NORWICH, United Kingdom — Charles Darwin’s natural selection theory is being put to the test. Darwin’s theory expounded that organisms which can better adapt to their environment are more likely to survive and produce more offspring. However, a new study by British researchers reveals natural selection may be making society more unequal.
Researchers from the University of East Anglia find that natural selection is favoring poorer people with little education. The study “shows how natural selection effects are stronger in groups with lower income and less education, among younger parents, people not living with a partner, and people with more lifetime sexual partners.”
On the flip side, natural selection “is pushing against genes” associated with highly educated individuals, people who have more lifetime earnings, those who have a low risk of ADHD or major depressive disorders, and those with a lower risk of coronary artery disease.
“Darwin’s theory of evolution stated that all species develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce,” says lead researcher David Hugh-Jones, a professor from UEA’s School of Economics, in a university release. “We wanted to find out more about which characteristics are selected for and against in contemporary humans, living in the UK.”
‘Polygenic scores’ prove Darwin’s natural selection theory no longer valid?
Researchers analyzed the polygenic scores of more than 300,000 people in the United Kingdom, taken from the UK Biobank, which is a long-term project investigating the contributions of genetic predisposition and environmental exposure to the development of disease. The polygenic scores estimate a person’s genetic liability, a prediction of their health, education, lifestyle, or personality.
Researchers then used data on two generations of people living in the U.K. by looking at their number of siblings and number of children.
“We found that 23 out of 33 polygenic scores were significantly linked to a person having more or fewer children over their lifetime,” explains Hugh-Jones. “Scores which correlated with lower earnings and education predicted having more children, meaning those scores are being selected for from an evolutionary perspective.”
Meanwhile, researchers say scores correlating to those with higher earnings and better education predicted having fewer children, “meaning that they are being selected against.”
“Natural selection could be making society more unequal, by increasing the correlation between income and polygenic scores, including scores that predict health and education outcomes,” the study author continues.
Using the economic theory of fertility, researchers say those with higher earnings can afford more children. However, since it is costly to spend time on childcare instead of their job, they will miss out on higher wages.
“The first effect leads people to have more children, the second effect leads them to have fewer,” Hugh-Jones concludes.
The study is published in the journal Behavior Genetics.
Those on the lower socioeconomic scale are subsidized by government welfare, handouts, and social services that are worth billions of dollars, while the educated and higher income families are not eligible for this money. I suspect that when the numbers are tallied, it is those on the low end of the scale that use this tax free social welfare to have larger families and get free daycare, free medical care, subsidized housing, and more. This study failed to account for this.
you are 100% correct on this fact
duh. I figured all that out in high school. But in the long run it’s the human capacity for empathy that brings this about and will bring down, or at least slow down the human race as a result. But this is social evolution, not biological evolution. So in the end, Darwin still gets it right.
Absolutely correct sir!
Darwin said the opposite is true. He never said ANYTHING about equality. This is Woke nonsense
Correct. Evolution has nothing to do with equality or economics, or any human preference.
It is simply a matter of amplifying those characteristics that increase the likelihood of reproducing those characteristics.
It is a simple concept, and applicable to many things.
The willfully ignorant like JB, just can’t manage to figure it out.
Evolution is nonsense. Absurd! Most evolutionists will admit they are sinners. If man evolved from apes, why are we sinners? Apes and animals don’t sin. Sin is proof of creation. The first humans sinned and that nature to do so is imputed to everyone at birth. (Rom. 5:12)
“Evolution is nonsense. Absurd! Most evolutionists will admit they are sinners.” – Jim Black
Now that’s comedy.
Darwin rejected the obvious since he rejected the clear evidence of creation that lead us to the Creator of heaven and earth. there is no evidence in the fossil records of any species changing its kind. Birds with big and small beaks are still Birds. God created animals after their kind. Same goes for all creations. Evolution is a lie and scientific studies clearly rejects evolution.
Gary seems to be a few neurons short of a dozen.
Classic American Republican.
You will not find many here that would agree with you.
Darwin’s theory is just that, a theory, not proven, but taught as fact. Not one transitional fossil, from one species to another has ever been found. Darwin’s theory has man creating himself, a lesser species, creating a greater species, transferring what it doesn’t have to another. When one looks at the chart that is supposed to show human evolution, they always start with an ape-like creature, but what was it before that? That they can’t answer, and they call us dumb. LOL
There is plenty of evidence for evolution though perhaps not in your case.
What? No evidence of change? I honestly feel sorry for you. I truly do. All I can guess is you get your science from “Answers in Genesis”. Sad.
William Petite you are a product of a failed school system. What William has missed is the concept of a theory. Everything is a theory. The combustion engine, accounting, making moonshine, you name it. It’s a theory. I studied the theory of accounting at college and made a life of it as a profession. Proof comes in the scientific method and most probably William is referring to the hypothesis stage. Totally different from a theory. However, those who know have moved on yeaarrrsss ago as yes you guessed right the hypothesis keeps passing the test on evolution.
The movie Idioocracy is almost a documentary.
Many Republicans think it is a documentary, just like star wars and the marvel movies.
Beat me to it. This is literally the plot of Idiocracy.
You do appear to be correct. This article is essentially a Cliff Notes version of the movie.
The whole idea of natural selection has been debunked by ‘irreducible complexity’ right from the basics of physiological structure. Why attempt to take it into the socioeconomic aspects of human existence??
Debunked by your pastor?
Debunked by some Sunday morning clown show?
Your Republican ignorance makes me laugh.
Vendicar person: Reverting to name-calling suggests that you are defensive and therefore find Seans (and others) opinion valid.
You unbridled emotionalism springing forth from a strong political bent indicates a severe case of whoa is me.
