With all the welfare and homeless shelters in this country, it seems like Darwin's law of survival of the fittest is no longer in effect.  And it seems like it is the stupid people that have more kids because they aren't smart enough to use birth control, or they are too poor to buy contraceptives, or both.  You would think the lady living in the trailer park with 10 kids would have learned her lesson at 3 or 4.  Do you think this is going to make the human race get less intelligent over time? Should we get rid of the programs that help the people who can't make it on their own for the good of the human race?
130699
I completely see your point.  It seems like you have really put some thought into this, and you seem very intelligent.  If everyone in the world survives, no evolution will take place for sure.  So at the very least we will be at a standstill.  You sound like someone with good genes though, we should meet and maybe we could improve the gene pool together.
619263
The problem with this theory is that the "gay gene" is not being passed on to the next generation, because reproduction does not transpire.  All evolutionary traits depend upon the trait being passed on to the successive generation.
338503
That's why Intelligent Design is a crackpot theory not worth the paper it's printed on.\n\nIn every population of living things the weak, deformed, disabled and defective becomes victims to predators or disease, usually before they are capable of breeding and passing on their characteristics to future generations. This is how a population remains strong, viable and able to compete against predators which are also being subjected to the laws of natural selection by gradually becoming stronger, faster, more cunning etc etc (the weaker ones also dying for not being able to compete).\n\nThe other side of this coin is that occasionally a genetic mutation brings with it an advantage and this enables a species to better survive in a particular environment. If the advantage is great enough then over many generations this mutation will become generally incorporated into a species or population because proportionally more individuals carrying the mutation will survive and breed in each sucessive generation.\n\nYou are correct that without glasses you would be a complete liability in a hunter-gatherer society and it is only in comparatively recent times that poor eyesight has stopped being a factor in deciding whether you get to contribute to the next generation - in earlier times human society may have supported you in return for you performing menial tasks but you would have been unlikely to have found a mate. Still earlier I suspect that you may have been driven away from the tribe as an expensive liability.\n\nThe fact that you (and I - because I also wear spectacles) are alive and able to discuss this proves the case for the only form of Intelligent Design that ever has existed - the intelligent design BY humans that have evolved through natural selection brains capable of devising technologies that enable them to solve problems to improve their chances of survival.
309852
It's basic survival - we, as a race, would have died out a long time ago if common sense didn't prevail, and we thought that murder and incest were okay.\nReligion promotes basic humanist principles - but we don't need a book to tell us how to live. If we do, then we are a pretty sad species.
629137
There will always be every kind of person, from vegetable, to super-genius, giants to dwarfs.  From nice to mean.   Natural selection by death does not really happen in America.  We don't have predators.  We have medicine for diseases.  Though we are not changing as a group in a particular direction due to deadly natural selection, anymore, we are diversifying fantastically.  With more people alive than ever, with better nutrition, with minimal natural death, we have more and smarter geniuses and more vegetables etc...\nThat means mankind will have access to great ideas which it cannot convince the stagnant mean majority to believe.  The head will not be able to get the fat, lazy butt to keep up with potential.
384713
I think there have always been idiots and there always will be. I don't know if there is a growing majority of idiots, but I guess as the world's population grows then the number of idiots grows too. But on the other hand, I strongly believe that dumb people have more kids than smart people. So I guess their percentage of the population could indeed be rising.
438176
Society is evolving, some generations are getting better, some worse.\n\nOver time natural selection will take over, the people who do "better"  will continue, those who do not will fade away.
6462
Sure they did.  Things were different then.  God flooded the earth once to destroy wickedness, but he will not destroy it by flood again.  He is an unchangable being, but he changes the rules for men from time to time.  We no longer live by the law of Moses, for Christ fulfilled it.  Now we live by Christs law.  Likewise, we no longer marry our brothers and sisters.  That is something that has changed.\n\nScientifically, you might also consider that genes degrade over time.  As the human population has aged, our genes have also aged.  What once may have been an acceptable health practice (having children with brothers or sisters) is now dangerous.  There is a high liklyhood of miscarriage and of retardation in children parented by siblings.  Was this the case early in human history?  Maybe not.\n\nAlso, it is no longer socially acceptable.  We live in a world filled with people.  Adam and Eve were the only ones.  Was there a difference?  You bet.
437123
It's so true! Go to the right place you can get free condoms. Or at least after number 5 you think they would get a brain cell. Then again like a family I know, they reproduce to work the government for more money. Of course they still have nothing to show for it cause they buy stupid stuff and they're lazy. So people they know with more then them are just trying to out do them. Which means it's time to pop another baby out for even more government money.
