Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: longnshort who wrote (754313)	11/14/2006 8:24:33 PM
From: pompsander	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

"If someone who was intelligent, had drive, could work with others , was non agressive, in a harsh environment have a better chance to survive and get a mate?? what would happen over 200,000 years ??" They would end up as a republican? What?

To: longnshort who wrote (754313)	11/14/2006 9:11:28 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Re: "If someone who was intelligent, had drive, could work with others , was non agressive, in a harsh environment have a better chance to survive and get a mate?? what would happen over 200,000 years ??" Sounds like TWO questions. So, lets look at them one by one: "If someone who was intelligent, had drive, could work with others , was non agressive, in a harsh environment have a better chance to survive and get a mate?? A --- If someone was better at SURVIVING (for whatever reasons) then others around them were, and succeeded in mating, and produced children which themselves lived, survived, and bred... then the original individual's genes would pass on. They would be 'part' of the evolutionary story. If others around them DIDN'T survive/breed then their genes would not be handed down to future generations. "what would happen over 200,000 years ??" <I think you mean: "over a long, evolutionary length of time."> A --- If any of the characteristics you mentioned (or any others) were GENETICALLY BASED (i.e., influenced/produced by mutations/changes in the DNA, not merely ephemeral psychological or sociological characteristics that are outside of genetics, and thus NOT heritable), and provided significant survival benefits... then those genes would be preferentially selected for and concentrated in the species by evolutionary pressure. At least, until or unless the environment itself changed and negated the survival benefit that those genes had originally conveyed. In SHORT, behaviors that are LEARNED have no direct effect upon inheritance of genetic material (except insofar as they may allow the genes to survive long enough to breed....) If BEHAVIORS are learned and NOT genetically-based, then they are NOT reproduced down the chain of progeny. (At least: not reproduced by evolution!)