Some thoughts on evolution

[ReThink]

I got thinking about evolution the other day and some disturbing realities came to mind.

Now, the basis of our evolutionary origin is that all of our physiological and traits that we have were at one point things that gave us an edge in survival and by that a greater likelyhood to pass on our genes. Thereby anything that made us stronger, faster, smarter, etc was more likely to get passed to the next generation and as such, become a more prominent part of our phenotype.

Now these days it's not all that hard to survive, so those with weak genes don't tend to get weeded out too easily; aside from those who win Darwin Awards, the lesser genes aren't being weeded out. So given that survival is no longer the determining factor in which genes get passed on for our species, I pondered: what is?

I realized then that the genes most like to get passed on were not those belonging to the most likely to survive, but to the most likely to reproduce. Then I considered: "what makes a person more likely to reproduce?"

The clear answer that was staring me in the face was how attractive you are, and how promiscuous you are. Thereby anything that makes us smarter, faster, or stronger really doesn't play much of a determining role anymore, it's more of how hot you look and eager you are to get laid, regardless of anything else.

Ergo, we've effectively moved from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the sluttiest".

We are so screwed.

[PhoenixTails]

As much as I would be saddened, I would be promiscuous for the survival of the human race.
:D

[Sajberhippien]

At 10/13/07 03:02 PM, ReThink wrote: I got thinking about evolution the other day and some disturbing realities came to mind.

Now, the basis of our evolutionary origin is that all of our physiological and traits that we have were at one point things that gave us an edge in survival and by that a greater likelyhood to pass on our genes. Thereby anything that made us stronger, faster, smarter, etc was more likely to get passed to the next generation and as such, become a more prominent part of our phenotype.

Now these days it's not all that hard to survive, so those with weak genes don't tend to get weeded out too easily; aside from those who win Darwin Awards, the lesser genes aren't being weeded out. So given that survival is no longer the determining factor in which genes get passed on for our species, I pondered: what is?

I realized then that the genes most like to get passed on were not those belonging to the most likely to survive, but to the most likely to reproduce. Then I considered: "what makes a person more likely to reproduce?"

The clear answer that was staring me in the face was how attractive you are, and how promiscuous you are. Thereby anything that makes us smarter, faster, or stronger really doesn't play much of a determining role anymore, it's more of how hot you look and eager you are to get laid, regardless of anything else.

Ergo, we've effectively moved from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the sluttiest".

We are so screwed.

Survival of the individ isn't the key in evolution. Reproduction is. Although physical strength and speed isn't as important today, intelligence and social capabilities are. And survival of the FITTEST is just that; not survival of the strongest or smartest, but the one best fitted to his surroundings. Today, with obesity being a major health problem, someone lacking these genes (and therefore having a larger chance to not be fat) has a larger chance of reproduction. How smart you are also plays a key roll, since this often determine the type of work you are going to have, and rich people has a higher chance to get laid if they want to (they can always afford to buy a whore).
Survival of the fittest only requires two things: Genetic variation within species and some sort of natural selection. Since some kind of selection is made based on genetics, survival of the fittest applies.

[Brick-top]

So.....does that mean that in 1000 years all that will be left are the body builders and super models?

TO THE GYM!

[Drakim]

Actually, ugly people doesn't get any less children than pretty people. They just get less sex. There is a difference.

[SadisticMonkey]

No actually, Catholics will be the only remaining race (yeah i know, race :p) because they are opposed to contraceptives.

[SysRq00]

Studies have shown that one's attractiveness to other humans is directly related to their health, ability to provide, and fertility. We have the ability to subconsciously tell which individuals around us are the best potential mates. Yes, things such as speed, intellect, and strength still matter in our society. Some matter more than in years past, some matter less. But we will still seek out those best fitted for survival when looking for a mate.

No need to fear, kiddo. We're still going to keep evolving in a forward direction.

[fahrenheit]

I wouldnt put it survival of the sluttiest, because that would imply you need to whore yourself out to survive.

And with abortion and contraceptives for sex, people can be promiscious without having a child, therefor eliminating the trait being passed down dramatically.

[PieGraphGlock]

At 10/13/07 03:02 PM, ReThink wrote:

I got thinking about evolution the other day and some disturbing realities came to mind.Now, the basis of our evolutionary origin is that all of our physiological and traits that we have were at one point things that gave us an edge in survival and by that a greater likelihood to pass on our genes. Thereby anything that made us stronger, faster, smarter, etc was more likely to get passed to the next generation and as such, become a more prominent part of our phenotype. Now these days it's not all that hard to survive, so those with weak genes don't tend to get weeded out too easily; aside from those who win Darwin Awards, the lesser genes aren't being weeded out. So given that survival is no longer the determining factor in which genes get passed on for our species, I pondered: what is? I realized then that the genes most like to get passed on were not those belonging to the most likely to survive, but to the most likely to reproduce. Then I considered "what makes a person more likely to reproduce?" The clear answer that was staring me in the face was how attractive you are, and how promiscuous you are. Thereby anything that makes us smarter, faster, or stronger really doesn't play much of a determining role anymore, it's more of how hot you look and eager you are to get laid, regardless of anything else. Ergo, we've effectively moved from "survival of the fittest" to "survival of the sluttiest". We are so screwed.

You know, you should study that theory more thoroughly; maybe even write a book. I'd be the first to buy that. It does make one wonder what our advances in technology may do to our gene pool.

