reply to post by redwolf.of.odin
i used the word gene pool as a term i thought people would understand ok
So... you knowingly used the wrong term and for the wrong situation, and you expect people to understand? If they do understand, it will be invariably
be a wrong or flawed understanding. How did you think that would be a good idea?
what i am saying is that the prettiest girls have the best genes
This isn't really true. Sure physical attractiveness can weed out potential mates from bearing offspring that carry genes for a number of physically
detrimental traits. However, by and large, these things aren't obvious. Perhaps a pretty girl has a gene that makes her particularly susceptible to
heart disease or Cancer? This isn't even counting the genes which are switched off in her, but still carried by females in her family. On the flip
side, a rather ugly and sickly girl may carry a gene that codes for high bone density or resistance to anemia? Again, these traits may be carried, but
The process of deciding on a mate due to physical attractiveness is only a single factor in selection. A much rather larger influence on the effective
passing on of deleterious genes would be the advent of civilization itself. Civilization is what keeps us protected from the harshness of nature, a
harshness that has been a major driving force for removed deleterious genes and favored well adapted genes.
now women do not choose the strongest most asertive men to mat with puting the best of the male genes with the best female genes. the choose for love
or convenace or money or someone they can control.
For most of recorded history, women have had no choice over whom they marry. This responsibility was delegated to the father or leader of the family.
Women were often regarded as property, or at the very least worth far less monetarily than men, and their marriages were usually a form of
business/political contract between families. Hence the inception of the dowry.
This is, however, after the advent of civilization and agriculture. I don't know the common marriage practices of pre-historic hunter-gatherer
this damages the genes that are past on because the stronger genes just slowly die out. and the weaker genes are pasted on instead.
Again, mating selection isn't a major driver of evolution. Having the beneficial genes necessary for survival until you DO mate is far more
important. Further, I think you're hung up on the concept of "Survival of the fittest". This is a blatant falsehood, and has only survived as a
social meme of the uneducated. Firstly, selection isn't the only avenue by which evolution works. Secondly, it would be far more accurate to call it
"Survival of the most well adapted to their environment". Doesn't quite have the "ring" that "Survival of the Fittest" does, though. Herein
lies the underlying flaw in your statement. We are no longer in the same environment we originally evolved in. We as a species are dependent on
society, regardless of the technology level. So the rules for favorable adaptation have changed a bit. Now, as a social species that builds
civilizations, should favor adaptations that make a person successful within that society. If this means he's some splindly little dork with no
muscle tone poking away at a keyboard in a cubicle- but making three times what you pull down in a year then... surprise! He's more well adapted to
his environment than you are.
Natural Selection based on our environment still applies, mind you. There's the chance you could die from a virus, or be mauled by a bear, or run a
stoplight because you're color blind and get creamed by a truck. However, because we actively try to insulate ourselves from the natural dangers of
our environments - it invariably play less of a role than it once did.
[edit on 11-1-2009 by Lasheic]