Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
I still don't get your overall point. What does survival of the species have to do with the discussion? If we're talking specific examples it doesn't come into play. Survival of the species is only relevant when viewing the larger picture.
|
I'm not sure that I understand the relevance either. If you're talking about group selection, most biologists would argue that it is a very weak force compared to genic selection. Natural selection does not appear to have designed organisms that reproduce for the "good of the species".
Quote:
|
Actually, it's a bit of an exaggeration to say I have bad genes. Speaking in terms of heritage, evidence points to my genes being quite strong. It's only the one specific subset that's bad and I only have a 5% chance of passing that on to future offspring.
|
That and evolution by natural selection is a very slow process generally. I don't see how it would be possible to judge "bad genes" within a single generation (Or even across 5 or 10 generations).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
geez--the study produces a profile of the sexual-aesthetic preferences of a group of 200 18-22 year olds.
no wonder it's so rife with cliche.
no offense.
harumph.
|
I don't know anything about the primary article discussed in the OP, but David Schmitt's sample referenced in the OP article is a bit more diverse than 200 18-22 year olds. His International Sexuality Description Project (Schmitt et al., 2003) includes samples from 56 nations.