BF2S Forums Is human evolution over?

We went for a few Guinness after work on Friday. Myself and two other architects the draftsman and our engineer. Now, the engineer is highly intelligent (I thought) We started talking about evolution and he had his own ideas on it. The debate got heated and we stopped so we wouldn't fall out. I got the bellow email this morning from him which is basically what he was saying on Friday. Give me your thoughts. Is he insane?

------------------------------------------
Email from engineer regarding Evolution.
-----------------------------------------------
facts about evolution
1 Fittest survive - WRONG
They do in their own lives but the quality of their sperm is likely to be inferior because in the process of growing to be the strongest in the pack and thus being able to shag the most females their sperm has deteriorated -FACT- and the herd is not getting the best offspring -FACT. Therefore each newborn takes the luck of the draw and because his dad was Rambo does not make him a winner.
Take humans - for the race to survive best, 18 year olds have the best sperm and should provide us with all the newborn but they do not propagate until 25 to 35 when they are mentally capable to handle life however by then their sperm has deteriorated somewhat.
Deer etc are the same the young bucks wouild produce the best offspring but the inferior older mebers won't let them because they are the strongest.( fittest is a naive term lacking in knowledge)
2 We are evolving-WRONG
Many errors have been made in this area eg the human race is getting taller -WRONG -this was based on the height of suits of armour - WHOOPS - it was then discovered that small men were given armour because the horses couldn't carry big blokes!!!! no joke - we are not getting taller. (also better diet was overlooked)
The average IQ by definition is 100 it should have gone up to say 100.005 or something if we were evolving into smarter people - we are not. The Romans and Egyptians were as smart as us.
Men were bent like apes trillions of years ago but straightened up to look like us - WRONG- this was based on one oldest human remains who was bent in stature-WHOOPS - he had a tumour on the spine- no joke - cave men looked exactly like us.
3 birds came from dinosaurs - WRONG
It was is a real problem to put feathers in the chain of evolution and someone came up with this theory after a complex study.They even discovered remains of a go between - WHOOPS- the theory has been proved wrong and the remains are a fake!!!!! Feathers still appear from nowhere!!!!!
4 black people evolved into black because of the sun - WRONG- the black gene did not evolve. You either have it or you don't. White women could lie in the sun for a million years and they would still give birth to white babies - according to evolution they will start going brown eventually - proven fact - they won't. No one knows how skins got to be different.
5 survival of the fittest - WRONG 2 - a species of red butterflies had one member develop cancer in the form of blue spots. It looked really attractive to the females and it propogated profusely. Result the whole race wiped itself out - no joke.
6 Charly thought that they would find proof of his theory within twenty years. They still haven't found one shred of proof ! Something strange hey what?
7 You really have to think this one through so I have left it till last - why are all the species at the end of the evolutionary tree.? If you dont see something strange in this you have missed the anomaly - think it through again and again till you see the puzzle. There should be at least one "dormite" species along with the dormouse species. (i.e the dormite being the fictitional predecessor species to the dormouse in my pun). OK lets agree with evolution and say that the dormouse survived better than the dormite and the dormites all died. Come on - there could be at least one preceeding variation in all the trillions of animals still surviving couldn't there ?- there is not one. Did Charly kill them all?!!!!!!

I conclude with the observation that scientists have recently come down off their high horses and are now calling all proofs hypothesies- i.e. the best we have till someone finds the truth- rather than answers. If they are saying this for the likes of Einsteins theory withh masses of proof do they not have to start saying it about evolution where there is no proof.

FEOS wrote:

So are you implying that "aboriginals" are somehow less evolved than non-aboriginals?

Or are you arguing that it is the culture--not nature--that holds them back?

They've evolved in a different way, and culture is of course a large factor, but at the end of the day its their genes holding them back, on average.
Doesn't mean they haven't been screwed over by the white man.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-02-17 04:20:45)

http://www.documentary-log.com/?id=192

watch that.

Evolution is most likely long from being 'over'.

And their father teaching them football knowledge and skills did nothing to them?

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So are you implying that "aboriginals" are somehow less evolved than non-aboriginals?

