Court bans man with low IQ from having sex

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

No, that's not exactly true. Natural selection rewards overall fitness to survive. That is, the most adept in their environment are the ones that pass on their genes to the next generation. All, even those least able to thrive are physically capable of reproduction, epecially in the male sex, where the physical difficulties of gestation are not endured.

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

Fitness in evolutionary biology is reproductive fitness. "Survival" is meaningless evolutionarily if you do not reproduce to pass on anything.

So while some non-reproductive trait might increase the number of offspring you produce (or sire), the fact that more offspring is created is what matters and is "fitness" in population genetics.

You can be a novel "superman" and it makes no difference if you do not pass the genes on.

More genes passed on is more "fit."

Natural selection "rewards" nothing at all. It just is.

But now we go in circles. Reproduction is meaningless if the organism does not survive to maturation, let alone successfully find a mate. A 'novel superman' will likely survive to pass on his genetic material.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

But now we go in circles. Reproduction is meaningless if the organism does not survive to maturation, let alone successfully find a mate. A 'novel superman' will likely survive to pass on his genetic material.

Evolutionarily all that matters as "fitness" is passing on the genes. What the traits are otherwise doesn't matter.

Yes, it's semantic, just like the scientific definition of "theory" is semantically different than the plain english version—but the difference matters.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

Evolutionarily all that matters as "fitness" is passing on the genes. What the traits are otherwise doesn't matter.

Yes, it's semantic, just like the scientific definition of "theory" is semantically different than the plain english version—but the difference matters.

Yes, but what you ignore is what has been stated. Those with the traits that enable survival will live long enough to reproduce. That, by definition, is natural selection.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...al%20selection

[tater]

A dictionary is not where you look for a definition for scientific jargon.

Have you taken evolutionary biology?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

A dictionary is not where you look for a definition for scientific jargon.

Have you taken evolutionary biology?

A dictionary is where you look up the definition of things.

I'll be generous enough to ignore your insult.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

A dictionary is where you look up the definition of things.

I'll be generous enough to ignore your insult.

I know, but this is a scientific definition. It's dictionary definitions that have creationists describe evolution as "just a theory."

It wasn't meant as an insult, it was a serious question. Someone who has not taken quantum physics, for example, can be excused not knowing that jargon, either. Your area of study is music, right? (sorry if I misremembered). I'd butcher any use of music theory jargon, for example, even though I love music.

Again, no insult even hinted at.