21–30 of 259 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If mutation is the engine of evolution, an increase in mutation should mean an increase in the speed of evolution. Obviously not on the scales we're talking about here, but the premise doesn't seem too unsound, external pressures being equal.
Mutations can be beneficial, benign, or harmful. Smoking obviously only really creates the latter two.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's definitely not obvious. I would agree that mutations due to smoking could be in majority harmful due to the chemical components and the high temperatures involved. Other than that, a mutation is a mutation, whether due to smoke, nuclear irradiation, high altitude, or chance. In all cases, they can be beneficial or harmful. The evolution process will then cause only the beneficial ones to perdure.
> The evolution process will then cause only the beneficial ones to perdure. This isn't correct and is a common misconception about evolution. The process which does this is natural selection, and it only occurs through the organism being unable to reproduce as well as an organism with beneficial evolutionary changes. With humans in the modern world, there is no natural selection because of state benefits that keep p…
How addictive is tobacco/smoking as compared to Opiates/Heroin?
Considering opiate withdraw can cause death I'd say tobacco is less addictive
I wonder if drinking does the same?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The evolution process will then cause only the beneficial ones to perdure. This isn't correct and is a common misconception about evolution. The process which does this is natural selection, and it only occurs through the organism being unable to reproduce as well as an organism with beneficial evolutionary changes. With humans in the modern world, there is no natural selection because of state benefits that keep p…
A social safety net may stop some negative mutations from being selected against, but positive traits still get people laid more.
Also, why do you say 'some'? It would stop all negative mutations, as all people are given the ability to reproduce. Your argument seems to be that people with negative mutations would not be attractive, but often they are attractive to others with negative mutations themselves. Or just people who no longer breed purely based on biological fitness - again because of modern civilization.
I think even Fisher would be convinced [1].
[1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering opiate withdraw can cause death I'd say tobacco is less addictive
Actually I believe clinically, "addictiveness" is measured by what it takes to develop a dependence in the first place, rather that what it takes to get rid of that dependence or even the physical effects of an abrupt cessation. I heard somewhere (sorry no references) that by that measure, nicotine is one of if not the most addictive substance known.
I believe that while both nicotine and opiates can be addictive from first use, it takes a much longer prolonged use of nicotine to form a strong physical dependence (from personal experience, on the order of a few years of regular use), unlike opiates which can form a strong physical dependence after just a short time (as little as just a few weeks of regular use).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A social safety net may stop some negative mutations from being selected against, but positive traits still get people laid more.
In USA, families on welfare benefits are also often the largest families. Being laid more is irrelevant if it does not result in a child. It's more reason as to why evolution is simply not a factor in the modern world. Also, why do you say 'some'? It would stop all negative mutations, as all people are given the ability to reproduce. Your argument seems to be that people with negative mutations would not be attractiv…
This has some legal implications. You can now prove fairly conclusively that your lung cancer came from smoking. I wonder if it will lead to a new wave of tobacco litigation. I think even Fisher would be convinced [1]. [1] https://priceonomics.com/why-the-father-of-modern-statistics...