In article <3ds6h4$mia at hptemp1.cc.umr.edu>,
Daniel Storey <storey at rocket.cc.umr.edu> wrote:
> First I shall address some of the responses. One of you said that
>Darwin was "horrified" that his teachings were being applied to humans.
>This is where my beliefs and his part. We are part of the animal kingdom,
>therefore we must live by its rules. I did not mean I believe in a forced
>social Darwinism such as one like Hitler imposed in WWII. I am speaking of
>the fittest live, the unfit die.
Survival != fitness.
>In todays society, we engage in selective
>breeding. In some cases this is good, but in most, it is bad. We are no
>longer selecting for fit alleles, but rather unfit traits are allowed to
IOW, you claim allele frequencies are changing over time in humans.
>Because of this, most other animals shall be here a million years
>from now (if we do not kill them first), where as we shall not. We are not
>allowing our species to evolve.
Here you claim allele frequencies are not changing, or perhaps you
think "evolution" has some other meaning than frequency changes over
time. You sound rather confused about basic evolutionary concepts.
>We deem it immoral. Darwinism will win
>out, weather he, or we like it or not.
Since you don't seem to understand either fitness or evolution,
it's unclear how you reach this conclusion. Why not start by
giving the definition of each? Hint: "fitness" is not "survival",
and "evolution" is not "progress".
toby at u.washington.edu