supposedly<\/span> don\u2019t have more children). But then in the not so distant future that changes, and now baldness has a marked benefit (it really becomes the case that bald men are having more children). Perhaps, due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere today an exposed scalp boosts Vitamin E levels which enhances sperm life; something seemingly very minute like that.<\/p>\nNow, lets say that a bright specimen of our population, we\u2019ll call him \u2018N\u2019, notices this change and chooses <\/span>baldness, thus increasing his odds of having more children. He is even so kind as to write a big paper on it, documenting the evidence. Many others follow suit (we\u2019ll call them \u2018smart\u2019) while some curmudgeons resist (we\u2019ll call them \u2018dumb\u2019).<\/p>\nThere will still be non-bald guys who have lots of kids and bald men who are childless (by choice and\/or through genetic sterility); but a shift <\/span>has occurred wherein baldness = likelihood of more children<\/span>.<\/p>\nNaturally non-bald men still have to choose <\/span>to go bald and some don\u2019t and thus join the group who more likely will have fewer children, but these children will likely be non-bald and, moreover, inherit \u2018dumb\u2019 nonadaptive genes and will thus be more likely to stay non-bald and have less children and so on until their family tree peters out. It doesn\u2019t really matter for people who are genetically bald; they\u2019re in good shape by chance<\/span> (an old random<\/span> variation in their genetic history which has been passed on to them).<\/p>\nN will pass on his \u2018smart\u2019 genes, thus ensuring a more likely continuation of his family through many more generations despite not having genetic baldness. And since genetic baldness follows Darwinian evolution (random <\/span>variation, natural selection, continuation) there is an opportunity through time that the descendents of N will acquire that genetic trait. Thus the <\/span>voluntary<\/span><\/span> behavior <\/span>of the \u2018smart\u2019 people leads to beneficial genetic changes in the population. <\/span>The important fact for Baldwin is that the \u2018smart\u2019 people survive some environmental change (increased CO2) that their \u2018dumb\u2019 neighbors don\u2019t. The population in 400 years will have far fewer \u2018dumb\u2019 people on average.<\/p>\nIt still follows Darwin\u2019s rules for genetic changes, but it supposes that the selection of a trait may be done behaviorally by \u2018smart\u2019 groups and then later encoded into genetics, whereas traditional Darwinism is rigidly one-directional. It is a theory still under much scrutiny because it is so difficult to show it actually working. Also there is the chicken and the egg problem: some people would like to say that those \u2018smart\u2019 people already have the genetics for smartness and that an enironmental change triggered the selection<\/span> of that gene and thus we\u2019re back to traditional Darwinianism (we don\u2019t need to wedge in Mind for a good explanation). I\u2019m not so sure\u2026<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7907151-113964099764801148?l=americanbuddhist.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"