"Tim Tyler"  wrote in message
news:cdm2fp$2qld$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> Who will have more long-term genetic success - the east european prince
> who has three kids and gives them the best education money can buy - or
> an indian peasant, who has ten kids, loses two at birth, has two more die
> in childhood accidents, and then dies of a medical problem that
> would have been easily treated by modern medicine, leaving the rest
> poverty stricken?
>
> I hope you will agree that it is not at all obvious.

Long-term?

Not obvious at all.  But, I would put my money on the Indian peasant.
Consider that the six children that have survived so far have already
passed several selective tests.  And if these six are pared down to
three, or even two, due to their poverty stricken state, then you
can be pretty sure that a certain quantum of progressive evolution
has occurred and that the survivors are genetically superior to their
parent, by some standard.

However, the three children of the aristocrat are most likely slightly
genetically inferior to their parent, if only due to mutation.

But, for the short term, the aristocrat seems to have made some wise
choices.  And many people say that only the short term counts in
evolution.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 7/22/04 6:08:47 AM