Name: Anonymous 2008-09-01 18:38
Darwin synthesized the theory of natural selection from two observations that were neither profound nor original. Like Marx, he makes two observations to arrive at a simplistic conclusion, or non-sequitur. Let's look at his logic:
1. A population of a species has the potential to produce far more offspring than the environment can support with resources such as food and shelter, leading to competition among varying individuals of a population for these limited resources.
2. No two individuals in a population are exactly alike. Careful observation finds variation in populations of all species.
3. Therefore, individuals with traits best suited to the local environment will, on average, have the greatest reproductive success. They will leave the greatest number of surviving, fertile offspring. The very traits that enhance survival and reproductive success will be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations of a population. It is this unequal reproductive success that leads to adaptation, the accumulation of favorable variations in populations over time.
The problem: Populations do produce greater numbers than they can sustain, but this does not prevent unfavorable traits from being passed on, nor does it prevent unfavorable traits from becoming a majority within an environment.
We have surgical procedures to ensure that the disabled and deformed can be corrected to live in the environment for as long as a healthy adult, making genetic deficiencies a non-issue in terms of environmental survival as genetically deficient people still pass their genes on at a normal rate. A cleft palate, bad eyesight, and badly aligned teeth can be corrected to fit perfectly in the environment, while high blood pressure, heart disease and other life shortening disorders do not prevent the person from having offspring before their life expectancy because life expectancy has increased.
Populations with less environmentally suitable traits breed more, while people with more suitable traits tend to breed less. Here "favorable" means more suited to the environment, so how could traits like obesity, mental illness, low intelligence, low immunity and a host of other biological and mental disorders be more suitable compared to an average healthy adult? Yet these traits have an equal chance of being passed on genetically. An obese woman with autism can still have far more offspring than a non-obese, mentally stable individual, but obesity and autism do not make her more suitable for the environment.
Darwin's theory tries to prescribe "favorable and unfavorable" values to genetic traits, which is as flawed as a religious follower prescribing good and bad to mainstream science, or a Marxist prescribing good and bad to Capitalism. The system operates as it is, without the need for value judgment.
An arbitrary list of "suitable" traits does not guarantee more offspring with more suitable traits. A specimen with suitable traits has the same chance of breeding with someone who has unsuitable traits, because traits are no longer as suitable or unsuitable, they just exist and persist within the environment.
1. A population of a species has the potential to produce far more offspring than the environment can support with resources such as food and shelter, leading to competition among varying individuals of a population for these limited resources.
2. No two individuals in a population are exactly alike. Careful observation finds variation in populations of all species.
3. Therefore, individuals with traits best suited to the local environment will, on average, have the greatest reproductive success. They will leave the greatest number of surviving, fertile offspring. The very traits that enhance survival and reproductive success will be disproportionately represented in succeeding generations of a population. It is this unequal reproductive success that leads to adaptation, the accumulation of favorable variations in populations over time.
The problem: Populations do produce greater numbers than they can sustain, but this does not prevent unfavorable traits from being passed on, nor does it prevent unfavorable traits from becoming a majority within an environment.
We have surgical procedures to ensure that the disabled and deformed can be corrected to live in the environment for as long as a healthy adult, making genetic deficiencies a non-issue in terms of environmental survival as genetically deficient people still pass their genes on at a normal rate. A cleft palate, bad eyesight, and badly aligned teeth can be corrected to fit perfectly in the environment, while high blood pressure, heart disease and other life shortening disorders do not prevent the person from having offspring before their life expectancy because life expectancy has increased.
Populations with less environmentally suitable traits breed more, while people with more suitable traits tend to breed less. Here "favorable" means more suited to the environment, so how could traits like obesity, mental illness, low intelligence, low immunity and a host of other biological and mental disorders be more suitable compared to an average healthy adult? Yet these traits have an equal chance of being passed on genetically. An obese woman with autism can still have far more offspring than a non-obese, mentally stable individual, but obesity and autism do not make her more suitable for the environment.
Darwin's theory tries to prescribe "favorable and unfavorable" values to genetic traits, which is as flawed as a religious follower prescribing good and bad to mainstream science, or a Marxist prescribing good and bad to Capitalism. The system operates as it is, without the need for value judgment.
An arbitrary list of "suitable" traits does not guarantee more offspring with more suitable traits. A specimen with suitable traits has the same chance of breeding with someone who has unsuitable traits, because traits are no longer as suitable or unsuitable, they just exist and persist within the environment.