70413
Yes, it should and I can firmly say that.\n\n1st of all, it is a natural law that when a body/system is not used or trained, it will degrade with time-- evolution theory, disabled people body proportion, etc. Same thing as our brain. The better it works, the better the rest of the system should work. Mind & Body spirit!\n\nNot only to keep our mind healthy, but i believe by lifelong pursuit of education, one would be more knowledgeable, have more experiences, challenged mentally... therefore life will be more meaningful.\n\nAlso, seeing what's happening around us as a term of education could be considered in this issue as well. Nature is our greatest teacher. Environment, community, experiences can all be media to educate ourselves.\n\n\nCheers\n\n*tika*
32353
Wow, this could almost be asked under Philosophy, too.  There is so much I could say in answer to this provocative line of thought, but maybe I will just keep it simple for once in my life:\nIf we think of men and women simply as the two inseparable halves of one whole, without both of which being in healthy existence, there would be no human species, then the question of equality becomes moot.\nYes, each half has by nature been given strengths and genetic "jobs" to fulfill, both necessary to the ultimate survival of the species.\nOn top of that we have been given awesome intellect and deep emotional and spiritual reservoirs to allow us an existence raised above the mere day to day survival necessities of food, shelter and procreation.\nSo, my answer to your question is that we are equal by our natures.  Different, but no less equal. We are partners, not combatants.
308259
i like the way you think man. the fact is howver that failure to reproduce is concidered unnatural HOWEVER! there could be a small overlooked message in the DNA that says once every so and so years people will be gay, to decrease the surplus population...i neer saw it that way im glad you enlightenemd mee
534089
I think its true. The human mind cannot be compared to those of animals and therefore the simple view of the natural selection in which the idea of selecting mates on the basis of physical attributes as in the case of animals cannot be applied here.For the world that we have created around us there is no place for those who are mentally weak. This is natural selection at its best. It shows how complicated the whole mechanism is. The term "survival of the fittest" can not just be applied to physically fit, it can also be applied to mentally fit.\n\nHuman beings change their environment to suit their needs, unlike animals which just adjust to the surroundings in which they are. Due to this change, the way of natural selection in animals in which physically strong and fit is almost the entire criteria for a good mate cannot be applied to humans.\n\nThe natural selection method in animals is based on physical attributes mainly for survival (as is wonderfully said in "Survival of the Fittest") For the world that we have created around us, a human being also has to be mentally fit to survive. In fact this has reached to such an extent that physical attributes mean very less now. Nobody wants a good looking bad really badly behaved mate, at least not for life.\n\nThis is the world we human beings have created and now "Survival of the fittest" has even more promininence as being mentally fit or perfect is much more tougher than being physically  fit or perfect. \n\nNobody is perfect but everyone yearns to reach that perfection.\n\nThe competition for survival has reached a new level, natural or not, and i think one should be pondering about "HOW" to get ahead of the competition? instead of "WHY" is the competition held this way
77805
Society has moved past the harsh stages of evolution. The first world at least has reached a level in science and technology were we can take evolution into our own hands to a certain extent (please note I am opposed to cloning and other genetic research that could be used to make the "perfect" human). We have as a species reached dominance over our planet and have the privilege that the weaker members of our species can be supported.\nOur evolution has moved away from simple biology and reached the world of science. If a child dies it is not a victory for evolution as weak genes are weeded out - it is a hard blow to evolution as obviously our new evolution as a species was unable to save the child.\n\nSo no, I do not see it as contradictory.\n\nAnd no, no child whatever its genes could survive a plane crush... deaths have never been about strong genes but about bad luck.
399096
No.  Ok, well, "yes" in the sense that you were talking about, a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Humans in large numbers are sociologically stupid.
464726
actually i dont know. any way this type of habbit will destroy the future generation. then, some body may rise querry to oppose this one. however, this type of problem may rise in decrease of quality of healthy life.
606024
I'm a Christian, and I know Evolution is working. I do disagree with Darwin's hypothesis that people should compete for survival within our own species. That is anti-christ. Survival of the fittest is for the natural world. Christians are not natural. Christians are inspired with a spirit, foreign to all other species. That Holy spirit spawns behavior such as; Charity, Passive Civil Disobedience, Art, Music, and anything creative.\n\nHave you heard that we are in this world, but not of it? If you believe that is true, then you are closer to Christ, than Darwin.