This from a Biden acolyte, hilarious.
Healthcare is free to all in the UK. Education is free to all in the UK. Need I go on?
If the brits only had dentistry!
Was that tongue-in-cheek?
Whats your point and do you really think its free?
It is not free. Someone has to pay for it, i.e., the productive
“Someone has to pay for it – the productive” – Thomas Felix
Said the unproductive little cog.
“Healthcare is free in the U.K.?” Are you kidding? It is anything but free. And, the healthcare sucks for many people. I know a Brit, who came here on a Visa and opened a business. He told me how bad the insurance is there, and how much he pays. I was shocked. He buys health insurance here, so he can get the care he needs, when he needs it.
Liar.. Liar.. Pants on Fire…
Not necessarily a lie. You have no idea. My son’s in-laws are Canadian. They get all their major health care needs met in the U.S. Have knee pain? Get in line and wait 4-6 months for an MRI. This applies to most diagnostic testing. Then get in line for a surgical date.
And the word “free” for any government program should be eradicated from our language. The closest one can get is “at not direct cost for the user”. We all pay for every “free” government program. The government produces nothing. The only money it has is that taken from the people or that which it prints.
“My son’s in-laws are Canadian. They get all their major health care needs met in the U.S.” – Galapagos
Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire…
My brother had a stroke 10 years ago. MRI wait – zero minutes.
My mother had a stroke 20 years ago. MRI wait – 15 minutes – they had to call in a doctor.
My left eye turned inward 2 years ago. Could have been a stroke, although not likely. Wait time 1 hour.
After diagnosis I was taxied to an optometrist to do an evaluation. Wait time 5 minutes.
Sen. Rand Paul Joins Rising Number of Americans Going Abroad for Healthcare
The senator isn’t the only American traveling north across the border in search of lower cost or specialized medical care.
There is nothing as expensive as a free government program lol…. Free ? What it cost you in liberty and unrealized earning potential you will never learn or understand.. So wedded are the English to the government tit.
Americans are free to be denied health care, and are free to become homeless and destitute.
Americans are free to cower in their homes, fearful that their neighbors will break into their house, kill them and steal their stuff.
They are free to fear walking the streets at night out of fear of being mugged, raped, and or killed.
Europeans don’t have such freedoms and are thankful for it.
Tell that to the people of Denmark.
1) Any emergency room will provide health care to the needed.
2) I don’t live in fear in my house or outside. I and my family have a conceal carry permit (not required now). We carry our protect in the form of 13 round 9mm semi-automatic hand gun. We are well trained to use our firearms.
3) Most EU countries and the Brits gave up that right to protect themselves.
You have seen too many Hollywood-movies. This is only the situation in big, Democrat-run cities. In rural Republican-run counties the situation is BETTER than most of Europe.
BAM….. your new arrivals showing up in dingies are going to give you the Chicago, NYC, Philadelphia, SF, LA, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, St.Louis experience.
That’s why most want to come to this free nation. What’s the UK immigration numbers compared to the U.S. either legal or illegal?
Only people living in areas Democrats have controlled for decades are fearful. Americans living in other areas can affort to buy their healthcare and don’t have to rely on charity (or government handouts). They can also afford to buy their own home which are larger than European homes. We also are free to pack and don’t have to worry about cops arriving after the bad guys have left. If you want to live in Europe go ahead. But since immigration is the sincerest form of flattery, most people that want to immigrate want to come to the America.
Climb down off that moral high ground, you have no right to criticize anyone. You have illegals homeless and destitute living on the streets of Europe’s largest cities. You have rampant crime from those same illegals with women being raped in incredible numbers. You have home invasions because none of you are allowed to own handguns. You have two different cultures, two different civilizations, in England, France and Germany with your millions of Muslims who will never assimilate into the larger society of European Christian civilization. Look to your own dark future when you and your descendants will be living under Muslim rule.
VD = Indentured statist servant posting for Big Brother
Hey Kahn, how many aliases do you troll by now?
At least we are free (for now anyway).
“Tell that to the people of Denmark.” – Atomic5050
In Denmark most medical service is free at the point of delivery, and co-payments apply mostly for non-medical services. Danish private healthcare insurances cannot buy or expedite procedures in the public system but are intended for Denmark’s much smaller private healthcare sector.
“Climb down off that moral high ground, you have no right to criticize anyone” – Claire Munich
Murder Rate per 100,000
“I don’t live in fear in my house or outside. I and my family have a conceal carry permit ” – BAMABADGER
The fact that you feel a need to carry a gun when you go outside for a walk proves that you fear for your safety.
“I’m not afraid because I am so fearful I purchased a gun”
The world is laughing at your vacuous duplicity.
“That’s why most want to come to this free nation.” – John S. Turd
On average “between two-and-a-half to three million legal migrants every year [arrive in] the European Union … compared with 150,000-200,000 that arrive irregularly,”
Under the immigration levels plan presented by the immigration minister, Canada plans to welcome 431,645 permanent residents this year, 447,055 next year, and 451,000 in 2024. Under that previous immigration plan, Canada was to welcome 411,000 new permanent residents in 2022 and 421,000 in 2023.
Approximately .01 percent of the population.
Last year there were about 1.6 million legal and .4 million illegal immigrants to the U.S. about .007 percent of the population.
So on a per capita basis, Canada and Europe bring in much higher numbers of immigrants than the U.S. does.
“But since immigration is the sincerest form of flattery, most people that want to immigrate want to come to the America.” – Scott.
Europe and even Canada have much higher levels of immigration compared to the U.S.
America is best known for two things.
uk medical stinks,your ed system sucks,your mil sucks, you are socialists faiures and now you rejoice as your spread infects usa
Meanwhile U.S. life expectancy has been falling for the last 10 years and is now equal to that of China.
