those are good points. I will have to think about that.

That is a common misunderstanding of Darwinian sellection. Darwinian genetic fitness in todays world is not winning a sporting trophy, but being a fat slow couple who are able to withstand a high fat low fibre diet, live on little exercise, and make lots of babies. Darwinian fitness, means not fit in the physical sense, but, 'best fitted'. ( Someone once joked, not to be taken too seriously, that. "Being stupid enough to not understand how to use contraception, will be the main qualification required for membership of the future master race." )

@Fernapple I get your point, however there are some basic requirements for functioning as a human animal. Long-term it seems to me that a group with strength, agility, intelligence and courage will prevail over those who are weak, sickly and slow-witted.

Those with Black African ancestry seem to be superior.

@WilliamFleming Maybe not. Plenty of animal have gone down the route of total dependency, many parasites for example have lots all ability to function outside their host and without its support, exchanging freedom for rapid easy reproduction. And as we become ever more dependent on our technology it will come on faster to us too. Agriculture alone certainly changed human evolution, until ten thousand years or so ago, human brains had been increasing in size, but during the last ten thousand they have started to shrink.

Perhaps to survive on a poor diet, brains are expensive, and a post agriculture diet, while more reliable is not as rich as a hunter gatherer diet, and also perhaps because we no longer need them to compete with many other species on the plains of Africa. And as we become ever more dependent on machines, we will no longer need such good social skills. While medicine takes away many of the dangers of aggression yet its benefits to the individual remain, so that we will probably become more aggressive and less social

We also have to take into account the new possibilities of genetic modification and engineering, which may only be available to the rich. Which will then deepen the rich poor divide, and perhaps in time create two human species.

PS. Jeffmesser. Is incorrect on one or two small points, especially that Africans are the most genetically 'pure' people. In fact genetic variation increases with time, and since humans have been living in Africa far longer than the rest of the world, variation has accumilated there. Meaning that Africans are the most genetically diverse group of peoples in the world. The rest of the worlds populations being only the decendents of a few who escaped from Africa, and despite inputs fromNeanderthals etc. are all very closely related, when compared to the vast differences betweeen Africans. But that can be seen as a strong point fro Africans, since genetic variation is a source of strength, preventing the effects of inbreeding, not 'racial' purity, that is an old outdated racist assumption.

mmmmm, I don't agree. for taxonomy we do take a snapshot in time so pure has a meaning ... especially given that we have superarchaic DNA that other descendants of homo habilus don't share. I mean, you're asking to make a derivative for measurement which is precisely the concept some use to justify gravity in quantum space or I use to show consciousness exists. when you do have a measurable trait then for epistemology's sake you use it for classifying. those cultures you speak of are also fluid so any standards based on those would fall as well. that's why I point to a non-biased standard. but your point is taken. I actually encompassed that distinction with intelligence.

@JeffMesser except that a snapshot is just that - a single point disconnected from time. This is like the physicists joke where the punchline is "But it only works for a spherical chicken in a vaccumme". It only works for that particular instance in time, and we all know and need to acknowledge that. That our system is set as static is a major flaw in it, imo, and struggles with questions such as this.

To use a quantum example you can't know speed and location of a particle at the same time, the more precise one measurement the less the other. I think that's what you're running into here between genetics and sociology.

@1of5 time is not real. it is the lag between the big bang and its' ripple. some qualities are not individually available frame by frame but exist in the total. like a derivative.

good point.