know more than I do, but now you try to protest that turnabout isn't fair play?!

I said I don't go for labeling people Never said a word about you.

FYI, one can say something by implication.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.