Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Benefits cause regression of evolution. watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But money doesn't make us any less genetically predisposed to get ill. It just means that when we get ill, we receive more or less immediate medical treatment which gives us the best chance of recovery; and we're less likely to get illnesses related to malnutrition or that could be prevented by vaccinations.
    That's circumstance, not evolution.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElfManiac)
    But money doesn't make us any less genetically predisposed to get ill. It just means that when we get ill, we receive more or less immediate medical treatment which gives us the best chance of recovery; and we're less likely to get illnesses related to malnutrition or that could be prevented by vaccinations.
    That's circumstance, not evolution.
    Circumstance as a direct result of evolution.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    We become overpopulated and end up having a food shortage - people will die and the most useless people will die first.

    Wake up, its already happening in the middle east.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    'Money' can only hold true in the sense that it leads to greater medicinal technologies. And then yes, I would argue entirely that money = better medicine = genetic superiority of the population
    Yes but having money isn't a biological trait. If you take a child born to rich parents in the West and put it in Africa where it contracts malaria, nothing in the rich child's DNA will make it better at combating the disease. Ergo money is not an evolutionary selection pressure and your entire argument is pseudoscientific nonsense.

    Secondly, by 'reiterating a point you made earlier', you are conceding that my argument was absolutely correct. You can find no flaw in it.
    Seriously? :rofl:

    I reiterated it for emphasis because it's correct. What makes me correct? A life sciences degree and apparently a lot more scientific understanding than you :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Jesus...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No, this is causing regression of evolution .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    As I said, I am talking about evolution by natural selection; positive traits becoming more frequent in a population due to a reproductive advantage of some sort. I therefore maintain that what I said was perfectly legitimate.

    Whilst I am not saying in the slightest that it would a good idea, would it not ultimately be advantageous for the human race if we went through a period of time without aid to those predisposed to certain diseases? Would that not dramatically decrease the frequency of these traits that we are actively keeping 'alive' in our population despite nature's attempts to reduce their frequency?
    Eugenics much?
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.