Using a cinder block as a driver's seat not a good idea

[SineSwiper]

Wait...what?

[Tessian]

where the hell was this?? No state in the US would find that car fit to drive... and what idiot drives a car where it's really obvious it's missing most of the parts that make up a car?

[RentCavalier]

That...that...

what?

[Zeus]

Darwinism at its best :-)

[Julius Seeker]

Darwinism at its best :-)

Just an observation: for a term so widely used on the Internet, the information highway, it is surprising how rarely it is actually used accurately (or even close to accurately).

[Zeus]

Sorry, Seek, I'll try and use it better

But please, inform me of how to use it "accurately" so I do not make the same mistake again in the future

[Julius Seeker]

Sorry, Seek, I'll try and use it better

But please, inform me of how to use it "accurately" so I do not make the same mistake again in the future

Haha, and by accurately I mean correctly =P

Anyway, Darwinism is the statistical analysis of an existing feature or trend in a population and how it will increase or decrease the liklihood that the organisms with this feature will reproduce given certain environments. Darwin also took Malthusian prinicples into account (which focusses on humans, largely on population growth vs. food production and growth) but applied them to animal populations (ie. fox population goes up, rabbit population goes down).

How it applies to Human Populations, Social Darwinisms, was a theory that came as a result of Herbert Spencer (not Charles Darwin) who essentially believed in purifying the human race by euthanising or sterilizing all of the lower class; his theory was essentially, eliminate poverty by killing off all the poor.

So something like a 51 year old woman doing something stupid and getting hurt is not at all Darwinism.

[Flip]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =darwinism

Popular everyday slang has nothing to do with the poor being eliminated. Meanings get transformed all the time, so while Zues's doesnt exactly apply since the lady lived, youre just as wrong, Seek.

[Julius Seeker]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =darwinism

Popular everyday slang has nothing to do with the poor being eliminated. Meanings get transformed all the time, so while Zues's doesnt exactly apply since the lady lived, youre just as wrong, Seek.

You are using the Urban dictionary -of all sources; which, I will tell you right now, is not a valid source by any singificant standard.- written by people on the Internet, citing other people on the Internet, to argue against a point which states that people on the Internet are incorrect on that particular point. I found a picture for you:

[RentCavalier]

Its not Darawnism because she is A) Still alive and still capable of reproducing.

[SineSwiper]

You are using the Urban dictionary -of all sources; which, I will tell you right now, is not a valid source by any singificant standard.- written by people on the Internet, citing other people on the Internet, to argue against a point which states that people on the Internet are incorrect on that particular point.

So, Seeker, a guy that loves to post on the Internet, is suddenly a "valid source" of information?

Actually, both definition of Darwinism fit, if she died that is. If somebody does something stupid and dies, or at the very least renders him/herself incapable of reproducing, those selection of genes combined in that order are lost, due to natural selection. Thus, stupid acts are punished by Darwinism.

Or to take your definition:

Anyway, Darwinism is the statistical analysis of an existing feature or trend (stupidity) in a population (human population) and how it will increase or decrease (dying) the liklihood that the organisms with this feature will reproduce (dead men don't reproduce) given certain environments (civilized countries).

Also, people have this misconception that just because it took billions of years for humans to become who they are, that we can't evolve in the short term. We can especially see it with cycles of mating patterns over the course of just a few generations.

Blacks could be more well-endowed (both men and women) because of slavery, which promoted white men to choose who lived and who died (slave markets) based on how they looked and if they were strong enough. On the other hand, the average penis size of the rich (small) versus the poor (big) could be explained with a fiercer natural selection process within the poorer communities. Japanese populations were isolated to themselves, which may have had an effect on their sexual organs (both male and female).

Sexual features aren't the only thing that could evolve from the short term, but it's the most noticeable because of the direct connection to reproducing, especially in civilized life. Others would include: redheads, that we commonly say have tempers, because it could be a common gene linkage.

[Kupek]

I doubt sexual selection would impact human genitalia size since we don't display it. Generally, the decision to have sex is made before the genitalia is seen.

[RentCavalier]

Whatever happened to "when in doubt, whip it out?"

[Zeus]

Its not Darawnism because she is A) Still alive and still capable of reproducing.

Now this is a far better counter-point than Seek's. This actually takes what is the common usage of the term "Darwinism" (survival of the fittest) and says "yes, but she still survived" to counteract the initial point.

Seek, at its core, Darwinism is really just "survival of the fittest" and nothing else regardless of how many articles are written about it. There's a whole freakin' theoretical arguement, media and books, and even some crappy science around it, but it all boils back down to that one thing. Without it, the entire idea of Darwinism disappears. And it common usage of the term, when you say "that's just an example of Darwinism", what you're really saying is "that person/animal has been removed from the gene pool because they're not fit enough to survive"; or "they're so fucking stupid they're gone". It's such an accepted definition of the term that the Darwin Awards are handed out every year based on the very idea of "survival of the fittest" and nothing else.

