Help support your local evolution!!...

by doogie 5 Replies latest jw friends

  • doogie
    doogie

    …have a TON of babies.

    No, this isn’t another Evolution v. Creation thread, just something I was thinking about. Actually, it’s not even ‘evolution’ necessarily, just genetics.

    I always used to look at the passage of time as a form of progress; that over many, many years things improve or die off. I’m not just talking about things in nature, I mean technology, moral codes, social ideals…whatever. They either grow with time and become ‘better’ or they die off. of course, the whole concept of ‘better’ and ‘progress’ is so subjective that this is a completely moot point (to be honest, that thread last week about reassessing sexuality got me thinking about this).

    So anyway, I was thinking that in the future evolution of man, human genes would be ‘sifted’ (selected) more times than now (duh) and ‘negative’ genetic predispositions would be filtered out more thoroughly. After all, what is the purpose of physical attractiveness? To attract a mate(s) more often and reproduce with greater ease, right? so, (my theory went) hundreds of generations from now, people may very well be more beautiful, healthy, and intelligent (because of continuous selection of genes for ‘attractive’ traits and expunction of genes for non-desirable traits).

    Here’s the clincher: BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO MATE WITH STUPID, UGLY DUDES WHO GET SICK ALL THE TIME?

    But that’s when I realized the fundamental problem with my hypothesis. With evolution, the cream doesn’t always rise to the top (no pun intended). The successful (or in this case ‘attractive’) genes are the ones that reproduce the most often…not the ones that look the best doing it. but look around. Who is having the most babies? The scientists? The movie stars? Alas, no.

    So, if you feel that you have attractive genes either physically or intellectually, and want to lend a hand in creating a more beautiful tomorrow, pitch in…have a couple dozen babies.

    Otherwise we may be looking at a very ugly future.

    p.s. after I wrote this, I found this TERRIFYING article called “Whoever Has The Most Babies Wins” by Gary DeMar. Apparently, this idea is nothing new.

    http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-01-04.asp

  • stillajwexelder
    stillajwexelder

    So Islam will win in the end because they are almost commanded to have loads of children - Osama Bin Laden has 24 kids doesnt he?

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    Who is having the most babies? The scientists? The movie stars? Alas, no.

    LOL! indeed.

    well, in the near future, we may have the ability to bioengineer our babies to be "the best of us". while this seems encouraging to me personally, it has a host of negative possibilities (see: Gattaca by Gore Vidal).

    so, it would seem that for the time being, the mundane, status quo, majority wins out on an evolutionary scale. that's not to say that two nobel prize winners couldn't sire an idiot, or two idiots sire a nobel prize winner. but it is just less likely.

  • RichieRich
    RichieRich

    I can combine my intellect, strength, and proficiency with firearms with someone else?

    Who wants to help me start a master race of incredibly cute kids???

  • doogie
    doogie
    I can combine my intellect, strength, and proficiency with firearms with someone else?

    lol. maybe we should start a new ebay for genetic traits...(i'm not sure if the ability to handle firearms is genetic, but hopefully the ladies won't realize that )

  • tetrapod.sapien
    tetrapod.sapien
    intellect, strength,

    he he, yes, that would be passed on as it's genotypical.

    and proficiency with firearms

    but i'm affraid this is probably phenotypical. you could have a kid with intellect and strength, but who was also a total dunce with a gun (perhaps stopping him from passing his genes on!)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit