Britain's most feckless father...

Britain's most feckless father...

Author
Discussion

Carrot

7,294 posts

201 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
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
Yep, but biological success on a purely reproductive level (which is all we are here to do, everything else is simply a construct of what we do, however due to modern medicine "survival of the fittest" is becoming a blurred quality.

Now even if he had ten sickly children, and 6 of those went on to survive and reproduce, and each has 3 children, odds are that all those children won't be sickly, but there will be more of his genes floating around making him the most successful. The single intelligent fit and healthy child from AN Other may not even go on to have children, therefore stopping it right there, or if he did, he is not going to have as many in total over the same generation timespans.

Society is almost irrelevant when it comes to genetic superiority in numbers, in fact it is almost doing harm in that it enables the weak through medicine and protection to survive and reproduce - causing a curious effect of leaving some poor genes in the pool, and allowing them to remain.

There is a theory that we will no longer evolve, or if we do we have delayed it by thousands of years as part of evolution is adapting to the environment and situations therein, whereas we modify our environment to suit us.

Carrot - Currently studying Biopsychology.

andy400

10,296 posts

230 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
Carrot said:
andy400 said:
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
Yep, but biological success on a purely reproductive level (which is all we are here to do, everything else is simply a construct of what we do, however due to modern medicine "survival of the fittest" is becoming a blurred quality.

Now even if he had ten sickly children, and 6 of those went on to survive and reproduce, and each has 3 children, odds are that all those children won't be sickly, but there will be more of his genes floating around making him the most successful. The single intelligent fit and healthy child from AN Other may not even go on to have children, therefore stopping it right there, or if he did, he is not going to have as many in total over the same generation timespans.

Society is almost irrelevant when it comes to genetic superiority in numbers, in fact it is almost doing harm in that it enables the weak through medicine and protection to survive and reproduce - causing a curious effect of leaving some poor genes in the pool, and allowing them to remain.

There is a theory that we will no longer evolve, or if we do we have delayed it by thousands of years as part of evolution is adapting to the environment and situations therein, whereas we modify our environment to suit us.

Carrot - Currently studying Biopsychology.
So, essentially, we're (our society) is causing the decline of our own species by allowing these useless people to breed?

I'm seeing two separate subjects here, which may be where my confusion is coming from:

1) Genes are successful in simple terms by increase in numbers alone.

2) People are successful genetically by the use of their genes to produce successful offspring. Genetics, as discussed above, being the study of heredity and variety.

So he is not genetically successful as such, but his genes are successful because they have reproduced more?

Or are we saying that it is his genetic makeup that makes him ignore the rules of decent behaviour and accepted wisdom, and go out and breed whenever and wherever he gets the chance, in which case his genes are kicking arse! The most worrying thing about this theory being that his kids will probably be the same.

Or am I just confused? My head certainly hurts.


Edited for yet more spelling. I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue....

Edited by andy400 on Friday 24th September 09:14

Carrot

7,294 posts

201 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
andy400 said:
Or are we saying that it is his genetic makeup that makes him ignore the rules of decent behaviour and accepted wisdom, and go out and breed whenever and wherever he gets the chance, in which case his genes are kicking arse! The most worrying thing about this theory being that his kids will probably be the same.

Or am I just confused? My head certainly hurts.


Edited for yet more spelling. I picked a bad day to give up sniffing glue....

Edited by andy400 on Friday 24th September 09:14
This is actually the nail on the head here - think back to before we had a society (I am not accusing you of being that old, just imagine hehe)

If you had too many children, you would not be able to look after all of them, some would die off, the fittest would survive.

So society has given us two problems here

1) No children will die off, as there are others that will care for them, whereas before they would just die. So the amount of children you can have that have a high probability of success of living due to our care safety net is only limited to the amount of children you can physically have.

So these "rules" that hold society together and what makes our society work, is also allowing its own ultimate breakdown, while society allows it to happen.

However we are no longer defined on success within our society on how many offspring we produce, intelligence has made us believe that "success" is something else altogether. In a way, this father chap has excelled on many levels in abusing our rules to allow gene success to take over.

So yes, there are two separate subjects of success - one that we define ourselves based on what our "self" is, and one that nature intends us to do. Sometimes they conflict, and sadly one will win. I don't think the intelligent side will win, intelligence only has limited power over pure force of numbers frown

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
At the moment, his genes are kicking arse - but you have to bear in mind that like the brood parasitism of the sneaker sunfish, his reproductive strategy is dependent upon there being others to exploit, so there is an upper limit on the proportion of the gene pool which can be occupied by that means.

In any case, while he is doing better than us in those strict confines of evolutionary biology, in all other respects he appears to be a failure and a waste of skin.

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
He is successful in the biological sense, and I would say he is also successful in the social sense. He can prolly lie or wheedle himself into any of those awful hagfish's dens of filth. He seems to be able to sponge and rut at will in his current environment...if that environment changes thanks to the coalition, who knows.

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
Would you really want to swap places with him?

