Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 If we give unlimited assistance to the profoundly dim, and offer them a benefits system that rewards them for having more and more children while the brighter members of our society are busy working and having smaller families, the average intellect will diminish. We’ll have more of these: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gE2OzGfIDLQ/0.jpg And less of these: http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/latest-news/pioneering_papworth_surgeon_retires_1_955882 You demonstrate your profound lack of understanding of evolution again. What makes you think that intelligence is something that would automatically be selected for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I don’t disagree with what you’ve said here, but perhaps use of the word ’strong’ has been misunderstood. I’m not referring to tall muscular Ayrians with blond hair and flawless teeth, however much some posters really want to twist the thread to have a concept like that to attack. Strong also relates to people’s ability to resist disease, to their ability to conceive easily, to their ability to give birth to healthy children, and of course to their mental capacity and ability to succeed in society – through their wits and, indeed, social cooperation. If we continue to help people who are medically weak reproduce, that can only mean that future generations will have more people who inherit medical problems from their ancestors, ancestors who otherwise would not have successfully reproduced. If we give unlimited assistance to the profoundly dim, and offer them a benefits system that rewards them for having more and more children while the brighter members of our society are busy working and having smaller families, the average intellect will diminish. We’ll have more of these: http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gE2OzGfIDLQ/0.jpg And less of these: http://www.huntspost.co.uk/news/latest-news/pioneering_papworth_surgeon_retires_1_955882 Thats the Royal family doomed then, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haemophilia_in_European_royalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 You demonstrate your profound lack of understanding of evolution again. What makes you think that intelligence is something that would automatically be selected for? No, you miss the point again. Why have we become more intelligent than the apes that first started to use crude tools? Could it, perhaps, be that intelligence was a big factor in helping our ancestors survive to breed? When it comes to profound lack of understanding I think you need to look a little closer to home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yes it was, and in the past it has been a trait for which evolution selected. But there is nothing that defines it a characteristic that is always to be selected for. If you understood evolution at more than a primary school level then you'd realise that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yes it was, and in the past it has been a trait for which evolution selected. But there is nothing that defines it a characteristic that is always to be selected for. If you understood evolution at more than a primary school level then you'd realise that. You can be tiresome. Where have I said it's " . . a characteristic that is always to be selected for"? I haven't, you're making that up. It is, however, a very, very important characteristic in human development. Which is why you're brighter than a chimp (by a margin yet to be determined and not proven unless I can post a link to an article specifically researching the comparative intelligence of Cyclone and chimps). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Yes, we're getting somewhere now. Sometimes the truth hurts, and people don't like to hear it. Part of why, for example, Eysenck was castigated for his research into race and intelligence in the early 70s - the liberal luvvies were so offended they physically attacked him, sent bomb threats and threatened to kill his kids. What truth is this? Eysenck never proved his theories about race and intelligence. To be honest I think throwing that into the discussion makes you look even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 You've talked about devolution, reversing evolution and how and offer them a benefits system that rewards them for having more and more children while the brighter members of our society are busy working and having smaller families, the average intellect will diminish. Supporting the dim will cause average intelligence to diminish. Are you now claiming that you weren't suggesting that intelligence is a desirable evolutionary trait? I'd suggest that a person suggesting policies like you have would be dangerous, but that would only be true if they really understood what they were talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 I'd suggest that a person suggesting policies like you have would be dangerous, but that would only be true if they really understood what they were talking about. I'll second that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 4, 2012 Author Share Posted November 4, 2012 You've talked about devolution, reversing evolution and how Supporting the dim will cause average intelligence to diminish. Are you now claiming that you weren't suggesting that intelligence is a desirable evolutionary trait? I'd suggest that a person suggesting policies like you have would be dangerous, but that would only be true if they really understood what they were talking about. Behave Cyclone, you're deliberately misquoting things here. I didn't claim that I was not suggesting intelligence was a desirable evolutionary trait. Of course it is - hence your ability to type and argue . . . just about. The term you used and claimed I had said, which I challenged, was " . . a characteristic that is always to be selected for"? I never said always - you just twisted my words which really is bad form you know. Here's a direct question for you, answer yes or no: Are we brighter than chimps because our more intelligent ancestors tended to survive and reproduce more successfully then their less intelligent neighbours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 4, 2012 Share Posted November 4, 2012 Here's a direct question for you, answer yes or no: Are we brighter than chimps because our more intelligent ancestors tended to survive and reproduce more successfully then their less intelligent neighbours? Nice try; we all know that one. It doesn't apply though. Can I suggest that you re - read what Phanerothyme posted about meta-evolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.