Is evolution going backwards?

This is an interesting thread. Two quick points I noticed that keep getting glossed over:One:

quote:

---

2) Humans in economically developed countries are less likely to pass on their genes than those in poorer countries. This is just a fact.
  —sfs

---

Except Mormons. Seriously, don't forget that even economically developed countries with low or negative growth rates have population sub-sets (religious, ethnic) with very high growth rates. In cases like N. Ireland and Kossovo the 'wealth= more fit" argument hardly worked as these (typically) poorer population subsets (Catholics, Albanians) eventually overwhelmed the wealthier ones.Two: Humans DO compete with other organisms for food and resources. Since the dawn of time we have struggled to prevent insects, rodents, bacteria, predators (etc) from consuming resources - crops & livestock - that we want for ourselves.This message has been edited by custard, 02-23-2005 15:59 AM

This is for Queztal and Banana Boy:kuro5hin.orgI read this article (a similar one) a while back about how prolific Ghengis Khan was "Genghis Khan's direct patrilineal descendants today constitute ~8% of men in a large area of Asia (~0.5% of the world population). "That would be an argument for contracycle, I suppose, to show the impact war can have on the gene pool: specifically, successful conquerers' influence on the gene pool.But I agree with both Q and ABB that disease has had a much greater impact on the human gene pool than war/conflict - except the Great Flood of course.

quote:

---

Unless you've just stepped out of your time machine and have access to information the rest of us don't I think it is more than a little premature to claim that the Catholics in Northern Ireland have "overwhelmed" the Protestants.
  —mangytiger

---

I, uh, used a computer projection.. that's it! I stand by my Kossovo example though.(Darn Limeys!)