Halb

53,012 posts

182 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
I didn't give any indication that I would. The answer is nobiggrin

otolith

55,899 posts

203 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
Exactly! smile

ge0rge

3,053 posts

204 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
I forwarded this link onto a friend. A liberal, verging on communist friend - I know its worrying isnt it ! Anyway you should have read the tirade of bullst that started to come up on my screen.

It appears that people like this; no matter of their mental, social or employment status, have rights! Rights to breed, rights to be kept alive, even if that means being paid for by those who get off their deriere to actually try and make something of their lives.
He also pointed out that they had the freedom to have as many children as they wanted even if that meant being kept by the state, at our expense. I really dont understand how people can think like this, i mean he's not stupid and he's not got a bad job himself but to read what he was typing almost made me fall of my seat. I tell you what, i bet i get called some sort of Nazi or right wing imbecile because theres no winning is there. As the great James Holden states on his latest album. The idiots are winning..

Edited by ge0rge on Friday 24th September 12:24

joe_90

4,206 posts

230 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
ge0rge said:
I forwarded this link onto a friend. A liberal, verging on communist friend - I know its worrying isnt it ! Anyway you should have read the tirade of bullst that started to come up on my screen.

It appears that people like this; no matter of their mental, social or employment status, have rights! Rights to breed, rights to be kept alive, even if that means being paid for by those who get off their deriere to actually try and make something of their lives.
He also pointed out that they had the freedom to have as many children as they wanted even if that meant being kept by the state, at our expense. I really dont understand how people can think like this, i mean he's not stupid and he's not got a bad job himself but to read what he was typing almost made me fall of my seat. I tell you what, i bet i get called some sort of Nazi or right wing imbecile because theres no winning is there. As the great James Holden states on his latest album. The idiots are winning..

Edited by ge0rge on Friday 24th September 12:24
your friend is correct, the position as a sociality we are currently in demands this behaviour. You cannot just lets the kids die (was it there fault they were born?), where are 0000's of years ago he may have been able to spread his seed far and wide, but they would have died off as he could not provide the basic elements for them. Now, the state will do that for him.

There is no right answer in this unfortuantly, its a situation we have manoeuvred ourselves into. However a one-way ticket to NK would be a sound idea, or forced army time, Im sure he would equally make good cannon fodder.

But yes. it seems the idiots are winning, however different levels draw the 'idiot' line at different points, its all about control of the masses.

Langweilig

4,300 posts

210 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
What a lousy role model he makes. I don't like him at all.

Here is an example of a teenager who is an excellent role model.

From the BBC News

"Among those on the Ministry of Defence list of those being honoured is Rifleman Reece Terry, of the 4th Battalion The Rifles, who will receive the Queen's Gallantry Medal for Bravery.

The 19-year-old, from Taunton in Somerset, led a night raid in southern Afghanistan in October to capture a Taliban leader who had killed many British soldiers.

In an area concentrated with bombs, he led a 100-strength force over seven irrigation ditches, through two belts of disused compounds and across fields.

He was armed with only a metal detector and night vision goggles.

Pesty

42,655 posts

255 months

Friday 24th September 2010
quotequote all
Pah this ned is an amateur

America shows the way

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/muskegon_coun...

BlackLabel

13,251 posts

122 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Well he now has 15 kids from 10 different woman. And he doesn't even have a job.

Mail said:
Is this Britain's most irresponsible father? 29-year-old has had 'fifteen children' by ten different mothers - costing the taxpayer more than £2million - and number 16 is on the way

Keith MacDonald is said to have had 15 children with 10 different women
He is proud of his talent for meeting women but denies all children are his
In new TV show he claims his reputation is stopping him meeting women
He says he can't find work and spends much of his time playing computer
It is estimated MacDonald's brood will cost taxpayer more than £2million
Link



Edited by BlackLabel on Tuesday 31st March 15:39

Hoofy

76,253 posts

281 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
All Conservatives have to do is circulate this article on the morning of the elections and they'll win with 90% of votes.

Grumfutock

5,274 posts

164 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Wow, hell of a thread revival. Well done.

dudleybloke

19,717 posts

185 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
If a few of his kids were born to girls under the age of 16 why hasn't he been prosecuted for underage sex?

markcoznottz

7,155 posts

223 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all

‘He even moved his Xbox in, but he took that away'...... How romantic ..

JuniorD

8,616 posts

222 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Those s at the daily mail love it; to them this kind of trash is the gift that keeps on giving. All they have to do is update their story with the numbers and let the moral outrage ensue.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
JuniorD said:
Those s at the daily mail love it; to them this kind of trash is the gift that keeps on giving. All they have to do is update their story with the numbers and let the moral outrage ensue.
....and why not?

Time for more benefit cuts. Real ones this time.

anonymous-user

53 months

Tuesday 31st March 2015
quotequote all
Bus Stops, is that really the best place to pick up women, been doing it wrong all these years then. Time to hold my nose, get a bus pass and get out there :-?