andyofborg Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 On the whole, I'd agree that things take hundreds of thousands of years, but would it take that long if we (hypothetically) took control of a species and forcibly selected the traits we like and only allowed breeding couples to succeed which demonstrated those traits? Of course not – it would happen in hardly any generations, hence why we have Chihuahuas and mastiffs in the evolutionary blink of an eye. Otherwise we’d just still have African wild dogs and wolves. yes it would still take hundreds of years. it takes 16 years for a human to reach the point where they can breed, dogs are fertile after a few months and it would take easily as long again to find out if you had actually moved your project forward Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Again, you're fixated with the UK and life in the UK now. You ignore the fact that most of humanity has no welfare state and faces daily challenges for survival more akin to what humans have historically faced than the narrow slice of humanity you are basing your theories on. This is the third (perhaps fouth time) I've pointed out that your focus on such a narrow slice of humanity is flawed. It just looks like your theories are a paper thin justification for attacking people you don't like. This is true, look at the slums of India, or favelas of Brazil. Humanity prevails and survives with very little state intervention, so is the level of state support offered in this country really necessary? Most people would still survive if it was all taken away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 This is true, look at the slums of India, or favelas of Brazil. Humanity prevails and survives with very little state intervention, so is the level of state support offered in this country really necessary? Most people would still survive if it was all taken away. Would most people survive? In some poorer countries life expectancy is very low, death is common during childbrith and large numbers of children don't live beyond their fifth birthday. The reasons for this are nothing to do with human evolution. The poorest countries have the highest birth rates too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Conrod, it seems to me you are suggesting that a strong gene pool is sufficient for averting the destruction of mankind. Why would the strong necessarily want to help society beyond helping themselves if doing so will be of no benefit to them in their lifetime? The strength to survive and flourish as an individual is not in of itself a trait that will necessarily ensure the survival of society, which is a more artificial and complex construct of modern times. Because human beings ultimately tend to act in their own self interest, I actually think the true desire to make society better comes from those who sympathise most with the weakest individuals, simply because they are the ones who demand the aid of such a collective entity and by whom the capacity of society to create real opportunity is measured. Those who flourish as individuals are probably less concerned about the collective and more concerned with their individual progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I'll have you know that it's not easy being so much smarter than those around you, at times it's rather frustrating. RB perhaps just understands this better than most; most posters are fortunte not to have such concerns. Come on you guys, just READ the above........Conrod is taking the Michael. You are all taking the bait, hook, line and sinker. He was the Ubertroll under a different user name, the troll to beat all trolls. Just ask Kirky....................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Still no papers, keep it up old chap. Where are the papers that agree with your flawed simplistic understanding of evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 I'll have you know that it's not easy being so much smarter than those around you, at times it's rather frustrating. RB perhaps just understands this better than most; most posters are fortunte not to have such concerns. As proven by your advanced understanding of evolution and what constitutes a correlation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted November 3, 2012 Share Posted November 3, 2012 Cyclone, you have been HAD !!!!! [Chuck Norris would weep !!!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Come on you guys, just READ the above........Conrod is taking the Michael. You are all taking the bait, hook, line and sinker. He was the Ubertroll under a different user name, the troll to beat all trolls. Just ask Kirky....................... They're not listening. Halibut knows as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Cyclone, you have been HAD !!!!! [Chuck Norris would weep !!!] I don't think he's actually smart enough for this to be an attempt at trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.