America = Pathetic Failure.
Life expectancy is falling mostly due to the immigrant population who arrive in abysmal conditions of health related to disease and malnutrition, oh brilliant one. It has been further decreased in the past 2-3 years by fentanyl overdoses. Add in gang violence and there you have it.
Is China also a pathetic failure?
“Life expectancy is falling mostly due to the immigrant population” – Galapagos
Liar.. Liar… Pants on fire..
“It has been further decreased in the past 2-3 years by fentanyl overdoses” – Galapagos
Ya, so? Those deaths greatly enriched the Sackler family and many businesses.
That’s American Capitalism Baby.
Life expectancy is falling due to a certain bad call from a British doctor about a simple harmless coronavirus (a cold) and the need to uptake a largely untested concoction to combat it. Thanks for that (plonkers).
So, Idiocracy wasn’t a cautionary tale but a history book?
And how much time, energy and money did it take for these Intellectuals to reach this conclusion that could have been learned with 1 hr. and 24 minutes and a $10 dollar rental fee?
No wonder they’re losing.
JB Rich people having fewer children has been happening since at least the start of the industrial revolution, even when there was no safety net. Your causation theory is smug and incorrect.
That’s the primary factor in play here. But East Anglia has falsified climate data already. I would expect them to falsify other data as well.
Liar… Liar.. Pants on fire…
East Anglea did not falsify any climate data.
Brilliant retort. Problem is, they did.
You are also a liar.
A few thousand Personal Emails were copied from the University of East Anglea servers – probably by Russia, and sent to various right wing Kook websites.
The kooks then found three sentences that they could take out of context and make it appear as if the scientists weren’t being honest.
Over the years, a myth has developed around those three sentences – 3 out of tens of thousands – that they prove that data was falsified.
That myth is a lie.
This has all been well documented.
You are a liar.
Hide the decline! Climate scientists who take government grants to find the existence of climate change are more biased and dishonest than OJ Simpson’s lawyers.
Yup, 100,000 words in the “stolen” emails and you take three out of context and use them to support your LIE.
“The e-mail archives stolen last month from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, have been greeted by the climate-change-denialist fringe as a propaganda windfall (see page 551). To these denialists, the scientists’ scathing remarks about certain controversial palaeoclimate reconstructions qualify as the proverbial ‘smoking gun’: proof that mainstream climate researchers have systematically conspired to suppress evidence contradicting their doctrine that humans are warming the globe.
This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.” – Nature Science Journal
Yes, everything is a massive Russian conspiracy. And all embarrassing revelations are just taken out of context. Only things that confirm you bias are legit. Must be nice to have everything so simple in your little mind.
“Yes, everything is a massive Russian conspiracy.” – Bobert
Really? You sound like a Republican Kook.
Oh wait…. You are a Magat Kook.
Right. They falsified ALL of it.
Ah, JB the retard thinks that economically the Poor who live a subsistence life on welfare are better off than having billions of dollars.
This idiocy actually makes sense in the three neuron brains of modern Republicanoids.
He’s not saying they are “better off” just making the point that subsidies are at play here. If they were not given vaccines and healthcare and food then their children would be dying of diseases and starvation at high rates prior to breeding. While the Higher Intellects would be having fewer offspring, they would be living much longer and breeding successfully at higher rates overall.
since there is neither an explosion of relative poverty or relative wealth, over the last several thousand years, I conclude that the system is largely in equilibrium.
What do you conclude?
Dear Mr. Liar,
Thanks for self-identifying.
It seems the best way to fix that would be to give everyone access to good healthcare and daycare.
America allows bad habits to reproduce easily and good habits not so much. Wayo go American masonry. America is garbage being disposed of. Hit the button.
I would call it devolution
I’m not sure why they are bringing Darwin into social constructs. Darwin is about NATURAL selection. Where as humans have a host of nonsense meddling with the nature of humans. Such as bending human behavior with laws and tax code. It’s not Darwin’s fault that society rewards the wrong things.
From a scientific perspective, everything that happens in our societies is part of the natural world. And any selection that happens is part of natural selection. There are many species where the critters live in a social matrix and their success is tied to how well their pack/tribe does and also to what standing they have in that society.
“Darwin is about NATURAL selection.”
False. It is a general principle that applies to most if not all naturally occurring self optimizing systems.
Darwinian Evolution applies to optimization to fit within social constructs just as well as those in the natural environment.
False. It is not a general principle. It is, however, an unscientific and self-debunked theory.
“It is, however, an unscientific and self-debunked theory.”- Vox Viagra
Well, you should inform the worlds scientists about your discovery. Right now they are laughing at you.
Then society is currently leading itself to collapse and we should learn from past failures before succumbing to natural selection ourselves.
Social selection killed off many societies before us.
The Romans were overcome by the mob of social parasites, just as we are today.
The Mayans destroyed all the nearby farmable land for their cities.
The Egyptians fell from the bloat of their government pyramid building weakened them economically and they could not defend themselves from other empires.
So many instances where societal structures collapsed, due to poor societal choices.
False? Are you a child? Reflexively arguing with everyone about everything without even reading? Darwin makes a distinction between “artificial selection” and “Natural Selection”. His work is literally about “natural selection”. He clearly wasn’t referring to human induced social experiments. Pretending otherwise is simply idiotic and you need to stop spamming replies for attention and go to your room.
This is probably true at this point in time, but Darwin’s theory assumed a long period of time for selection to take place and he didn’t figure in human civilization and society in his theory.
Darwin’s theory doesn’t assume anything about evolutionary speed. A slow rate of evolution – compared to human history – is a consequence of the mechanism, and not an assumption.
