Evolution favors dominance

[TX-Beau]

I

Yeah, I'm still not seeing how this isn't a precursor to eugenics.

it's not a precursor, it's eugenics outright.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

As is well-known. California has been in a serious drought for the last three or four years. Our property has many large, mature trees--the primary reason we bought our house--which used to host a great many birds, large and small. This past year we have seen a precipitous decline in the number, variety and size of birds. Many days we won't see even one bird. I assume it is because the bug population has declined because of the drought, and therefore the birds--particularly the larger ones--have either moved to "greener pastures" or simply died out. One noticeable example we've noticed is that, whereas we used to see hummingbirds large and small, we now see only very tiny hummingbirds--an inch and smaller in length.

Accelerated death is a natural byproduct of colonialism. Who would've thought "destroy the natural habitat (and anyone that gets in your way) to build condos and shopping centers" would have an adverse affect on the ecosystem? If only someone had been warning us about this for years and years we could've listened to them and taken action. We thought we were gods and the results speak for themselves.

 

[TX-Beau]

Accelerated death is a natural byproduct of colonialism. Who would've thought "destroy the natural habitat (and anyone that gets in your way) to build condos and shopping centers" would have an adverse affect on the ecosystem? If only someone had been warning us about this for years and years we could've listened to them and taken action. We thought we were gods and the results speak for themselves.

There is no data that conclusively says that sapience is a beneficial genetic trait for species longevity. In evolutionary terms we just got here, as of now, there is very little genetic difference in the various human populations - it might be that intelligence turns out to be an evolutionary "failure." We might flash and burn out.

We aren't going to destroy the planet - we may very well destroy the conditions that allow our species survival, but the planet will spin on without us, and evolution will continue until the sun goes nova and swallows it up probably.

 

[TX-Beau]

Maybe in the future, hyper-intelligent cockroaches will do a better job.

 

[NotHardUp1]

This is fine as far it goes, but there is no favoring of anything at all, no volition, mutations occur randomly, some are beneficial in varying degrees for varying reasons, some are neutral or benign and persist anyway, and some are detrimental for varying conditions or reasons and yet can also persist. Saying that "evolution favors dominance" is just reductivism and anthropomorphism about a process whose primary component is random mutation.

What you are doing is trying to pretend evolution is a social science and it just isn't.

I'm afraid you are imputing assertions that I have not made, at all. There is absolutely no reference to nature being human-like in any of my posts. I posited that the process favors dominant behaviors and characteristics, almost by definition. And dominance is by no means a human trait, but a behavioral aspect of both plants and animals.

Far from reductionist, it is expansionist. It takes a characteristic, and instead of implying it is simple, makes it plain that it is infinitely complex in its pervasiveness through myriad ecosystems and habitats.

Saying that mutations occur randomly is not rebutted anywhere in my comments, nor contradicted. Again, by definition, natural selection sifts the mutations and exposes them to challenges in reproduciton, predation, food supply, atmosphere, and thousands of other factors, and chooses the successful and condemns the unsuccessful. That is literally how we define success in species.

As for the application of evolutions to human social behavior, it is just as much applicable there as to any bee hive or ant hill and their behaviors and adaptations. That doesn't make evolution a social science, but the inverse. It makes social science subject to evolutionary forces, even if it's not survival of the fittest in all cases as Darwin supposed.

Your assertions are highly unscientific, skipping exploration or questioning and aggressively zooming into imputations and even accusations. You're not so much interested in clarifying any aspects of the topic as apparently framing another member with allegations of your own creation.

 

[TX-Beau]

Oh come in, if you are going to pretend to be science, then define your terms, point us to your research, and the analyses of it that's been peer-reviewed that led you to the hypothesis that "evolution favors dominance."

Until you tell us what "favors" means and what "dominance" means and how you arrived at that conclusion, all we have to go on is the speculation in all that quasi-social science exposition in your OP.

You made a bunch of assumptions that is all.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Oh come in, if you are going to pretend to be science, then define your terms, point us to your research, and the analyses of it that's been peer-reviewed that led you to the hypothesis that "evolution favors dominance."

Until you tell us what "favors" means and what "dominance" means and how you arrived at that conclusion, all we have to go on is the speculation in all that quasi-social science exposition in your OP.

You made a bunch of assumptions that is all.

THIS.