Good Morning...

[fallenfool]

Fair warning, if you're not into evolutionary biology, genetics, social history and sexual dynamics, this is gonna bore you to tears...

Oh and it's not meant to be taken hugely seriously, just spouting a few threads going thru my head recently. :D

Comments

[fallenfool]

Well, that's evolution for you, it's always seemed to be a case of chance over skill. A finch with a better beak doesn't know it's better evolved than it's surrounding generation. To the finch, it's just blind chance that a mutation has expressed in that generation. We know it's not blind chance but we have the benefit of impartial observation.

It may seem like blind chance, when bullets are zinging about and bombs raining down, that anyone survives war but view from an impartial standpoint and what you find is the survivors are generally, better suited to survive. Take two people, both of whom get shot in exactly the same place, one dies, one survives. The survivor, by definition, is fitter.

Good point though.

Secondly, conscription for war, which has existed in our society since pre-feudalism at least, had very little to do with suitability for war it had everything to do with availability for war. There's been plenty of periods where the crops were brought in by the women 'cos all the men had been conscripted to fight. (Check out Henry VIII's constant wars with France.) Those men who weren't conscripted were unsuitable for war (because of injury or congential defect) or able to avoid conscription in some regard. This makes them either unsuitable for field work or too hoighty-toighty to do field work anyway. Basically put, they had no chance to survive or were positioned to survive anyway due to strength of lineage.

You know, it's pretty much accepted genetic theory (at the moment) that genetic changes express because of environmental changes. Too many men leading to a slant to females in the birth ratio? Just a thought.

Thanks for joining in.