People don’t live in nature. We live in a society of our own design. We will evolve guided by our man made environment and not nature. Anyone seen the movie Gattaca?
Well said. At least you were able to apply a critical eye to this data even when the researchers were not. This isn’t natural selection at all, it’s artificial selection in an artificial environment created by the government.
The tragedy is the same observations were made by Francis Galton back in Victorian times. The people on this website are obviously unaware of this fact.
JB is exactly right. We are subsidizing bad behavior. If you want to see natural selection make everyone pay their own way.
Actually you may have crocodile sperm derived from your mother’s Uncle.
Correct. We humans prop up the weak and short circuit natural selection. I have been saying that for years.
True, and is the reason that the Republican states should be expelled from the union.
They are parasites on the country as a whole.
The Republican states you refer to receive larger federal government support because (if you checked the facts) they generally have much higher minority populations utilizing federal welfare dollars.
We have so many safety nets that most the poor (with homes) and uneducated live with more luxuries than kings of the Middle Ages. Natural selection research can’t include those who are provided for.
Poncho is upset that he is a wage slave.
This is old news. People who make more money tend to have fewer children, a fact that India and China have been counting on for decades. It may even save us from the “population Bomb”, as women acquire mor wealth. Selection theory was never about how nice your life was, it was always about how much of your genetic material you got into succeeding generations. Over the past twelve decades or so, a larger and larger portion of the human population has been brought out of poverty, and are now having fewer children, supposedly. If true socio-economic fators should fade as a driver of fitness.
Poor people have always had more children, because there was and is a higher chance that a given poor child will die young, and not get a chance to reproduce. A real test of the “evolutionary success” of different classes of people would require looking several generations deep, say at which group born a century ago had more living great-grandchildren today. Which means we can’t really know from studies the long-term effects of policies adopted in recent decades.
My theory still works perfectly, its not “natural” selection when you penalize success and subsidize failure
Americans have been subsidizing the Republican states for more than a century.
Let them die.
So you’re a racist. Because those Republican states are full of Hispanic and Blacks living on welfare.
Your ignorance knows no bounds. You might do some actual research instead of spouting talking points.
The blue states and cities are the hotbeds of poverty, crime and violence. It is the blue states that try to counter their egregious tax rates by allowing them to be deducted from their federal taxes. The blue states are the ones that people are escaping in large numbers. And on and on.
And, as noted, you have managed to turn a scientific/social discussion into an infantile political one with insults to anyone you don’t agree with and slurs on states and political parties.
AP FACT CHECK: Blue high-tax states fund red low-tax states
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican leaders have spent months promoting the myth that red low-tax states are subsidizing blue high-tax states because of the deduction for state and local taxes.
An Associated Press Fact Check finds it’s actually the other way around. High-tax, traditionally Democratic states (blue), subsidize low-tax, traditionally Republican states (red) — in a big way.
That was my first thought. People eligible for subsidized parenting have a lower cost economically for child rearing. These benefits should be available to everyone to be fair.
Exactly. None of it is natural selection anymore when you have (1) birth control and (2) social welfare states. We also keep people alive that would have otherwise died in nature, or allow families to reproduce when nature wouldn’t have normally allowed it (IVF, surrogacy, etc.).
“We also keep people alive that would have otherwise died in nature”
They don’t reproduce and hence are a genetic dead end.
Perhaps we need to require sterilization in trade for getting free government monies.
The Nazi’s tried that.
Didn’t work out too well.
Evolution and creationism are THEORIES and remain unproven, just not disproved!
Meanwhile COVID continues to evolve into more competent forms.
Nothing is obvious to the willfully ignorant.
I think this is mainly a consequence of the better educated and higher income segment of the population choosing not to have as many offspring in order to improve their life outcomes and the belief that having fewer children will save the planet.
Social evolution and biological evolution are two entirely different things.
This study completely ignores that Darwin’s theory applied to biological evolution and adaptation, and not societal forces.
In reading the responses to the article I am struck by the sheer amount of name calling and other disparagement from those discussing evolutionary theory and verification. Please don’t. There are legitimate questions to be asked, whether by creationists or those who believe evolution to be fully validated. I was looking for some views on ‘irreducible complexity’. Guessing I won’t get them here.
Could there be some confusion about correlation vs causation in some of these findings? The sample size that is described seems awfully small to draw any sort of expansive conclusions in my view.
Who cares, they don’t apply to evolution.
Who cares about VD?
Only those who don’t want him.
Everybody loves VD. Especially Americans who live in the Republican hillbilly states.
Wow! We figured that’s what you were. You’re always on the couch playing on the Internet!
Natural selection never meant “better.” It purely meant selecting for traits that ensured a better chance of survival. It’s not “wrong” because unfortunate people are having more offspring. It just is the reality of the animal that we call human.
My ex and his parents are phasing their family out for money and I honestly hav no problem with this thought process dying out.
My family is doing the same. Namely the cops in the family are using fusion centers to murder for inheritance. They are broke losers living beyond their means stealing from others.
Are they eating their children?
It’s the Democrat way, eh VD?
No, they’re aborting them.
Abortion sends babies to Godly paradise faster.
I’m sure you agree.
What if the lower earners did not have their children subsidized? Perhaps the reasons for the findings have less to do with genetics and more to do with policy and culture.
What makes you think that evolution ignores policy and culture?
If their children weren’t subsidized they would die early from disease and starvation. The Higher Intelligence would still be having fewer kids, but they would live longer to keep breeding. It would be a much better future for the planet. Fewer Humans, Become more and more Intelligent.
The classic way that parents react to an environment where their children have a low mortality rate is to produce more children.
