Britain's most feckless father...

Britain's most feckless father...

Author
Discussion

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
It's a strange society that allows its most useless and least intelligent members to breed much more prolifically than the rest.

Decline is inevitable, I just wish to God that someone would do something about it.

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

203 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.

Bing o

15,184 posts

218 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
thinfourth2 said:
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.
He's hardly Aryan perfection is he?

ge0rge

3,053 posts

204 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
I wonder how other countrys in europe, and the rest of the world for that matter compare to the UK on matters like these..?

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
thinfourth2 said:
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.
Eh? Explain please.

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

203 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
thinfourth2 said:
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.
Eh? Explain please.
How many times have you passed on your genes?


andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
thinfourth2 said:
andy400 said:
thinfourth2 said:
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.
Eh? Explain please.
How many times have you passed on your genes?
Irrelevent. You seem to be suggesting that his genes are superior because he has passed them on more, which is nonsense.

thinfourth2

32,414 posts

203 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
thinfourth2 said:
andy400 said:
thinfourth2 said:
On a genetic level he is far from feckless. On a genetic level he is far far more successful then anyone on this forum.
Eh? Explain please.
How many times have you passed on your genes?
Irrelevent. You seem to be suggesting that his genes are superior because he has passed them on more, which is nonsense.
How do you measure the success of genes?

The basic drive of a biolgical organism is to pass their genes on as far as posible.

And in this measure of success he is great.

Driller

8,310 posts

277 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
Wot he said ^^

Superiority, in this sense, is measured purely in living long enough to pass on your genes and to do this abuntantly.

Nothing else matters.





Edited by Driller on Thursday 23 September 13:38

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.

Carrot

7,294 posts

201 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
By our current standards - imagine if it gets to Idiocracy levels frown

He will be like... no he WILL be a God!

Driller

8,310 posts

277 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...


andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.

Driller

8,310 posts

277 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.
...and you still don't understand the whole point of genetics! biggrin

Carrot

7,294 posts

201 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
Driller said:
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.
...and you still don't understand the whole point of genetics! biggrin
yes

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
Driller said:
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.
...and you still don't understand the whole point of genetics! biggrin
...and I am quite sure I do.

You might have a point if we were all simple animals or organisms, spending all our time simply trying to breed, where the number of successful results might suggest genetic superiority. In this race though, to suggest that some idiot human male is genetically superior because he has impregnated a lot of questionable women, whilst those of us who have chosen not to do this are somehow genetically inferior is nonsense. Our society, and decent behaviour expected therein, massively skews any possible theory based solely on 'number of offspring'.

If you are saying that he is more successful at spreading his genes around the already shallow gene pool that he inhabits, then, well, yes sort of, but again see above. Simply to look at him is to be pretty sure that his genes are considerably inferior, no matter what he does with them, than those of you, me, and just about anyone else capable of reading and replying on this forum.

If I am missing something here, please tell me what it is, rather than posting 'you don't understand'. Thanks.


Driller

8,310 posts

277 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.
...and you still don't understand the whole point of genetics! biggrin
...and I am quite sure I do.

You might have a point if we were all simple animals or organisms, spending all our time simply trying to breed, where the number of successful results might suggest genetic superiority. In this race though, to suggest that some idiot human male is genetically superior because he has impregnated a lot of questionable women, whilst those of us who have chosen not to do this are somehow genetically inferior is nonsense. Our society, and decent behaviour expected therein, massively skews any possible theory based solely on 'number of offspring'.

If you are saying that he is more successful at spreading his genes around the already shallow gene pool that he inhabits, then, well, yes sort of, but again see above. Simply to look at him is to be pretty sure that his genes are considerably inferior, no matter what he does with them, than those of you, me, and just about anyone else capable of reading and replying on this forum.

If I am missing something here, please tell me what it is, rather than posting 'you don't understand'. Thanks.
You are missing this:

The measure of the success (or superiority if you like) of any species is how prevalent that species is in nature.

You are saying that others are more genetically superior to this guy but to what end?


otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Thursday 23rd September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
If I am missing something here, please tell me what it is, rather than posting 'you don't understand'. Thanks.


wink

Success for a gene, in Darwinian terms, means propagating itself. Nothing more. So in a very reductionist sense, his genes are doing better than ours.

