hey we agree lol

true but for the population to take effect then there needs to be individual happenings first

if being a sheep is a law abiding citizen then yes

and how was i speculating? he did make the choices and did die /story. To say that somebody would steal a car and drive it around for that period of time and have been planning on commiting suicide from the beggining is assinine

my point was that he said nobody deserves to die. you can't steal a car that only has been spot welded together, race it around, run from the cops, beat the **** out of it, and expect for there not to be repercusions he deserved it. you reap what you sew


my arguement isn't perfect but I enjoy it

 

Yes, but given the highly capricious nature of each individual selection event, did the said event favor the overall trend of the natural selection process or actually oppose it? Based on your comments, you think this event favored natural selection in a positive way because the thief was "bad". This is not necessarily the case. In actuality, it's feasible that this dead thief carried more genes beneficial to human survival in the long run than many "good" people do. We will never know. Natural selection does not operate through moral processes, people do.

How many of the major advances in human society came from the average law abiding citizen? Rebellion and independent thought, not sheepish behavior, are at the core of major advances in business, society, and science. Historically, such innovators have often been labeled as freaks and even criminals.

What specific facts do you know about this boy and the choices he made? Very few. Aren't you guessing/speculating/assuming about the vast majority of the story at this point?

Well, I haven't heard about a law in any state that calls for execution of a car thief. Now had a police officer been in pursuit and felt that the boy was endangering the life of innocent people, then he might correctly decide to kill the boy. But that's not what happened here, right?

Same here.

 

I'm not talking about natural selection happening from him being "good" or "bad", I am saying that he made stupid decisions. The people who make stupid decisions like this many times do not survive.

Maybe natural selection isn't the best term to use. However, I have a real question that I do not know the answer to, and the answer would determine whether or not natural selection is relevant. Is there a genetic trait relevant to making dangerous decisions? From what I have learned during the classes I have taken in Psychology, I wonder if this dangerous behavior could be caused by certain levels of certain chemicals in the brain... which could perhaps be genetic. What do you think?

 

O PLEASE is this thread still going on.... one more post ron and youll be up to page 10 tonight.LOL

IMO your trying to force your beliefs. that OR you just want to argue and have WAY to much free time on your hands and take every word well how ever you wanna take it.

this thread was not DID THIS GUY DESERVE TO DIE? your opinions wanted. so actually we are all off topic.

LET IT DIE!!!! every one and there momma knows where you stand on this matter now.

 

Marcus, read your quote above. This proves that you are not a man of your word. Have you changed your mind and resubscribed? Is this topic now worthy of discussion? What specific point of yours would you like me to dismantle now?

 

He certainly may have made many stupid decisions. I also agree that the invoking of Natural Selection does not fit in this discussion.

I'm confident that dangerous behavior is at least in part determined by genes. Surprisingly, however, such genes most surely have played a beneficial role during the evolution of humans. In general, organisms don't keep genes active unless they are beneficial, at least under some circumstances. What I am saying is that these so called bad behavior genes are actually good genes with respect to the survival of our species. Having some strongly aggressive and high-risk taking individuals in your tribe is likely a good thing in the larger scheme of things. Where such good genes may go awry is likely context specific, with influences coming from other genes, social factors, etc.

 

There is a difference between being intelligently aggressive and being unintelligently aggressive.


So genetically speaking, perhaps it is a combination of aggression and lack of intelligence.

 

he may have had good genes but there was the one about bad judgement that has been taken out lol

So your saying that stealing random cars is going to alter history posotively?

I know he stole a car. I know he didn't know much about cars based on the fact that it wasn't welded together. I know he wasn't a good driver because he crashed the car.

thats not what I said I said you reap what you sew not that a cop will randomly shoot a kid driving a stolen car lol

sweet

 

Yes, it's somewhat ironic. When we kill criminals, we are likely destroying genes and traits that have played central roles in the evolutionary processes that led to modern humans.

 

-----------------------------------------