LogFAQs > #960584260

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's a reason why men occupy a wider spread of performance variation; because men are meant to be expendable. The weak are meant to die off which means more higher performing men breed and the average for the species goes up.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If you were remotely aware of how evolution works, you'd know all behaviours mutate

... Oh god the irony. Where do I begin?

Evolution works off of natural selection- the generational mutations that build up after exposure to cross-generational environmental pressures (we're not talking 1-2 generations, but dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands). It is also not about "weak die strong live" nonsense; it's about suitability to specific environments (aka, the sun beat down on your species in different places in different amounts for thousands of years, so the melanin content between populations changed as populations slowly adapted to it via natural selection).

How well-adapted to a given environment a SPECIES is, not an individual, is the subject of evolution. But putting that aside just for a second? A "weak" individual can easily survive while a "strong" individual can easily die if the weaker one is better suited to the environment, so your "weak die strong live" bullshit doesn't even apply to evolution in general, but your argument gets even worse than that.

Right now the environmental pressures on our species are inconsistent and heavily mitigated, and this is doubly true simply because human generations are very lengthy. Once a species reaches a point where they can significantly manipulate the pressures that would cause natural selection to be a noticeable factor in the spread of genetic variation (agriculture to reduce the pressure of starvation, weapons to reduce predation and starvation, shelter to reduce weather impact, health care to reduce disease impact, etc, etc) all of that goes out the window really fucking fast. As soon as humans began making tools (and civilizations) in earnest? As soon as we could manipulate our environment in our turn?

TL:DR? You're engaging in pseudoscience trying to apply evolution to what you're talking about. You're just wrong. Your fixation on the strong vs the weak is pseudo-scientific bullshit that eugenicists use to justify genocide, especially against people with disabilities (many countries still have eugenics laws based on this pseudoscience to this day targeting disabled people). Evolution deals with populations over generations, not individuals, and no, targeting parts of the population for culling does not facilitate evolution (points at my response to fam_fam below).

Cherry on the top is you running around pretending you actually have a firm grasp on the concept. What a great example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Fam_Fam posted...

this is suggesting that whether you die or survive in war is substantially impacted by individual fitness level, which I wholeheartedly disagree with. genetic/physical differences do not have a significant impact in terms of who dies/lives in modern warfare. If you get placed in a battlefield and get shot by a machine gun/blown up, you will die either way.

It is because we aren't talking about sustained environmental pressures across generations causing those best suited to an environment to survive.

A human's "environment" isn't being on a battlefield in the midst of bullet hail. You can take a perfectly strong individual specimen out of their natural environment and place them in a new one with pressures they did not evolve to deal with and surprise surprise, they will die. And so will pretty much every single other member of the same species you repeat this experiment on.

Turns out that humans didn't evolve over thousands of years to survive taking grenade and bullet rain, and surviving or dying from that has nothing to do with strength or adaptability- just luck.

---

Hi