Survival of the Fittest?

lucaspa · #11 4th August 2003, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

I remember one guy said: If survival of the fittest was really true, then there would be no ugly women, they would all be beautiful. I suppose women could say the same thing about men, they would all be strong and handsome if only the fittest survived.

This is sexual selection. And, I bet those same guys wouldn't have turned down sex during their teen years with an "ugly" girl. After all, when I was in high school one of the crude phrases was "put a bag over her head and have sex for Old Glory."

So, beauty is not the only criteria for picking a mate. For guys, availability is often the criteria.

For females, "handsome" is not as important as emotional or social strength: the ability to provide for the kids. And that's as it should be. To pick a handsome weakling is a stupid sexual selection strategy. However, even here eventually it comes down to availability to have ANY kids, and if the most handsome, strong individual is not available, then love the one you are with.

Actually, it would be kinda nice if evolutionary theory were true. There would be no sickness or disease in the world, because only the strong and healthy would survive to reproduce.

Why would that be true? Most diseases kill in early childhood, which does make people resistant, but the disease evolves too, remember. Also, there are always going to be new microbes that jump from another species to humans as a new food source.

Other diseases, such as coronary heart disease or arthritis, only happen AFTER the person has already had kids, so they are invisible to natural selection.

There would be no more hunger in the world, because only people who can manage to feed their kids would survive to reproduce.

Nonsense. You are conveniently forgetting that even these people can produce more kids than the environment can support.

There would be no war in the world, because aggressive war like people would kill themselves off and only peace loveing people would still be alive to reproduce.

Who are among the first casualties of war? The peace loving people in the way who won't defend themselves. Of course, it isn't called war in their case; it's called "massacre".

There would be no stupid people in the world, because only intellegent people would be able to reproduce themselves.

And intelligence is ALWAYS the most advantageous trait? You just told us that strength and physical beauty were better. You contradict yourself in the same post, John.

If your strawman of evolution were true, perhaps you would get your paradise. However, you haven't described evolution but your strawman so you can knock it down.

Evo · #12 4th August 2003, 01:59 PM

since when does looks have anything to do with your ability to surive? go out to the african planes (where our ancestors lived for millions of years), you can be one ugly guy but if your able to chase down a gazel with a spear better than anybody..... you are in fact more fit to survive. There where no beauty pagents back then.

Volos · #13 4th August 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnR7

I remember one guy said: If survival of the fittest was really true, then there would be no ugly women, they would all be beautiful. I suppose women could say the same thing about men, they would all be strong and handsome if only the fittest survived.

The problem with this is that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder but it is culturally defined and varies from culture to culture and generation to generation. Fashion models may be considered beautiful by today’s standards but 500 years ago they would have been considered at best unattractive and a poor candidate for marriage.

JohnR7 · #14 4th August 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Volos

The problem with this is that beauty is not only in the eye of the beholder but it is culturally defined and varies from culture to culture and generation to generation.

Yes, that is commonly believed to be true.

Fashion models may be considered beautiful by today’s standards but 500 years ago they would have been considered at best unattractive and a poor candidate for marriage.

Actually models look good though the lens of the camera. They have features that photograph well. That does not mean those same features look good in person.

Lens are going through a change, because they have needed to change the way they make the lens to adapt them to digital cameras. So for all the people who have been waiting for the day they could slap their SLR lens on their digital. To bad, so sad.

JohnR7 · #15 4th August 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by Evo

since when does looks have anything to do with your ability to surive? go out to the african planes (where our ancestors lived for millions of years), you can be one ugly guy but if your able to chase down a gazel with a spear better than anybody..... you are in fact more fit to survive. There where no beauty pagents back then.

So if the theory of evolution were true, then we should have a whole world of people who are really good at chasing down gazel's with a spear. Everyone else would have died off.

Vylo · #16 4th August 2003, 03:31 PM

Keep in mind that survival of the fittest was NOT a term coined by Darwin, it was coined by Spencer (lived in the same town and time as Darwin), a sociologist. He used (or misused) this theory to explain why certain groups of people suffered, were poor, or were conquered in wars.

JohnR7 · #17 4th August 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by lucaspa

For females, "handsome" is not as important as emotional or social strength: the ability to provide for the kids.

Then if evolution were true we would have a world full of men who were really good at providing for the kids. The ones who were not good would have been passed over by the women and would have died off.

Siliconaut · #18 4th August 2003, 04:10 PM

@JohnR7: In every population, you have a wide variety of animals. Natural selection doesn't simply weed out all those who are weaker, but especially those who are unfit to pass on and preserve their genes. We have sufficient genetic diversity in any gene pool with enough members.

If survival of the fittest was really true, then there would be no ugly women, they would all be beautiful

And guess what - even though beauty is not the foremost factor we select our partners for, it usually reflects genetical well-being. Fair skin, white teeth, a physiology to fit our environmental and social circumstances, facial features that reflect the average of possibilities (and thus appear "beautiful" to us), these are indicators of a "healthy" partner that can either bear or father healthy children. This is what we're hard-wired to look for, next to other factors. So what we're actually selecting for is healthiness, and that's worked pretty well for humanity, even though it's a battle that cannot be won (considering the mutation rate of bacteria and viruses, e.g.).

So if the theory of evolution were true, then we should have a whole world of people who are really good at chasing down gazel's with a spear. Everyone else would have died off.

Voila, humanity. We run quite well and can hold and throw a spear while we're at it, quite contrary to our apish friends. Just because this is a sport that has become outmoded over the course of civilisation does not mean we aren't physically fit to do it.

Then if evolution were true we would have a world full of men who were really good at providing for the kids. The ones who were not good would have been passed over by the women and would have died off.

Actually, this is largely fact: We *are* good at providing for our children, we're even biologically driven to do so. The overwhelming majority of people actually get their children through the dangers of childhood and see them grow up to be adults, have kids, and so on.

After all, this is what counts in the great gene game - pass it on, make sure it survives, because through it, you survive.

Orihalcon · #19 4th August 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Then if evolution were true we would have a world full of men who were really good at providing for the kids. The ones who were not good would have been passed over by the women and would have died off.

yeah. impotent men who can't have children. people who CAN provide for the family, the average citizens, are thriving. people have a tendancy to compete. those who compete well end up rich and strong. and they have their choice of mate, usually. just because 100 people are exceptional, doesn't mean they have the breeding power to overcome several million of the norm. and those top 100 will still be in competition with each other, dragging each other down if one gets too good.

in our society we have the tendancy to pick one mate and settle for that. men don't go around every year to inseminate a female like some animals. and we only have a few children, like 2-3, not 10. we have the tendancy to make sure those 2-3 children grow up to be strong, unlike many other species that just try their luck every year.

Nathan Poe · #20 4th August 2003, 06:25 PM

Originally Posted by JohnR7

Then if evolution were true we would have a world full of men who were really good at providing for the kids. The ones who were not good would have been passed over by the women and would have died off.

You're forgetting about agriculture. As civilization progressed, the ability to stalk and kill a gazelle became less and less important, and the trait has dwindled out of the gene pool, to the point where I suspect few Americans today have the knack for it.

Natural selection in action.

I would love to discuss the role of civilization in evolutionary theory, but since I suspect you're just trolling, I'll leave it be.