Okay, first off I'd like to say sorry if this post reads disjointedly as it's really more a collection of half-formed thoughts based on the same subject.
As a quick prelude, Mazty made a thread a little while back asking about the subjectivity of looks/beauty and how it (beauty) was viewed differently by others. Now, as far as I can tell, (and I agree) the general consensus was that more attractive people were (more) attracted to people who are deemed to be of similar looks - i.e. a good-looking girl is more likely to go for a good-looking boy - and vise-versa. Basically it's the idea of leagues, as in way out of your... This is what got me thinking about the whole thing.
Right, moving on. Now, Darwin's Theory of Evolution - as we all know - simply says that evolution is the "survival of the fittest"; i.e. "natural selection". But "fittest" is a pretty loose term, it can mean anything from strength to height etc., but assuming - for now - that we are using "fittest" in terms of health & looks, can it be said that humans are defying the very theory that we base so much scientific knowledge on?
Now that point clearly needs & deserves an explanation; so here goes. Modern medicine is at a stage where we can keep people with chronic, life-threatening diseases alive for much longer than they might otherwise do, (I've just searched and couldn't find anything immediately, and with nothing coming instantly to mind you'll have to use your imagination - it's 2am, give me a break). So if that's the case and these people with (genetic) life-threatening diseases, with the help of medicine, can now have children and pass on their faulty DNA to the next generation, isn't that going against Darwin's Natural Selection? If the theory is correct shouldn't these genes be being slowly removed from the gene-pool? To use an example, in nature, when a lioness gives birth to a cub with a defect, handicap, etc., then that cub will die at a young age, without reproducing and therefore preventing that gene from being passed on. Whereas humans with faulty genes are allowed to reproduce freely.
According to that it's possible to argue that Darwin's theory doesn't (fully) apply to us as a species because surely, if it did, then in the next few thousand/million years (assuming the world/species lasts that long) there'd be no people with genetic disorders, no-one with a weak immune system and everyone would be good-looking, etc. - good looking because if the theory did/does apply to us, then the more attractive are more likely to procreate and so - in theory - should, one day, outnumber people who aren't so attractive.
Okay, so next, the subjectivity of looks. Humans, as with all species, have the ingrained desire to mate and reproduce. But with looks being what they are - some people are just better looking than others, it's a simple fact of life - they make a big difference to our chances of getting laid. However, if attractive people sleep around and end up settling for someone who is much less attractive (now I don't find her particularly attractive, but anyway) then aren't they going against the theory of evolution? Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as there is not exact system for measuring looks it can be said that this point doesn't hold much water, but nonetheless if someone who is evolutionary speaking fit reproduces with someone who is, again, evolutionary speaking, unfit then it's theoretically preventing the species from evolving as perhaps it should.
So is it a case of subjective looks, (less fussy (sexual) partners,) and modern medicine preventing the species from evolving? Has it got to the point where the species is simply reproducing for the hell of it and not allowing the theory of evolution to take effect on us - is it no longer just "the fittest" who are adding to the gene-pool?
Hmm, this thought just popped into my head, is there a case to say that modern medicine, by helping people with the chronic (otherwise) life-threatening illnesses to live and have children, are just making their lives in the future harder? By keeping the illness alive in the current and next generation, aren't they (potentially) giving themselves more work as they will have to keep the next group of sufferers alive too?
I suppose the overall question is, whether modern medicine, the subjectivity of looks, etc., is unwittingly disproving Darwin's theory of evolution?
P.s. I feel I should probably mention that this isn't a rant to say that less-attractive, disabled or chronically ill people shouldn't have sex & have children as I believe they have a right to, it's simply a case of having too much time to think about this sort of thing. Oh, and yes, I do believe Darwin's theory to be correct.
Edit:
Right, I'm going to make this very clear, this post does not necessarily represent my views, it is simply a question I am putting to the community - as I said to Neutral, it's a case of thinking out loud. I'm not sure that a lot of this is correct (I am yet to be convinced either way), as not only is this focused on a very small fraction of Darwin's theory but also as there are no standards of looks & the fact that without modern medicine we lose out on a lot of possibly useful (random) genetic mutations that would otherwise benefit us as a species, and that's before we start talking about other traits.
And another thing, just to clarify, this isn't about the actual de-evolution of man, if the post is right then it'd be more about a stalemate in evolution, or for that matter, having reached the peak of it - I hope that's cleared a few things up.