Back in the mid 1900’s child mortality was as 30% or higher. Family sizes averaged around 8 or so to compensate.
VD has devolved all the way back to the agrarian society.
Shh…Don’t tell her.
We thought the movie “Idiocracy” was a comedy, turns out it was a documentary.
A documentary or prophesy? Mike Judge was interviewed 10 years after the movie was made. He declared that he was NOT a prophet. He predicted humanity’s outcome 490 years too late!
Nothing new here. The future has always belonged to the people who actually showed up.
Yeah, there is a human intervention at play here. In nature, the weaker humans would suffer more sickness and higher infant mortality. But our efforts for equality has propped the weaker classes up allowing them to thrive. Based on Darwin’s theories, we are weakening the human race as a whole. I personally dont feel that all these poor classes are necessarily all weaker. Many just following the path of least resistance in life. Why set goals, work hard to live when you can not do anything and let the nanny state take care of you, when it provides all you need in life. Sometimes a little suffering is a good motivator.
“But our efforts for equality has propped the weaker classes up allowing them to thrive.”
You mean the wealthy, when you refer to the weaker classes right?
The wealthy have always been parasites on the poor.
Natural selection has not been into play with regards to the health of the population. Medical science has developed to the point that we are saving all types of individuals with health conditions that normally wouldn’t survive.
Yes, but those health conditions are being passed on. Also natural selection is not only about health. It’s about traits.
“Those health conditions are being passed on.”
Of course. It is evolution in action.
Idiocracy. Watch the film. It’s happening.
Idiocracy is America’s present and oblivion is America’s very near future.
Is that because many in their political circles take ” give us your poor, your tired…” out of context? Next question: Why do so many people from all different religions, ethnicities, and backgrounds risk death to make it to the USA? What do you know that they don’t?
An inscription on the Statue of Liberty is in no way the law. It was a gift from France. Nobody voted on it.
You should send it back. America has never been worthy of it.
“Why do so many people from all different religions, ethnicities, and backgrounds risk death to make it to the USA?”
Oh, that is simple. It’s because they can’t get into a real country.
Why has America’s life expectancy been dropping for over a decade and is now below that of China.
Why has America’s standard of living been dropping against virtually every other country for the last half a century?
Why are Americans so poorly educated compared to the rest of the world?
Republicans blocking any sane effort to improve our country
One word: gimme-gration!
“Why are Americans so poorly educated compared to the rest of the world?”
Because the education industry is run by the teachers union, which is run by the Democrat Party….both shiftless and useless organizations.
Private or home schooling are not a luxury, but rather a necessity.
“Because the education industry is run by the teachers union” – Mark Nedelman
Teachers unions exist in every country, and yet America is at the bottom of the barrel when it comes to eduction.
It’s not teachers unions that are responsible. It is a failure of American Culture that is the problem.
Darwin’s theory doesn’t take into account a species that can artificially control its reproduction. Birth control and abortion upend natural selection. The 2006 movie “Idiocracy” explains it best.
“Darwin’s theory doesn’t take into account a species that can artificially control its reproduction.”
Sure it does. It places no boundary on what is and is not the environment.
Darwin’s theory is for animals humans were created in G-d’s image. We did not evolve from monkeys or negros in Africa. Each human was created in his or hers bread basket about 5000 years ago. Lucy is another species that was created.
Humans are animals… Silly Nilly.
Your God is a vapid fiction invented by goat herders 2,000 years ago.
Get with the program or get off the planet.
The difference in birth rates was well known at the turn of the last century and used to justify the exclusion of Southern and Eastern European immigrants as genetically unfit. Remember “The Passing of the Great Race,” Madison Grant, 1916, written by an American, a chilling blueprint of Replacement Theory, eugenics, sterilization of the “unfit” and Nazism. This present study is only giving statistical “evidence” to what was obvious a hundred years ago – the poor value life, though their many are likely to stay poor, the rich usually value raising rich children, and the middle class middle class children and thus have few, but where is the proof the the gene pool, the talents, the creativity of the poor children is below that of the children of the rich? The study seems to equate “better” with “richer and highly educated.”
John T. Brown, Cincinnati, Ohio
Darwin’s theory is still relevant.
The elite class will shrink with time because they no longer participate in the evolutionary process.
The lower classes will “thrive” because they live in the new jungle, where they face daily obstacles just to survive. Evolution is working just fine.
So Biden-Kamala were right: You will have nothing, and be happy!
People still refer to Darwin’s failed beliefs?
Ya, Darwin’s “failed” beliefs are now the bedrock of biologicals science.
Perhaps you have been stuck on the kook bus all your life.
Biological science and the discovery of the genetic code makes it clear that evolution is a belief in fantasy. Life from non-life, Question where did the extremely complex code come from. fantasy mindless evolution and if you just add enough time and still you come up with delusion.
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
“Biological science and the discovery of the genetic code makes it clear that evolution is a belief in fantasy. Life from non-life”
Actually the discovery of DNA proved one of the proposed characteristics that Darwin posited, was needed for Evolution. Some kind of memory that could be modified and exchanged with others in the same species.
You understanding of Evolution is that of a K-8 child, and you are unable to even distinguish between evolution and origin.
“The wrath of God ”
Is non-existent as your Gawd is a Non-Existent fantasy believed by those who have been trained to lie to themselves and others.
Hey, Ven. You’re not intelligent, you’re just nasty. When you can make point without insulting others perhaps we’ll listen. Perhaps.
I would prefer you don’t listen and remain willfully ignorant and inferior.
There you go. An ignorant rejoinder.
Of course you want people to listen or you wouldn’t be bloviating here.
After reading all of VD’s comments I agree. VD is known to rot the brain.
The theory did not include subsidized existence of the least among us at the expense of the best among us. If you think all living things had social equity as part of their evolution over millions of years then you are part of the problem.
“The theory did not include subsidized existence”
The theory of evolution has nothing to say about what is and is not the reproductive environment.
Could be a test tube, or inside the gut of a TonTon on some ice planet.
Don’t saddle the theory with your own baggage.
The theory was developed in 1859 in places that had 0 scientific influence. I think a new branch of genetic evolutionary science has arrived. So, the Darwin’s theory should not be considered in the presence of test tubes and government subsidies. That can not be compared to what is going on your ice planet.
“The theory was developed in 1859 in places that had 0 scientific influence.”
Your statement is factually wrong, and completely irrelevant.
Darwinian evolution is the stone upon which all modern biology is based.
You are wearing a tin foil cap.
If VD cries out in her dystopian wilderness does anyone hear?
It appears you must have taken part in writing this poorly supported piece of pre-graduate work, by your constant emotional reactions.
Sad that upper education has come to no moron left behind.
someone has leapt to the wrong conclusion. imagine that.
Whoever said Society was supposed to be equal? Certainly not Darwin
The first five minutes of the movie “Idiocracy” sum up the situation perfectly.
American society yes.
The rest of the world is doing fine.
Don’t know where you live but wherever it is your sorry ass and country was probably saved by America at some point in recent history.
It’s the reason you’re not speaking German or Japanese.
America has murdered over 50 million people since it’s creation.
That is why America is hated as a nation.
We are no longer subject to natural selection. If we were every woman would have babies every year and only the fittest would survive to child-bearing age. But nowadays we can (for at least the time being) choose not to reproduce, while at the same time the modern administrative state ensures that many less fit children make it to adulthood.
We are more like intentionally bred horses or dogs now, and unfortunately we’re breeding for less fitness.
“We are no longer subject to natural selection.”
Of course we are, but we are more impacted by the unnatural selection we practice on ourselves than we are by natural selection, just as Guernsey cattle and French Bulldogs are shaped more by intentional human breeding than they are by natural selection.
It’s hard to say what has more impact. The closer you look, the more indistinguishable the factors driving evolution become.
Eventually it all just merges into the fundamental principle of reproductive fitness for the DNA molecule.
Dear Miss Nonsense,
Thanks for signing your comment.
You have a childish view of Darwin’s theories. “The science is settles.” “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.”
“The science is settled.” “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.”
Either the author or the study team, or both, don’t understand natural selection.
I think the American interpretation of the study is wrong.
Poor people and uneducated people have more children and, therefore, that means they are being selected from an evolutionary standpoint??? Are the authors of this study serious? Maybe it just means that they don’t have the ability to afford the same birth control methods as those who make more money or the education to understand why controlling family size can be a good idea for many people. Poor, uneducated people having more children in NO WAY has to immediately mean that natural selection is choosing poor people over wealthy people. What an absurd finding! I can’t believe these people (I can’t call the researchers after reading this article) got money for their study. I also can’t believe the donors of that money aren’t demanding to get their money back. Come on “scientists”. You can do better than this. Geez…
To the contrary, this study exactly proves Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory says that those that best adapt to their environment survive and propagate. UK’s social policies have created an environment where the poor and uneducated thrive and the wealthy and educated do not thrive.
The wealthy need a host on which they can Parasite themselves.
Like most parasites they chose the least able to defend themselves.
You must be a suckee.
“You must be a suckee.”
Are you trying to put yourself in the position of a parasite?
Is that your life’s ambition?
Parasite (e.g. Mosquitoes) are an important food source for many other species. By feeding off hosts (which in itself is a poor term) they, themselves, provide a valuable and important source of protein for bats, birds, frogs, fish etc. During the great Malaria eradication push in the 50’s (see Fred Soper) the elimination of Mosquitoes through the use of DDT, led to partial collapse of other secondary food chains. Parasites are important and serve a valuable purpose. Point is, we need to be careful of our bias on how we label “parasites” with its nefarious connotations that we imply whilst using the term. All are part of a system and are necessary.
It is interesting that you would cast the wealthy in the roll of blood sucking mosquitos.
Mosquito’s after all are the animals responsible for the most amount of disease, suffering and death in the world.
Most public health measures revolve around eradicating them, or dramatically reducing their numbers.
Republicans on the other hand love to be parasitized.
I was counting the posts until VD (apt moniker) went from science to politics.
Ah, now we know what VD really is.
Yup. Your superior.
And my dad can beat ups your dad.
Can you get any more childish?
“My dad can beat up your dad.” – Galapagos
My dad died in 1974. Does your dad plan to dig him up first?
Whatever it is, it has no life execpt commenting online. . .
Evolution has nothing to do with equality. If anything, it speaks to inequality where one species adapts or mutates to get an advantage or disadvantage. The woke generation needs to study more and show half a brain or go back to playing their video games. This might be the silliest article I’ve read this year.
Clearly, this author has never read Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species.’ NOWHERE does Darwin posit natural selection makes survivor species more ‘equal.’ Quite the opposite. Darwin’s theory posits the species that learn to adapt to their environment will survive, and the species that cannot adapt will perish.
Why is the so surprising? Natural selection doesn’t make everyone a winner. There will be inequalities. Another thing to consider is bias. What makes you think better education and lifestyle etc is superior in reproduction? After all, that’s the game, surviving and passing the genes along. If lower classes/poorer lifestyles are out competing based on reproduction, maybe the other side is missing some advantage that doesn’t make them the fittest, in spite of the bias that you think they should be.
The Evolution hypothesis is false.
Man was designed and created.
Man fell from grace due to original sin human evil has been with us ever since.
Irrationality has entered the chat.
