• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

A Weakening of the gene pool

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
    ok.
    So you have the situation where the poor immune system gene is allowed to propogate through the population, which is propped up by technology.
    The prop gets kicked away.
    A population CAN become too tiny.

    goto OP


    Only if the population is too tiny can the presence of "poor" genes (those whose set of potential favourable environments is small) prevent the other genes from propagating. With any reasonable size of population, when the prop is kicked away then the genes that depended on it will now be selected against, and the other genes will survive. It takes "artificial" props plus tiny population (and I might argue that technological props are only likely to be deployed by a population that, like ours, is far from tiny but rather excessive).

    But thanks for the questions, I enjoyed the discussion.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
      what I meant was this.
      In the olden days, a person who was less 'fit' would not survive, when the pressures of survival were brought to bear...
      Despite it's modern meaning of metabolic efficiency, it's misleading to think of the word "fit" there as just relating to physical health and capability.

      It would be clearer if the phrase "survival of the fittest" was replaced by "survival of the most suitable (in the circumstances)", in other words "fit" as in "fit for purpose", which was what people like Darwin understood by the word.

      Yes, physical health was the main prerequisite when medicine was primitive. But there are many other ways of being "suitable", even if one is physically frail or has an ailment that would have been fatal in times past.
      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
        Despite it's modern meaning of metabolic efficiency, it's misleading to think of the word "fit" there as just relating to physical health and capability.

        It would be clearer if the phrase "survival of the fittest" was replaced by "survival of the most suitable (in the circumstances)", in other words "fit" as in "fit for purpose", which was what people like Darwin understood by the word.

        Yes, physical health was the main prerequisite when medicine was primitive. But there are many other ways of being "suitable", even if one is physically frail or has an ailment that would have been fatal in times past.
        er...I know that.

        a square peg in a square hole. a round peg in a round hole.

        a good fit. thats what he's on about.

        so a three-toed sloth is fit for his environment.



        (\__/)
        (>'.'<)
        ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

        Comment

        Working...
        X