Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-09-2006, 02:49 PM   #16
Posts: n/a
That's all making the huge assumption that the Bubba Condition of Stupidity isn't caused significantly by social conditions and not genetic ones. I think you'd be hard-pressed to prove that intelligence is mostly determined by genes and wouldn't be positively affected by improved education programs, not to mention that any significant change in genetic variation would occur over human timescales.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 03:36 PM   #17
I Live Here
Tenspace's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
One of the keys precepts of evolution is that of balanced populations of offspring. It may take six Bubbi to bring two offspring to breeding age, but only two Armanis.

The efficiency of the Armanis will win over the waste of the Bubbi every time. The resources of the Bubbi cannot support that many yungn's.

"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
Tenspace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 03:48 PM   #18
Posts: n/a
My guess is that intelligence potential is genetically determined, and somewhat hereditary, the same as athletic potential. Do you think someone can become Ronnie Coleman or Lance Armstrong just because they work hard at it? They can't; the potential does not exist in most people's genes. I expect the same is true of intelligence. I expect that on average, bubbi kids are going to have a lower potential than armani kids. (We don't run into people who represent the average of population groups, so I don't judge individual bubbi kids or armani kids based on their parents.)

My understanding is that usually in nature, an animal population reaches a balance with it's environment. If the species reproduces too much, they aren't all able to derive the necessities of life from their environment, and competition for those necessities means some animals, and their genes, die out.
Contrast that with the human population in a developed country.
In these countries, people still derive the necessities of life from their environment.... but for most people, they do that by obtaining money, and their environment is their grocery store. Basically money becomes the necessity of life, and competition for it is strong. However, it doesn't even take much money to support a family, because of all the efficient technology that is used in agriculture and the production of other necessities like clothing, etc. So now you don't have to individually obtain the necessities of life direct from the land, and the people who do so are so efficient that as long as you do something mildly useful, someone will pay you enough for that so you can support a family. And if someone can't manage to do something useful enough to support themselves, we do it for them, because we feel empathy or sympathy for them, and hey, it's not that big of a burden, since it doesn't take that much money, since production of life necessities is so efficient. So now we're mostly not worried about surviving, we're worried about standard of living. Assuming you give a damn about your standard of living, it becomes an indicator as to your ability to provide a service that society cares enough about to reward with a lot of money. On average, the people making good salaries are better adapted for the environment we've created than those making next to nothing. However, this high standard of living is not creating any more probability that someone will pass on their genes successfully. Any increase in that probability due to better nutrition or health care is trounced by the fact that those with high standards of living are reproducing much more slowly than those with a low standard of living. Assuming you buy that someone's standard of living is some kind of indicator as to how well they are adapted for our man-made environment (economy), and if you believe that there are likely some kind of hereditary factors involved, then I would expect the portion of the population that is not so well suited and has a lower standard of living to grow faster than the part of the population that is better suited, because the members of the better suited portion are having fewer kids.
So what will happen? Will technology continue to increase, and production remain efficient enough that creating a decent standard of living for those who can't create it for themselves remains popular? Will we stretch our resources thin? Will competition become so high that we cut people off from aid? Are we growing the population at the bottom, and will that cut effect huge numbers of people? That sounds awful! Would we put more humane policies in place if we were to see it coming to that? Would government become involved in reproduction? Is there a balancing factor that I'm missing? I need to think about something a little less serious now. Where's that Industry Standard Signal Processing Library book? There it is.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2006, 04:42 PM   #19
I Live Here
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chandler- Arizona
Posts: 14,227
Hmmm...there is the Genographic study sponsored by the national Geographic Society and IBM...which clearly, with tons of evidence, traces theancestry of our genes from 50,000 years ago in Africa.....I'm a participant of the study, It is amazing to see where our genes have been all of these millennia...:) Every Christ-psychotic ought to trace their ancestry and find out the TRUTH about "Adam and Eve". The EVIDENCE is in their DNA...unless the retards do not believe DNA exists!!...:lol:

Christians and other folks infected with delusional beliefs think and reason like schizophrenics or temporal lobe epileptics. Their morality is dictated by an invisible friend called Jesus.
calpurnpiso is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational