They do vote; otherwise the candidates would be pandering the blue collar and lower class americans. They vote in a higher % than more educated middle class americans (assuming they can leave work) because they feel it is their patriotic duty.

9/27/2008 5:06:10 PM

^eyedrb wasn't talking about blue collar workers or lower class Americans.

He was talking about poor people on welfare voting for Democrats...but they don't vote.

The people you're talking about vote Republican (at least in the South).

Some evidence for my claim:

Quote :

"Not only do the rich seem to get richer, on Election Day next month they will probably get a disproportionately large say about who gets elected to Congress. So will older people, whites, college graduates and those who frequently go to church, they survey finds. Among those likely to once again stand on the sidelines on Nov.7: relatively large numbers of young people, Hispanics, and those with less education and lower incomes."

http://people-press.org/report/292/who-votes-who-doesnt-and-why

The link has charts if you wanna see some numbers.

[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 5:32 PM. Reason : Just google "who votes" and it will become clear to you.]

9/27/2008 5:12:12 PM

Quote :

"So will older people, whites, college graduates and those who frequently go to church, they survey finds. Among those likely to once again stand on the sidelines on Nov.7: relatively large numbers of young people, Hispanics, and those with less education and lower incomes.""

and the problem is......

The less educated much of the time does not know what is best for them anyway except for what the media tells them. Besides we know where their stance on the issues is....

- Less taxes
- Bigger welfare checks
- Legalize pot
- Hate gays

9/27/2008 7:35:54 PM

Quote :

"evolution, on a marco scale, left the human race behind a long time ago, at least since the invention of the french fry..."

evolution, on a marko scale?

seriously though, agreed

9/27/2008 8:25:19 PM

Quote :

"The less educated much of the time does not know what is best for them anyway except for what the media tells them. Besides we know where their stance on the issues is.... - Less taxes - Bigger welfare checks - Legalize pot - Hate gays "

You forgot:
- Kill them A-Rabs
- They tuk er jerbs

9/27/2008 8:27:51 PM

^^ http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/13/evolution.speedup/index.html

9/27/2008 8:30:50 PM

^I've read the article before.

imo, it's ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT and here's why: we've removed, virtually, all natural selection. we keep everyone that we possibly can ( and we seem to be pretty good at it) alive regardless of their physical or mental handicaps. and pretty much anyone (at least in this country) can have as many children as they'd like.

sure, I can see a few thousand years of that with a shitton of population growth leading to a runaway accumulation of detrimental mutations. there's no selection to get rid of the mutations! I wouldn't call that an evolution speedup....

at least not with the typical positive connotation given to evolution since it's, by definition, driven by natural selection (and certainly not in the context of this argument)



[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 8:44 PM. Reason : discuss]

9/27/2008 8:40:58 PM

You're confused. Natural selection isn't about survival, but rather reproduction. Neither does the mechanism care who or what created any given environment. It won't necessarily lead to folks becoming more like your ideal. As long any genes are associated with greater fertility, those genes will become more and more common. That's evolution. It's not about making $texas, military dominance, intelligence, athleticism, or what have you. Those things only matter in as much as the increase reproduction.

9/27/2008 9:04:15 PM

Quote :

"Natural selection isn't about survival, but rather reproduction."

Stop me if you've heard this one before, but not being able to survive can affect your ability to reproduce. No, it's true!

Quote :

"As long any genes are associated with greater fertility, those genes will become more and more common. That's evolution."

My point is, excluding people with serious infertility problems, there isn't really a difference among anyone on the planet as to how many children they're going to have. It's probably based on personal choice and circumstances more than anything and has little to do with their genes.

Again, to the point of infertility, even though there are people with infertility issues, we can artificially enhance their natural reproduction rate. So their genes play less and less of a role as we create better and better technology.

Quote :

"It won't necessarily lead to folks becoming more like your ideal....It's not about making $texas, military dominance, intelligence, athleticism, or what have you. Those things only matter in as much as the increase reproduction."

Whoa, wtf?!? You have me totally confused with another user. Srsly.

9/27/2008 9:16:31 PM

Quote :

"It's probably based on personal choice and circumstances more than anything and has little to do with their genes."

Do you have any evidence for this assertion? As I've shown, researchers think human evolution is accelerating.

Quote :

"So their genes play less and less of a role as we create better and better technology."

I agree with this in theory, but I'll take data over theory any day of the week. Some other aspects of modern life may be encouraging evolution.

Quote :

"You have me totally confused with another user."

I didn't mean to imply those traits as your ideal.

9/27/2008 9:27:18 PM

Quote :

"You forgot: - Kill them A-Rabs - They tuk er jerbs"

damn i forgot those. They are like #1 and #2.

Quote :

"e've removed, virtually, all natural selection. we keep everyone that we possibly can ( and we seem to be pretty good at it) alive regardless of their physical or mental handicaps. and pretty much anyone (at least in this country) can have as many children as they'd like."

More like thanks to the liberals we have put positive selection
pressure on the most worthless elements of society.

As can be seen at your local social service office where woman
pump out 9 kids and can be a grandma by 40.

Right now we are natuarally selecting Jamie Lynn Spears, LaShuana,
and Maria Lopez getting knocked up at 16.

9/27/2008 9:31:02 PM

Quote :

"More like thanks to the liberals we have put positive selection pressure on the most worthless elements of society."

That's a value judgment. Nature doesn't care about your values. Sure, the species might be turning fat, stupid, and lazy. There's little evidence of this, but the shift would still be evolution.

9/27/2008 9:33:44 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any evidence for this assertion?"

Evidence no, but it seems to reason that it's not too terribly hard to make it to sexual maturity and to have an arbitrary number of children in this day and age. Problems having children? Infertility drugs! Can't afford the children? Welfare! Am I completely off the mark here?

Natural selection hasn't been completely removed of course. If you can't make it past infancy or if you can't have children at all, that's where your genes stop. For most people, however, genes really have a negligible effect.

Quote :

"Some other aspects of modern life may be encouraging evolution."

Population growth, yes. I'm not really sure though that the selection has increased or is even significant though anymore. What part of modern life increasingly kills people before sexual maturity or limits the number of children they can have?

This is all idle speculation btw. But a while back I did make a couple scripts to prove my assertion:

Quote :

"My genetic algorithm attempts to simulate a small population (20) of organisms of the same species. Here’s how it works: * Each organism is represented by one trait. In this case, it’s simply a number, 0-99. You could think of this trait as the length of a dog’s fur, the size of a bird’s beak, or the color of an animal’s skin. * The first twenty organisms are randomly assigned their traits. * After each generation, the five organisms that are most adapted are “selected”, meaning they will each have 4 offspring. The other 75% quietly die off. * What does most adapted mean? In this case, I arbitrarily chose “most adapted” to mean numbers closest to the number 42. Once again, you could think of the number representing the color of an animal and perhaps 42 is the color that blends in best with the surrounding environment and thus offers improved survival and reproductive rates. * Each offspring will have randomly mutated (changed by -2,-1, 0, 1, 2) from its parent. "

http://www.imanomnivore.com/ns.php

Quote :

"Now let’s try something different. What if we were to be very nice to these organisms? Instead of only 25% getting to reproduce, every single organism will get to have one offspring and no one will miss out. Essentially, we are removing the “selection” part of natural selection. Everybody is a winner!"

http://www.imanomnivore.com/ns2.php

It's incredibly simplistic, but it illustrates my point. I feel like we're in the second example now. Would that look like faster evolution? Sure, erratic unguided mutations could be perceived as faster evolution. I really don't think that's evidence of natural selection though. The opposite in fact.

[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 9:52 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2008 9:44:29 PM

The thing is, we know certain groups reproduce more than others currently.

9/27/2008 9:51:00 PM

Such as?

9/27/2008 9:52:23 PM

Hispanics more than the American average. Blacks and Asians more than whites. I believe poorer folks tend to have more children as well, though I can't find data on that for the United States.

9/27/2008 10:00:52 PM

"Poor" is not a genetic trait unless you really do believe in social Darwinism.

I'd say it's arguable that Hispanics and blacks have more children than whites on average for the same reason. Now, azns? You got me.

9/27/2008 10:11:27 PM

Quote :

"That's a value judgment. Nature doesn't care about your values. Sure, the species might be turning fat, stupid, and lazy. There's little evidence of this, but the shift"

except they likely would not be having more children if they were not even able to feed themselves. Not the case though thanks to welfare and foodstamps. They can have a complete litter of kids without the opportunity risk of their older children dying of starvation bc me, you, and the rest of society is subsidizing their family.

Quote :

""Poor" is not a genetic trait "

It is a taught trait with which 15 year old trailer park daughters see their fat mom live off her welfare checks. Than without a positive role model she gets knocked up and becomes a teen mom destined to repeat the cycle.

[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 10:49 PM. Reason : l]

9/27/2008 10:47:56 PM

9/27/2008 10:51:03 PM

^^ kinda like Palin, right?

9/27/2008 10:54:47 PM

Quote :

"except they likely would not be having more children if they were not even able to feed themselves. Not the case though thanks to welfare and foodstamps. They can have a complete litter of kids without the opportunity risk of their older children dying of starvation bc me, you, and the rest of society is subsidizing their family. "

You're delusional.

in MUCH poorer countries than the US, with no welfare or foodstamps, people still have tons of kids. Gov. assistance programs likely have very little bearing on how much kids people have. It seems to be more coupled with education, than anything... there was actually a fairly comprehensive study done a while back, but I can't remember its title or who did it. It covered all these issues very thoroughly.

I would recommend watching this show though: http://video.aol.com/partner/hulu/30-days-minimum-wage/2cWjlNcvX2cvo0RFHrSRXlIdJKFI-xyo

The guy who did that Supersize Me movie lives as someone on minimum wage for 30 Days.

9/27/2008 10:57:07 PM

they may have tons of kids, but how many of those kids live long enough to reproduce?

9/27/2008 11:02:26 PM

^^ok, this was part of my point. people have as many kids as they want no prob

[Edited on September 27, 2008 at 11:04 PM. Reason : low infant mortality rates ftw]

9/27/2008 11:04:11 PM

here is a good argument for the proposal

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3627454/

9/27/2008 11:37:17 PM

Quote :

""Poor" is not a genetic trait unless you really do believe in social Darwinism."

As long the currently poor have somewhat different genes, though, that doesn't matter. Those genes will become more prevalent because the higher birth rates.

9/28/2008 10:00:13 AM

No.

Unless you believe, as I've already mentioned, that there are GENETIC TRAITS THAT CAUSE YOU TO BE POOR, all you're gonna get is a random smattering of genetic traits passed on. Which could be shared just as equally by rich people. And also there's nothing stopping rags->riches and viceversa that completely blow your shit out of the water.

Also, you need to consider that without any sort of significant natural selection acting on people, the increased prevalence of those traits is going to be a lot less noticeable. I'd like to bring up this wiki image, bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics:



Imagine if the yellow dudes (not resistant) didn't die off, but simply had a few less offspring than the red (resistant). The effect in the final population would be a lot less prominent. The nonresistant would still be around just in slightly smaller numbers. I think that's we have with society today.

9/28/2008 10:16:47 AM

Quote :

"GENETIC TRAITS THAT CAUSE YOU TO BE POOR"

I would argue that having genes for being a "bigger" person or having genes that promoted higher intelligence are genetic traits that make it easier to be successful in life. No coincidence is the fact that Archie Manning had two NFL playing sons. Archie's parenting and emphasis on football ultimately set the two players down the path but they had a genetic foundation to be good football players.

9/28/2008 12:09:14 PM

and Archie's social and professional connections to the NFL...

9/28/2008 12:14:56 PM

hahahaahah

yea

9/28/2008 12:15:33 PM

yeah b.c surely Archie's social and professional connections to the NFL magically turned his sons into very athletic MVP caliber football players

9/28/2008 12:29:02 PM

Eli Manning wouldn't win a Superbowl in San Diego

just sayin

9/28/2008 12:35:59 PM

I like how much this thread has meandered.

9/28/2008 12:37:55 PM

damn right he wouldn't

9/28/2008 12:37:58 PM

I know this is still kind of off topic. I'll make a separate thread if anyone thinks that's appropriate.

This is kind of what I was talking about earlier:

Quote :

"Evolution stops here: Future Man will look the same, says scientist "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1070671/Evolution-stops-Future-Man-look-says-scientist.html

I haven't considered the validity of some of his points, but the main one is that most people live to sexual maturity which is quite different than it used to be. I agree.

10/7/2008 3:14:28 PM