And she goes by Vendicar Decarian.
Vox Veritatis = Mental illness on full public display.
Amen… This is so true sometimes you cannot go on theory you have to refer back to the truth and the truth always sets you free I believe in science but not science fiction…????????????❣️????
Ya, grace was in a rice paddy, and when she squatted down to harvest some rice, man fell right out.
If that is true, god failed spectacularly.
Darwin got many things wrong. Probably pretty much everything .
Like a large number of Americans, David is willfully ignorant regarding evolution.
The world is laughing.
Yes, the world is laughing and bowing to your superior intellect. Wondering if you’re reproducing?
My formal training is physics, but as a public service I offer education to inferiors like yourself.
The entertaining aspect of it is that as a victim of Dunning Kruger, you will remain willfully ignorant to the end.
Which is just months away.
Thanks for the misguided insult. I’m so impressed that you’re a physicist which makes you infinitely qualified to pontificate. on Darwin.
You dint mention if you’re reproducing.
Yes, the end is nigh.
“I’m so impressed that you’re a physicist which makes you infinitely qualified to pontificate. on Darwin.” – Galapagos
Competent high school graduates are qualified to defend Darwin.
Your willful ignorance is classic Republican.
Nature isn’t fair or equal and Darwin predicts that those best adapted for their environment will survive over the long run. It sounds like the study is showing that high IQ is maladaptive and that modern society creates too comfortable of surroundings to create a stronger genetic pool among those who are pampered. Darwin’s theory actually predicts that the more harsh your environment the more selective the gene pool will need to be to survive. Isn’t that what this study is suggesting as well?
If you live in a harsh environment you will need to have more children to be assured that some of them will survive and the weeding out process assures that those who survive will be more fit for that environment, whatever that environment might be. The opposite is also true, the easier the environment is to live in, the less adaptations needed to survive.
Do the wealthy need to make more adaptations to survive their environment? Probably not, it’s likely their offspring are already fairly well adapted, BUT if there is pressure put on them by their environment they too will start a more “selective” process, which actually means they will start having more children with a larger number of mates or go extinct as a “subclass”. Looking at the history of the world, it appears we have had classes of intelligentsia that have gone extinct many times and been replaced in those areas by far less “educated” people.
Intelligence beyond a certain point could actually be what is Maladaptive.
That is probable given the historical evidence.
Evolution is a slow process on human scales, and records are not precise enough to deduce it from written or oral human history.
Technology changes. Man is mostly stagnant.
This will soon change as genetic engineering of humans becomes commonplace.
And this directed evolution will still follow the basic principles of Darwinian evolution.
In human history, there has never been a moment like today, when men and women can use “genetic engineering” as a tool to create superior human beings. Knowing my own intelligence at 129, I chose a spouse whose was higher, and was a superior provider. We had three highly-intelligent children, who were then highly-educated, and live in a part of the US known for its safety, homogeneity, and high salaries.
THAT is human engineering at its finest!
I do not know why “upend” is used here. Natural selection via the concept of social Darwinism is both factual, unfortunate, and natural. Nature is not as we would like it to be in alignment with our morality. In fact, it is hostile towards our morality. This has no philosophical, logical, or scientific bearing on whether the theory holds true.
Two big thumbs up for Eric Friel.
Modern society provides ways for humans to satisfy their sexual drive without procreating. It also gives avenues for non-sexual pleasure-seeking (including a career) which would be limited by child responsibilities, incentivizing non-procreating sexual activity. The result is that those who procreate tend to be those without the means to enjoy modern society’s non-sexual pleasure activities. It has long be recognized that nations with the highest standard of living have the lowest birth rates and those with the lowest standard of living have the highest birth rates. This should not be construed as natural selection providing the highest birth rates to the “fittest” but rather as human culture in an inhibitor to reproduction. “Fit” is an anthropomorphic term and is wrongly used. Instead of natural selection based on “survival of the fittest”, a more accurate phrase would be “survival of the opportunistic”. Modern culture provides the opportunity for the poorest and least “successful” in the culture’s view to reproduce more than the “successful”. It has little to do with “fittest”.
It’s all baggage, including the meat bags that carry the evolutionary driver which is the DNA.
Those strands of DNA that manage to reproduce more will tend to reproduce more.
Everything else is just pointless, vapid, imaineering.
That’s cool as long as you’re paying with your taxes for all their needs. Then likewise, paying for their cost to society, in terms of destruction of social peace and the criminal fallout.
Humans make conscious decisions which ‘Guide’ the course of societal development. Labelling this process Evolution is misleading. Natural Selection is driven by alterations among members of a species caused by mutations and variable inheritable genetic traits favorable for survival in the current environment. The important thing to note is that it is completely random and isn’t guided by anything.
There is no such thing as equality, because people are not in any way equal except in the eyes of God.
Some of us are better than others, and some others are better than us.
Deal with it.
God is a delusional fantasy invented by ignorant goat herders 2,000 years ago.
No thinking person alive accepts their garbage.
So far you’ve said wealthy people are evil and that God doesn’t exist. Uh huh.
Drank the Marxist Kool-Aid in your youth?
I’ve never read Marx. Don’t know anything about the man.
I never said that wealthy people were evil. I said they were parasites.
And that is a fact.
If stating facts makes me a Marxist then only liars and fools are not Marxists.
I’m sure you agree.
2000? Have you been hiding under a rock? We gotta pump that number up. Man has been conceptualizing deity for longer than he has been able to write. There’s a Darwinian case for the conceptualization of religion–a dangerous one, if you’re an egalitarian. Religion persuades people to share common bonds, causes, and often language. Egalitarianism…doesn’t.
Yet another anti-Semite…Enter the U.S. Democrat.