Or are you arguing that it is the culture--not nature--that holds them back?

They've evolved in a different way, and culture is of course a large factor, but at the end of the day its their genes holding them back, on average.
Doesn't mean they haven't been screwed over by the white man.

Remember the stink this forum kicked up over a nobel prize winning geneticist who said basically what you just said?

Also, for a success story, look up Noel Pearson. He's a smart guy, wish more around in the remote communities were like him.

You would have had plenty of work in 30s-40s Germany, Dilbert.

Not really.

Identifying the real reasons behind an issue is the first step in resolving it.

The fact is aboriginals/maoris/native americans/eskimoes/whatever don't generally do quite as well as those of european - or asian - origin, even when they have access to the same education and opportunities - when measured by the measuring stick used by the white man.

Doesn't mean they are better or worse human beings, in fact once the oil and resources run out most likely they will survive better than us.

I'm not trying to rationalise anything, just saying it as I see it.
Measuring other groups by the white man's measure some come up short, on average, even when given the same opportunities.
I've already said a large part of it is cultural, some portion must be genetic.

Inability to deal with alcohol seems to be a minor factor, for whatever reason, which is genetic.
Applies to North American indians, Australian aboriginals and of course the irish

None of this makes anyone inferior or superior, just different.

I'd say so. Just look at how much stronger monkeys are than us.

By the year 3000 we're probably going to be a race of pale weakling geniuses. Or we'll have destroyed the planet in some nuke war.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So are you implying that "aboriginals" are somehow less evolved than non-aboriginals?

Or are you arguing that it is the culture--not nature--that holds them back?

They've evolved in a different way, and culture is of course a large factor, but at the end of the day its their genes holding them back, on average.
Doesn't mean they haven't been screwed over by the white man.

Cultural evolution has very little to do with genetic evolution.

Now, there are actually significant arguments that the way slaves were bred in America for their strength and stamina has somewhat of a genetic effect on modern blacks descended from slaves.

The details are rather sketchy, but the central idea is that intelligence was shunned among slaves.  A lot of slaveowners didn't trust what they perceived as particularly smart slaves, so many were either killed or punished if it was discovered that they had learned certain things like the ability to read.  The theory is that enough of this went on during slavery that it has an effect on their descendants today.

Again, this is very difficult to prove, and for obvious reasons, the very suggestion of this is enough to anger many people (understandably), but it does seem to have at least some merit when looking at other cases of humans directing the breeding of other species.  The assumption is that the same effect could manifest among humans if done for a long enough time.

Of course, there are X-factors involved here, like the fact that a lot of slaveowners raped female slaves.  Many black people today have a small amount of white heritage due to this horrid practice.  In effect, this would likely counter many of the supposed effects of selective breeding, since slaveowners themselves were not subjected to selective breeding.

Still, this is about as connected as cultural evolution can get to genetic evolution.  Because Aborigines were not subjected to selective breeding for certain traits, it is harder to assume that their adversity is the result of less beneficial genetic evolution.

Aborigines would seem to be a better example of cultural evolution not going in a direction suitable for dominance.  Generally speaking, the most advanced cultural evolution involves rapid technological development.  Europeans generally surpassed most of the world in technology in the centuries leading up to the Industrial Revolution.  The Age of Exploration showed quite clearly that European technology was superior enough to render most non-Western cultures submissive.  This has little to no connection to genetic evolution.

About the only biological connection that can be made is that Europeans did manage to develop immunities to many very communicable diseases like smallpox.  A lack of immunity to these diseases killed more Native Americans than any wars did.  Similar things occurred with the Aborigines, so in that respect, you could say that Aborigines did not suitably evolve their immunities.  Of course, their isolation from much of the world prevented them from doing so.

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

I'd say the NFL is proof enough that slavery affected the black gene pool.

Well, in that particular case, I think steroids play a big part.  lol

Well I can definantly must say that morally this world is in a huge decline. You hear about so much BS everyday. 

TBH, even if you're not Christian, the ten commandments would make the world alot better. I suggest you all have a look at them.