The only thing that shows that I used it wrong is the fact that she survived, as Rent pointed out. Anything else is just someone trying to develop an overly complicated definition of what Darwinism is to try to make themselves feel/appear to be smarter.

[Flip]

Its not Darawnism because she is A) Still alive and still capable of reproducing.

Now this is a far better counter-point than Seek's. This actually takes what is the common usage of the term "Darwinism" (survival of the fittest) and says "yes, but she still survived" to counteract the initial point.

Seek, at its core, Darwinism is really just "survival of the fittest" and nothing else regardless of how many articles are written about it. There's a whole freakin' theoretical arguement, media and books, and even some crappy science around it, but it all boils back down to that one thing. Without it, the entire idea of Darwinism disappears. And it common usage of the term, when you say "that's just an example of Darwinism", what you're really saying is "that person/animal has been removed from the gene pool because they're not fit enough to survive"; or "they're so fucking stupid they're gone". It's such an accepted definition of the term that the Darwin Awards are handed out every year based on the very idea of "survival of the fittest" and nothing else.

The only thing that shows that I used it wrong is the fact that she survived, as Rent pointed out. Anything else is just someone trying to develop an overly complicated definition of what Darwinism is to try to make themselves feel/appear to be smarter.

Of course, which is why urban dictionary applies to well to issues like this since it shows the usage for all us 'commoners'.

[Zeus]

I agree, Flip. I was just trying to show Seek how his new-aged, "scientific" term of Darwinism is irrelevant in most of society aside from maybe some academic circles. And most of the time, those people are just trying to act smart (Kupek, I didn't mean it against all academics, just certain ones; I actually have a lot more respect for true academics than most here would think, there just isn't very many of them, particularly in the psychology field).

I've heard a lot of people argue about Darwinism being so much more than just "survival of the fittest" but really, it's not. I have yet to see any evidence of anything that isn't the application of that very term. There are MANY applications of the term (I often refer to the business world or capitalism as the purest form of "social Darwinism"; anyone who's an office worker can certainly attest that it's very much a dog-eat-dog world; hell, any organizational structure is essentially a wolf pack hierarchy) but it really is just one idea at the end of the day. It's not even that there's been any spin-off ideas that I've heard of, it's just "in this setting, this is how survival of the fittest is applied".

It's just not complicated. Simple and oh so true, that's why it's such a strong idea that has survived as long as it has.

[kent]

It's just not complicated. Simple and oh so true, that's why it's such a strong idea that has survived as long as it has.

it's never really been "survival of the fittest", it's really "survival of the fit enough". that's why the appendix still exists, unless the trait hinders reproduction (serious stupidity), you don't have to be a genius (fittest) to survive.

[Zeus]

It's just not complicated. Simple and oh so true, that's why it's such a strong idea that has survived as long as it has.

it's never really been "survival of the fittest", it's really "survival of the fit enough". that's why the appendix still exists, unless the trait hinders reproduction (serious stupidity), you don't have to be a genius (fittest) to survive.

Technically, "fittest" would imply that ultimately, it would be the most fit who would survive. But, if resources allow, say, 100 people to survive, it would be the 101st "fit" person who would perish. So, yes, you can be "fit enough" to survive and not be the "fittest", but if push ever comes to shove, you're done.

Throw in the fact that our society supports those who are "less fit" and you can really get lots of "unfit" people who survive in the gene pool

[Zeus]

I doubt sexual selection would impact human genitalia size since we don't display it. Generally, the decision to have sex is made before the genitalia is seen.

For the most part, isn't sexual selection not based on genitalia at all? I mean, men are chosen generally for their ability to provide/protect (which explains both why the big and broad and the rich ones are usually most successful) whereas women who are more curvy and busty (biological signs of greater ability to reproduce) are generally more desirable.

[SineSwiper]

I doubt sexual selection would impact human genitalia size since we don't display it. Generally, the decision to have sex is made before the genitalia is seen.

Well, our society is based around having sex early in the relationship. (Unless you count fundies, which I don't.) So, it's pretty easy to break off because the sex ain't happening. Thus, with less sex, there's less of a chance to reproduce.

There's also word of mouth. Don't think that both genders don't talk about sex to their friends. Plenty of gossip out there.

[Tessian]

I found a picture for you:

You do know that is a fake, right? There never was such a product; just something called Photoshop. Poor choice of Fail pictures.

But yes, these days darwinism or darwin in general has come to refer to the act of doing something stupid enough to remove your genes from the pool.

[SineSwiper]

You do know that is a fake, right? There never was such a product; just something called Photoshop. Poor choice of Fail pictures.

DVD Rewinder: Yes It's Real

Probably either a gag gift or something to steal money from the stupid.

[Tessian]

You do know that is a fake, right? There never was such a product; just something called Photoshop. Poor choice of Fail pictures.

DVD Rewinder: Yes It's Real

Probably either a gag gift or something to steal money from the stupid.

That is a) horribly sad, and b) suspect. Why did I get a virus warning trying to go to the product link (on your gizmodo link, not the gizmodo link itself)?