Meanwhile my ecology professor is literally teaching that survival of the fittest is about genetic superiority and that evolution is about working towards that 'goal'. This is incorrect and bad science that is rooted in right-wing ideology that was disproven decades ago.

This is not what survival of the fittest means by the way. There is no such thing as a genetically superior being, as 'fitness' is totally subjective, as well as dependent on your environment. A lifeform that reproduces well in the ocean will still die if you put in the vacuum of space, no matter how 'fit' it was for ocean life. Not to mention the idea that nature has some sort of conscious goal is anthropomorthising a concept and again, bad science.

I really want to do something about this, but I feel like complaining will get me failed or known as a shit stirrer.

I fucking hate capitalist education.

On the plus side, our next lecture is on mutualism

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 8 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

The theory is between punctuated equilibrium v.s. gradual evolution. Sometimes it is refered to as 'step v.s. slope' depending on the professor.

Ultimately both of them are scientifically correct, as most ecosystems exist within a punctuated equilibrium, not having large changes within them overtime, but usually evolving rapidly if there is a catastrophic change that completely alters the ecosystem within 100-500 years. If it is faster than that then it can lead to mass extinction events, which are the true punctuations. However, species also undergo gradual mutations that lead to speciation overtime as well, humans being a prime example of that. However, the emergence of homo sapian led to a catastrophic collapse of all other hominids, for reasons that are still not known, but possibly environmental or social, and humans have essentially been in punctuated equilibrium since then, with only minor genetic variations. One of the big things we are taught in anthro is that it is unlikely we are statistically smarter than humans even as long as 200000 years ago. There just hasn't been enough provable anatomical changes to support that 'humans are smarter now'. Our cultures and technologies are more complex, but the ape is basically still the same.

[–] PointAndClique@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

So you're saying retvrn is more like monke-return

[–] TreadOnMe@hexbear.net 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I guess? All I know is that retvrn people clearly aren't nerdy anthropology majors. You can't return to monkey, we are a completely different genetic line of apes, we never were monkeys. Closely related, but coyotes and domestic dogs have closer genetics than humans and chimps. Studying other apes is useful, but it doesn't really get us much insight into humans because humans alter their ecosystems far more than most animals. Not all (beavers are a thing), but most, and certainly other apes.

[–] GrouchyGrouse@hexbear.net 3 points 2 months ago

Awesome write-up, thanks comrade