Where do we go from here?

[JackBean]

you don't sound like skeptic

[ThePerfectCrime]

Re: Where do we go from here?
by skeptic » Fri Jul 16, 2010 2:59 am

It is well known that criminals on average have IQ levels below that of 'normal' people.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/1363/Intelli ... ation.html

I quote :
Mind you, there is a theory that high IQ criminals are simply the ones that don't get caught. Personally I think that high IQ criminals become lawyers and politicians.

....

And what about those criminals who have above average IQ levels...? I have made a lot of money, and have never been caught. I now work in an office environment, and have been security cleared and background checked....

Honestly, my IQ is 140 - 148. My father's IQ was 154. I now earn a good wage, and do not have to ever be forced to commit crime again.

FYI: This is a secure Zurich VPN connection, you won't ever find any recorded evidence ever relating to this post.

[sachin]

But its all about social selection than natural selection. The best social fit will get selected and will get more opportunities to propagate.
By the way social selection is outcome of natural selection only, we can say sub category.

So we are getting selected and best fit will survive for long.

[NickT]

As humans are finding ways to "cheat", i.e. the "weak ones" or those with "inferior genes" may still survive and pass on their genes.

What you are referring to is not actually "cheating" but part of the evolution process. I believe the term is sexual selection. It may not be for the benefit of the species but if enough of the species find it attractive it will remain prevalent.

[biohazard]

As humans are finding ways to "cheat", i.e. the "weak ones" or those with "inferior genes" may still survive and pass on their genes.

What you are referring to is not actually "cheating" but part of the evolution process. I believe the term is sexual selection. It may not be for the benefit of the species but if enough of the species find it attractive it will remain prevalent.

If the "weak" are able to survive and have children that have children and so forth, then they are doing just fine from the evolutionary point of view. Only time will tell what kind of genes end up being "superior" or "inferior".

What currently seems like obviously weak (bad eyesight, predisposition to diabetes etc.), may in the future be beneficial or irrelevant, depending on the future environment. Perhaps, as a simplified example, our ape-like ancestors thought that the few almost hairless persons were "weak" because they would be cold and vulnerable without the protective body hair. However, they did not foresee the invention of clothes and the result of it: hairless people turned out to be the ones that survived and the "superior" hairy apeguys became extinct!

[canalon]

Or it maybe hitchhiking of one trait/gene with the other. If the 2 traits are inherited together because they are so close that they almost never get separated, then you might get the, or because they are the effect of a mutation that affects 2 different pathways, a mildly bad trait can be selected by the more positive trait that is driving the positive selection.