[B00BS]

Nice theory.

[reviewer-general]

At 10/13/07 11:12 PM, B00BS wrote: Nice theory.

BOOBS HAVE SPOKEN!!!!

=D

Thank you.

;

[morefngdbs]

At 10/13/07 03:46 PM, Drakim wrote: Actually, ugly people doesn't get any less children than pretty people. They just get less sex. There is a difference.

;
How do you know that?
Can you prove that?

What about 2 ugly people getting together, can't that happen (it sure does around here , ever drive by a Walmart on 'Check day' )

I would really like to see where you got the information on 'pretty people' getting more sex than the fat & or ugly ones.
Also , who judges who is 'ugly' & who isn't.
As for fat people, how much extra weight do you have to carry to be considered fat?

I know there's nothing worse than making out with a girl & she's worring about her hair/makeup.
I personally prefer my girl to be somewhat tomboy like, pull the hair back into a pony tail jam on a ball hat & lets go out.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder guy's & if 'pretty people' like Paris Hilton is somehow your ideal, in my opinion you've got something wrong in your head.

[tony4moroney]

do you think some double-standards in society are justified when observed anthropologically?

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

At 10/13/07 03:08 PM, PhoenixTails wrote: As much as I would be saddened, I would be promiscuous for the survival of the human race.

D

Awesome; later every one I am off to save the world... "in my pants"

I'll give 20 to however gets that reference.

[ReThink]

At 10/13/07 03:46 PM, Drakim wrote: Actually, ugly people doesn't get any less children than pretty people. They just get less sex. There is a difference.

Well given that the (almost) only way to have children is to have sex, I think the pretty people are a little more inclined to having kids.

Mind you here's something else I've noticed. While it may be the case that poorer people have no less sex than wealthy people, condom use tends to be much more prevalent in upper and middle classes than in lower classes. Which when combined with this concept:

At 10/13/07 03:10 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: How smart you are also plays a key roll, since this often determine the type of work you are going to have, and rich people has a higher chance to get laid if they want to (they can always afford to buy a whore).

So if the smarter people are becoming the upper and middle classes, and the poor are comprising the rest; and the upper and middle classes are engaging in selective breeding through the use of condoms while the lower classes are not, and if we extrapolate this tend over time, then what we would see on an evolutionary scale is a genetic difference between the social classes. I suppose the end result of this would be a polarization of our species: the upper class representing the smarter, more socially adaptive genes, and the lower class representing genes that would have otherwise died off were it not for our society making it so much easier to survive.

What we'll end up with is a small group of the not just financial elite but biological elite, and a large population of the lower class, socially and genetically. It's like the whole monarchy-royal blood thing all over again.

At 10/13/07 10:07 PM, SysRq00 wrote: No need to fear, kiddo. We're still going to keep evolving in a forward direction.

Kiddo? I'm 6 years older than you, kiddo.

At 10/14/07 01:20 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Awesome; later every one I am off to save the world... "in my pants"

I'll give 20 to however gets that reference.

It was Aquaman's idea to call me Black Vulcan, I wanted to be called Supervolt. My power is pure electricity...in my pants.

[GaiusIuliusTaberna]

At 10/14/07 02:39 PM, ReThink wrote:

At 10/14/07 01:20 PM, GaiusIuliusTaberna wrote: Awesome; later every one I am off to save the world... "in my pants"

I'll give 20 to however gets that reference.

It was Aquaman's idea to call me Black Vulcan, I wanted to be called Supervolt. My power is pure electricity...in my pants.

Ding ding ding we have a winner now hold still for your 20... punches in the face

No but seriously you got it.

[Draconias]

Sorry, but your theory is seriously flawed: it drastically oversimplifies the factors behind birth rates and (falsely) assumes that attractive + promiscuity = many children. It doesn't.

[Dacheater]

I guess with our society we'll move towards what one would want to lay with (looks) or what would be useful (Intelligence and people skills)

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/14/07 02:39 PM, ReThink wrote:

At 10/13/07 03:46 PM, Drakim wrote: Actually, ugly people doesn't get any less children than pretty people. They just get less sex. There is a difference.

Well given that the (almost) only way to have children is to have sex, I think the pretty people are a little more inclined to having kids.

Actually, most ugly people are happy enough to find a partner that they settle down and have kids much earlier.

"hawt" people are less inclined to actually give birth to kids because this would mean that they could not run around having sex which, because of their looks, they can easily obtain.

[Fierce-Deity]

It is worse then just weeding out. The dumb reproduce, and the intelligent don't. Intelligent people are smart enough to realize that all having a kid does is cost you money. Dumb people want welfare and child support checks. The entire white race is literally going to be extinct in 90 years at the rate they are inter-breeding with black people, indians, Mexicans, etc. We are going to become a society of idiots. It is unstoppable at this point, and will continue until the human race as we know it implodes on itself, and survival is once again an important part of life.

[TonyTostieno]

At 10/13/07 09:52 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No actually, Catholics will be the only remaining race (yeah i know, race :p) because they are opposed to contraceptives.

Wait...when did the Catholics become a race? I mean I know they have the Vatican and the crazy Pope dude and all..but when the hell did they become a race?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/15/07 04:41 AM, TonyTostieno wrote: Wait...when did the Catholics become a race? I mean I know they have the Vatican and the crazy Pope dude and all..but when the hell did they become a race?

In want of a better word.