As a quick prelude, Mazty made a thread a little while back asking about the subjectivity of looks/beauty and how it (beauty) was viewed differently by others. Now, as far as I can tell, (and I agree) the general consensus was that more attractive people were (more) attracted to people who are deemed to be of similar looks - i.e. a good-looking girl is more likely to go for a good-looking boy - and vise-versa. Basically it's the idea of leagues, as in way out of your... This is what got me thinking about the whole thing.
Right, moving on. Now, Darwin's Theory of Evolution - as we all know - simply says that evolution is the "survival of the fittest"; i.e. "natural selection". But "fittest" is a pretty loose term, it can mean anything from strength to height etc., but assuming - for now - that we are using "fittest" in terms of health & looks, can it be said that humans are defying the very theory that we base so much scientific knowledge on?
Now that point clearly needs & deserves an explanation; so here goes. Modern medicine is at a stage where we can keep people with chronic, life-threatening diseases alive for much longer than they might otherwise do, (I've just searched and couldn't find anything immediately, and with nothing coming instantly to mind you'll have to use your imagination - it's 2am, give me a break). So if that's the case and these people with (genetic) life-threatening diseases, with the help of medicine, can now have children and pass on their faulty DNA to the next generation, isn't that going against Darwin's Natural Selection? If the theory is correct shouldn't these genes be being slowly removed from the gene-pool? To use an example, in nature, when a lioness gives birth to a cub with a defect, handicap, etc., then that cub will die at a young age, without reproducing and therefore preventing that gene from being passed on. Whereas humans with faulty genes are allowed to reproduce freely.
According to that it's possible to argue that Darwin's theory doesn't (fully) apply to us as a species because surely, if it did, then in the next few thousand/million years (assuming the world/species lasts that long) there'd be no people with genetic disorders, no-one with a weak immune system and everyone would be good-looking, etc. - good looking because if the theory did/does apply to us, then the more attractive are more likely to procreate and so - in theory - should, one day, outnumber people who aren't so attractive.
Okay, so next, the subjectivity of looks. Humans, as with all species, have the ingrained desire to mate and reproduce. But with looks being what they are - some people are just better looking than others, it's a simple fact of life - they make a big difference to our chances of getting laid. However, if attractive people sleep around and end up settling for someone who is much less attractive (now I don't find her particularly attractive, but anyway) then aren't they going against the theory of evolution? Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and as there is not exact system for measuring looks it can be said that this point doesn't hold much water, but nonetheless if someone who is evolutionary speaking fit reproduces with someone who is, again, evolutionary speaking, unfit then it's theoretically preventing the species from evolving as perhaps it should.
So is it a case of subjective looks, (less fussy (sexual) partners,) and modern medicine preventing the species from evolving? Has it got to the point where the species is simply reproducing for the hell of it and not allowing the theory of evolution to take effect on us - is it no longer just "the fittest" who are adding to the gene-pool?
Hmm, this thought just popped into my head, is there a case to say that modern medicine, by helping people with the chronic (otherwise) life-threatening illnesses to live and have children, are just making their lives in the future harder? By keeping the illness alive in the current and next generation, aren't they (potentially) giving themselves more work as they will have to keep the next group of sufferers alive too?
I suppose the overall question is, whether modern medicine, the subjectivity of looks, etc., is unwittingly disproving Darwin's theory of evolution?
P.s. I feel I should probably mention that this isn't a rant to say that less-attractive, disabled or chronically ill people shouldn't have sex & have children as I believe they have a right to, it's simply a case of having too much time to think about this sort of thing. Oh, and yes, I do believe Darwin's theory to be correct.
Edit:
Right, I'm going to make this very clear, this post does not necessarily represent my views, it is simply a question I am putting to the community - as I said to Neutral, it's a case of thinking out loud. I'm not sure that a lot of this is correct (I am yet to be convinced either way), as not only is this focused on a very small fraction of Darwin's theory but also as there are no standards of looks & the fact that without modern medicine we lose out on a lot of possibly useful (random) genetic mutations that would otherwise benefit us as a species, and that's before we start talking about other traits.
And another thing, just to clarify, this isn't about the actual de-evolution of man, if the post is right then it'd be more about a stalemate in evolution, or for that matter, having reached the peak of it - I hope that's cleared a few things up.