This article is the conjecture of fools. It’s time to go back to the true starting point……..
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”
This is the only option for the origin of all that exists, that can be supported by honest science.
Who cares? Most “science” is “theory”. Which almost always is proven false.
Wow. Based on this comment, I hypothesize you must have a ton of kids.
Dukedirt = Scientific Illiterate.
Has a primary school level understanding of how the world works.
From reading these comments it looks like nobody has any idea of what a loving family is. LOL. Love it how they also think “poor” people automatically mean government subsidized, uneducated, knuckle draggers. There’s a lot of people who fall in-between the cracks who live paycheck to paycheck because they are taking care of their families, aren’t poor enough to receive government assistance and pay their fair share of taxes. These are the people the govt loves to screw the most; the middle class.
Lots of ignorant American Republicans posting here, directed here from the Drudge report.
So you can expect an avalanche of willful ignorance and dishonesty.
I have never encountered a Republican who wasn’t a congenital and perpetual liar.
Subsidized by the government, kept educationally ignorant by the government, they are little more than drones and the state wants them to procreate.
Said the little squeaky cog that performs no useful task.
Don’t worry about that pesky natural selection business. The Democrats and their woke minions will legislate it out of existence.
Ah, another Republican KookTard.
Says Miss Venereal Disease.
Yours is untreatable.
This study has never seen the first 5 minutes of the movie Idiocracy.
It’s almost an identical description.
There’s an inverse relationship between education quality/results and birth rates. Plenty of poor in Europe but birth rates are bottom of the barrel.
This study does absolutely nothing to disprove or cast doubt on Darwin’s theory. Darwin’s theory does not say that natural selection should produce “equality”. In fact, “variation with a species”, one of the bedrock principles of Darwinian evolution, is basically a synonym for “inequality”. Natural selection doesn’t favor individuals that are “better” in any way except that they are better at staying alive long enough to reproduce the most times in the particular environment they live in. “Inequality” is the first step towards “speciation”, the division of one species into two different ones. The 1895 novel “The Time Machine” speculated, based on Darwinian evolution, that the human species would eventually divide into two different species, one strong and dumb, descended from the poor, and one weak and smart, descended from the elites. Although I suppose the implications of this study are maybe more like the movie “Idiocracy”, which imagines that natural selection will make the species dumber.
Darwin wrote about Natural selection.
This article is about something else entirely. Anyone trying to tweak the findings to make sense of it is wasting their time.
That the authors were this dense is mind numbing.
Progressive systems penalize (tax) wealth and success while rewarding (subsidizing) poverty and failure. Should anyone be surprized that the result is more poor, uneducated people who are dependent on government subsidies?
More worker bees to supply the desires of the queens.
The poor should be taxed out of existence. and their meagre wealth transferred to the wealthy.
Money is the measure of all things. If you want more of it you should subsidize it. If you want more wealthy people you should subsidize their existence, and if you want less poverty you should tax them out of existence.
It only makes Christian Republican sense.
Preach to the choir much? This has been so obvious for most of my adult life, and I cannot be the first to understand it. It’s been a fact for centuries, or at least since industrialization. Rural, backwood rednecks, farmers, and (in modern society) common laborers are getting things done in the bedroom. Gays, Richy Richies, Tea and Crumpets Housewives, and your wealthy merchants are too busy or self-absorbed to have families.
The only rich dudes having lots of kids are basketball stars and musicians.
Darwin Awards are real, not a theory. My favorite is the drunk guy on a farm tractor who dropped his 1/2 empty handle of whiskey, then jumped off to retrieve it under the tractor while forgetting it was still in gear.
All this study proves is that evolution is selecting the dumbest to become professors.
Humans’ primary competition is with other humans. Equality is for those who stopped competing. I don’t want to be equal, I want to be better. That’s a hard attitude to breed out.
Better than what?
Historically rapists have been better at breeding.
Since when is society supposed to be “equal”? Darwinism chooses the most fit, not those that are equal to everyone else …
It didn’t take a study to show that poor stupid people have more low quality kids than richer more intelligent people who generally wait until later in life to get started.
And yet the wealthy are the ones with the weak children.
The Drumpf family provides an excellent example.
I wouldn’t give a dime for any of his worthless children.
Humans are unique in that Natural selection is not the only mechanism in play. For example, we can make conscious decisions to act against our own self-interest, or for that matter, the interests of our species survival. The study is flawed in that it does not account for this HUGE group of confounding factors.
The researchers fail to distinguish between the demand for the number of children and the demand for the quality of children. At higher income levels parents have a greater value for quality, which they substitute for quantity. While it is true that the opportunity cost of time may cause women prefer smaller families, it is also true that women at lower incomes may lack access to birth control.
Whatever the direction of evolutionary forces, which take far longer than this study suggests, the forces of economics are the cause of growing inequality. There is nothing natural about income and wealth inequality. It depends on the rules of society. It is not too much of a stretch to predict that cutting taxes from a rate of 75% on income to a rate of 37% lead to growing income inequality as observed in the US. The choice of tax rate is a policy decision; thus, inequality is a choice that societies make.
Anthropologists have demonstrated that the most successful societies have been hunter gatherers who live for millennia without what we would consider civilization. However, studies have also shown that they had a far more variable diet than people in agricultural societies. Indeed, inequality was built into the very concept of civilization, and early civilization is marked by a noticeable worsening of the diets and overall health of its citizens compared to those “backwards” hunter gatherers. And while civilization is leading to the destruction of the human biosphere, the worse we can blame hunter gatherers for is possibly hunting to extinction mega fauna that most people are happy not to encounter in their daily lives.
In short, I agree we are going backwards, but the forces are far less arcane.