He reminds me of the "sneaker" strategy in bluegill sunfish - these fish adopt three main reproductive strategies - some of them grow big and strong, build nests, compete for females and then guard the eggs and raise the fry. These are called parentals.

Others remain small - they mature earlier in their life and do not build nests or court females. Instead, when the female lays her eggs in the parental's nest, these fish dart in and squirt their sperm all over the eggs. They do not make any further investment in the raising of the eggs, leaving it to the cuckolded parental to raise the fry. Rather, they maximise their chances of producing offspring by fertilising as many eggs in as many nests as they possibly can. These are called sneakers.

So, the big strong parental strain fish may have a reproductive strategy inferior to the weasely little sneakers - in which case, the sneaker's genes are better than the parental's.

(the third strategy is that some fish grow into female impersonators and get into the parental male's nest with him and the female and inseminate the eggs that way - applying that to humans in an allegorical sense leads to a fairly distasteful scenario involving threesomes and ladyboys probably best not though about hehe )

thehawk

9,335 posts

206 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
You might have a point if we were all simple animals or organisms, spending all our time simply trying to breed, where the number of successful results might suggest genetic superiority. In this race though, to suggest that some idiot human male is genetically superior because he has impregnated a lot of questionable women, whilst those of us who have chosen not to do this are somehow genetically inferior is nonsense. Our society, and decent behaviour expected therein, massively skews any possible theory based solely on 'number of offspring'.

If you are saying that he is more successful at spreading his genes around the already shallow gene pool that he inhabits, then, well, yes sort of, but again see above. Simply to look at him is to be pretty sure that his genes are considerably inferior, no matter what he does with them, than those of you, me, and just about anyone else capable of reading and replying on this forum.

If I am missing something here, please tell me what it is, rather than posting 'you don't understand'. Thanks.
But we are all animals and the sole measure of our success, our reason of existence is to proliferate our species. Or are you suggesting that humans were put here for a higher purpose and saying there is a god?

Shakespeare, rocket science and polite conversation are actually meaningless in the grand scheme of things - in the future the human race will most likely cease to exist so while distasteful his actions really aren't inferior or superior genetically.

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
Driller said:
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
Driller said:
andy400 said:
The genes themselves are not superior, they have simply been passed on more.

Genetically, he is pond life.
Actually, pond life is very successful genetically when you consider its rate of propagation...
You are still confusing 'genetically superior' with 'breeds prolifically'.
...and you still don't understand the whole point of genetics! biggrin
...and I am quite sure I do.

You might have a point if we were all simple animals or organisms, spending all our time simply trying to breed, where the number of successful results might suggest genetic superiority. In this race though, to suggest that some idiot human male is genetically superior because he has impregnated a lot of questionable women, whilst those of us who have chosen not to do this are somehow genetically inferior is nonsense. Our society, and decent behaviour expected therein, massively skews any possible theory based solely on 'number of offspring'.

If you are saying that he is more successful at spreading his genes around the already shallow gene pool that he inhabits, then, well, yes sort of, but again see above. Simply to look at him is to be pretty sure that his genes are considerably inferior, no matter what he does with them, than those of you, me, and just about anyone else capable of reading and replying on this forum.

If I am missing something here, please tell me what it is, rather than posting 'you don't understand'. Thanks.
You are missing this:

The measure of the success (or superiority if you like) of any species is how prevalent that species is in nature.

You are saying that others are more genetically superior to this guy but to what end?
Surely the measure is to breed successfully, not just breed willy-nilly (fnarr).

My understanding of genetics is/was, notwithstanding the above, how genes interact to pass down characteritics to offspring, or as the dictionary would put it: Genetics - the study of heredity and variation in organisms. So much more than just a numbers game.

So, without any study of how successful his offspring are (by successful I mean intelligence, health, looks etc etc) you can't say he is being genetically 'more successful' than anyone else.

If, for example, he had sired ten ugly, sickly children of very low intelligence he surely can't be said to have been genetically more successful than a.n.other bloke who has had only one child, but a child of superior health, intelligence, strength etc etc. - especially when a.n.other boloke has only had the one due to societal restrictions, not a lack of ability for his genes to 'do the business'.

My problem, like many PHers, is that I have a little knowledge of a lot of subjects, so I may be out of my depth here, but the above is my understanding of how he can't simply be said to be genetically 'more successful' just based on 'number of kids', without much more information.


confused


(Edited for spelling - it's early)

Edited by andy400 on Friday 24th September 08:42