Tim Tyler wrote:
Brains may have declined somewhat after the Neanderthals, though.

You mean brain size, yes? Obviously brain capability has increased
exponentially. Size does not matter all that much.

Notice that you would be hard pressed to find one serious evolutionary
biologist who believes in the eugenic pseudoscience. It is quite clear
to me that this discussion lacks even a rudimentary understanding of
terminology such as fitness, adaptation and least of all personality.

"Yet, let's call it "fitness of the individual", is not improving?! In
this
sense I see "fitness" as the ability to reach satisfaction of one own
desires.
Agree? "

No I don't, how do you quantify desire,

desire, would adaptations would realizing ones desire result in? It
seems impossible to define desire in a biological sense and even more
impossible then explain how natural selection could act on it. This
statement clearly lacks understanding of the evolutionary process.

"See it scientifically and please don't feel personally affected due
to pride
in the human kind. It's a bad habit questioning the question instead
of
trying to interpret the question the way it was meant. "

If you just looked at my name (cognitive_ethology) you would see that
I am not faulted by "pride in the human kind" as most of my research
interests lie in extending the continuum of mental emotional, and
personality (behavioral syndromes) traits to animals and understanding
the evolution of cognitive behavior and behavioral inheritance
systems. In reguards to "this question", it already been asked, a
thousand times probably, and has been overturned and ruled out again
and again. In this way eugenics is very much akin to its other
pseudoscientific counterparts of creationism, despite evidence from
ethologists, psychologists and evolutionary biologists to the contrary
its loyal members cling to it.

Perplexed in Peoria wrote:

You seem to think that evolution is no longer working to enhance 'important
abilities' like intelligence, and is instead enhancing less 'important'
abilities like having children. [...]

Intelligence is greatly overrated by humans (I wonder why?). The
Dinosuars were around a lot longer than mammals and they were as dumb as
a sackful of anvils.

Given the sort of biota that has lasted the longest and the strongest I
would say intelligence is a rather low ranking property on which to select.

Tim Tyler wrote:

Brains may have declined somewhat after the Neanderthals, though.

You mean brain size, yes?

Obviously brain capability has increased exponentially.

Size does not matter all that much.

It is quite clear
to me that this discussion lacks even a rudimentary understanding of
terminology such as fitness, adaptation and least of all personality.
I'm not claiming to know beyond common knowledge, but it seems the other

No I don't, how do you quantify desire, how would selection act on
desire, would adaptations would realizing ones desire result in?
A neuro-scientist probably knows how to define this in terms of chemical

...In regards to "this question", it already been asked, a
thousand times probably, and has been overturned and ruled out again
and again...
You are probably good at writing very long essays, but here I prefer a short

In this way eugenics is very much akin to its other
pseudoscientific counterparts of creationism...
Not really sure why people propagate the word "eugenics" in this sense, I

Differential fitness costs of reproduction between the sexes.
http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=17192400

Optimizing offspring: the quantity-quality tradeoff in agropastoral
Kipsigis.
http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=11146305

Do human parents face a quantity-quality tradeoff?: evidence from a
Shuar community.
http://calorierestriction.org/pmid/?n=16365856

That depends on the situation. There may arise a set of circumstances
where intelligence is critical. Nature selects on reproductive fitness,
not an intelligence per se. When intelligence becomes a crucial factor
in reproduction, then you will see intelligence matter.

That depends on the situation. There may arise a set of circumstances
where intelligence is critical. Nature selects on reproductive
fitness, not an intelligence per se. When intelligence becomes a
crucial factor in reproduction, then you will see intelligence
matter.

I actually though about "intelligence". It is not (or hardly) related
directly to reproductive success or in fact any success in the real
society.

But without it there would be no technological progress and we'd still
live like in the middle age. So maybe we should be happy that there
are some geeks around finding ways to make life for future generations
better.

To sum up, from a certain point intelligence is not favoured by
evolution anymore, but it makes life better if it increases by
chance?!

On Mar 5, 11:57 am, Anton81 <usen...@anton.e4ward.com> wrote:

Unfit (e.g. shortsighted,...) individuals pair up with other unfit
individuals and in fact quite often they have more children (e.g. less
educated people).

So you saying that unfit individuals have less children, isn't this an
oxymoron, because fitness means, "differential reproductive
success" (or something akin to this), thus you "unfit" individuals
actually are fit individuals because they "often they have more
children". But seriously this type of Eugenics has no place in
science, or anywhere for that matter, and should best be seen as
mindless claims form people ignorant of the terminology and mechanisms
of natural selection and evolution.

On Mar 6, 8:44 pm, "cognitive_ethology" <kohn.greg...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mar 5, 11:57 am, Anton81 <usen...@anton.e4ward.com> wrote:

Unfit (e.g. shortsighted,...) individuals pair up with other unfit
individuals and in fact quite often they have more children (e.g. less
educated people).
So you saying that unfit individuals have less children, isn't this an
oxymoron, because fitness means, "differential reproductive
success" (or something akin to this), thus you "unfit" individuals
actually are fit individuals because they "often they have more
children". But seriously this type of Eugenics has no place in
science, or anywhere for that matter, and should best be seen as
mindless claims form people ignorant of the terminology and mechanisms
of natural selection and evolution.

Berlinski asked in his book that "Fitness" be derived from first
principles:
p.277 Firrs edtion Black Mischief
"... In general trouble arises simply because the connection between
biological traits and fitness is never derived from first principles.

If the
pig weret to be born with wheels mounted on ball bearings instead of
trotters, would it be better off on some scale of porcine fitness?"

How does it affect survival and reproduction? This is then an empirical