Post your unpopular opinions

[Carcassdragger]

There's a lot of wrong wing retoric about IVF on the innertubes ATM.

I want to report that I too don't like IVF. But not on any kind of psuedo religious or moral or "it kills people" grounds.

I don't like it because its putting its thumb on the scales of natural selection messing with evolution.

But you know what else?

ITS NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

You apparently have very little sense of the theory of evolution and/or natural selection....

That is incorrect. I have a very good sense of the theory of evolution and the part that natural selection plays.

The nexus of natural selection is successful/unsuccessful reproduction. Couples who CANNOT reproduce (for whatever reason) are part of the process of 'selection'. IVF short circuits that process - it is not 'natural' selection anymore - to be crass about it is "breeding", but I don't like that word for it because that might imply a descent into eugenics which is not intended.

On the other hand, since humankind is part of nature, and humankind developed the technology, is it not then part of nature? Or is it humankind taking control of its own evolution like it took control of the evolution of the canines, or felines, or equus, or ... (in other words eugenics).

I am also aware that modern medicine allows individuals who would, if nature was allowed to take its course, perish before being able to reproduce - which is another interference with natural selection - and one that I am NOT uncomfortable with. I am not unaware of this disconnect between this and my opinion of IVF.

I absolutely understand couples desperately wanting children and I have nothing but respect for anyone who wishes to go that route. But as I said, IT IS JUST NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS.

Breeding is breeding. IVF doesn't change that in any way significant to evolution of the species homo sapiens.

However breeding occurs, mutations may occur.

In evolutionary theory, some mutations may confer a survival advantage to their environment, and are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success.

That's all there is. IVF is a neutral factor.

I dont think so. The most important factor influencing fitness ( the ability to pass on one's genes) is, first and foremost, having the biological ability to reproduce.

[pc in NM]

There's a lot of wrong wing retoric about IVF on the innertubes ATM.

I want to report that I too don't like IVF. But not on any kind of psuedo religious or moral or "it kills people" grounds.

I don't like it because its putting its thumb on the scales of natural selection messing with evolution.

But you know what else?

ITS NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

You apparently have very little sense of the theory of evolution and/or natural selection....

That is incorrect. I have a very good sense of the theory of evolution and the part that natural selection plays.

The nexus of natural selection is successful/unsuccessful reproduction. Couples who CANNOT reproduce (for whatever reason) are part of the process of 'selection'. IVF short circuits that process - it is not 'natural' selection anymore - to be crass about it is "breeding", but I don't like that word for it because that might imply a descent into eugenics which is not intended.

On the other hand, since humankind is part of nature, and humankind developed the technology, is it not then part of nature? Or is it humankind taking control of its own evolution like it took control of the evolution of the canines, or felines, or equus, or ... (in other words eugenics).

I am also aware that modern medicine allows individuals who would, if nature was allowed to take its course, perish before being able to reproduce - which is another interference with natural selection - and one that I am NOT uncomfortable with. I am not unaware of this disconnect between this and my opinion of IVF.

I absolutely understand couples desperately wanting children and I have nothing but respect for anyone who wishes to go that route. But as I said, IT IS JUST NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS.

Breeding is breeding. IVF doesn't change that in any way significant to evolution of the species homo sapiens.

However breeding occurs, mutations may occur.

In evolutionary theory, some mutations may confer a survival advantage to their environment, and are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success.

That's all there is. IVF is a neutral factor.

I dont think so. The most important factor influencing fitness ( the ability to pass on one's genes) is, first and foremost, having the biological ability to reproduce.

Species, not individuals, evolve...

[Carcassdragger]

You apparently have very little sense of the theory of evolution and/or natural selection....

That is incorrect. I have a very good sense of the theory of evolution and the part that natural selection plays.

The nexus of natural selection is successful/unsuccessful reproduction. Couples who CANNOT reproduce (for whatever reason) are part of the process of 'selection'. IVF short circuits that process - it is not 'natural' selection anymore - to be crass about it is "breeding", but I don't like that word for it because that might imply a descent into eugenics which is not intended.

On the other hand, since humankind is part of nature, and humankind developed the technology, is it not then part of nature? Or is it humankind taking control of its own evolution like it took control of the evolution of the canines, or felines, or equus, or ... (in other words eugenics).

I am also aware that modern medicine allows individuals who would, if nature was allowed to take its course, perish before being able to reproduce - which is another interference with natural selection - and one that I am NOT uncomfortable with. I am not unaware of this disconnect between this and my opinion of IVF.

I absolutely understand couples desperately wanting children and I have nothing but respect for anyone who wishes to go that route. But as I said, IT IS JUST NONE OF MY DAMN BUSINESS.

Breeding is breeding. IVF doesn't change that in any way significant to evolution of the species homo sapiens.

However breeding occurs, mutations may occur.

In evolutionary theory, some mutations may confer a survival advantage to their environment, and are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success.

That's all there is. IVF is a neutral factor.

I dont think so. The most important factor influencing fitness ( the ability to pass on one's genes) is, first and foremost, having the biological ability to reproduce.

Species, not individuals, evolve...

Through the collective fitness of individuals.