Darwinists- Do you believe that people with allergies are weak and are not fit enough to survive?

Question

They have a weakness in their gene structure and so people with allergies will die off? In line with Darwinism, one day there will be no people on earth with allergies. Or people that have, say... nut allergies will no longer exist. Because they have the weaker gene, and simply not fit to survive. I'd like to know your thoughts. Serious answers only please.

Oooohh seems I touched a few nerves. Sorry. If now we change the words to "...people who are poor are weak..." can I ask what your responses will be?

Answer 1

I havent read all the other answers, so sorry if I repeat.

Yes, I think you are right. In 'the jungle' allergies could have caused death, so that 'weak' gene would have been wiped out, discontinued. People surviving a bee sting to which they reacted really badly is a modern phenomena, which medicine is responsible for. I have often thought I would be dead without modern medicine, having many allergies, especially to horses, and I have asthma....I would have died aged 5. Bye bye genes.

But, my nan had a caesarean birth when she had my mum, so in 'the jungle' my mum would not have lived anyway. So im a dead (girl) walking. I am indebted to modern medicine, and my genes want me dead, but I have to say personally Im glad Im alive!!

Anyway, I agree, if natural selection was allowed to happen without medical intervention, a hell of a lot of allergic people would be dying. Along with all the allergy genes.

Answer 2

No I don't. I don't think allergies are entirely genetically controlled, and the prevalence of allergies and intolerances in certain groups certainly seems to influence or be influenced by diet and other lifestyle factors.
Allergies aren't a deal breaker in the survivor stakes. Maybe for those who suffer from severe anaphylaxis, but even then that seems to frequently be an escalating thing - you can have a non-life threatening reaction and realise what caused it and then avoid it in the future.

Not to mention the fact that with the medical treatments available today selection pressures on allergies and the like have been relaxed - they're treatable and so don't impinge upon people's ability to reproduce.

Answer 3

This appears to be a biological science question posted in the social sciences....

a darwinistic-type biological stance may be that may be are less 'fit' than those without allergies

a social science perspective: it is perhaps unhelpful, irrelevant and possibly offensive to judge a person on the basis of evolutionary theory as evolution is an ongoing process over many many generations and is, as such, removed from the experience of an individual. Since issues such as allergies can be overcome by awareness and technology to consider people within this context would seem only to encourage discrimination on the grounds of peoples 'fitness' or worthyness to be a part of society; we see this line played now against non-heterosexual people.

Answer 4

Evolution doesn't work like that, especially with people.

'Survival of the fittest' isn't really about the fittest individuals, but the genes that are most likely to get passed on. In the 'wild', 'weak' individuals - those individuals with genes that produce traits that are not conducive to survival - will, in theory, not survive to pass those genes on. Lots of things can disrupt this - for example, human overfishing taking just the largest fish - fish adapt to mature at a smaller size - they are 'weaker' and less able to survive against (say) sharks, but are more likely to survive the trawlers net in time to breed.

People are different. We have artificially changed the balance, and we reproduce despite having traits that could prejudice survival (having said that, the ability to do that is a survival trait - humans are part of nature, whether we like to admit it or not, and subject to the same 'rules'). Things that would have killed children before they grew up to breed no longer do, so are passed on.

So 'fit to survive' is a misnomer - if you do survive and have children, you are fit to. Simple as that.

Answer 5

That thinking is not about Darwinism. It's a sociobiology issue related to social engineering and genetic "superiority" concepts that are outmoded. We simply do not know what we are evolving to be "fit" for . . .in survival of the fittest crud. For example, black skin has been considered a genetic inferiority of some kind and that "evolution" naturally selects white skin pigmentation over darker for survival. Whatever. Now, with increased radiation hitting the earth and causing increased skin cancer rates, we are learning that the melanin pigment, responsible for eye color, freckles and black skin, screens higher levels of radiation better. So, if the ozone layer poofs out on us completely, the human race will make it probably due to dark skinned people. We just don't know what "fit for what" means, yet.

Answer 6

There is evidence from European studies that more allergies may be environmental than genetic. Allergies are an immune system overreaction to an environmental condition. Food allergies may be more dangerous, but there is growing evidence that these are heavily influenced by food intake while very young, when the immune system is still learning. Limiting common food allergens can help prevent this. More evidence (not yet corroborated to my knowledge) points to other allergies as resulting from immune systems never exposed to dirt and other contaminants while developing, and so never desensitized to harmless substances.

There also isn't one "gene" that corresponds to a given allergy. Genes code for proteins in response to environmental conditions. It takes many genes coding proteins to trigger an immune response, and it is implausible to postulate that one missing protein will determine one person having hay fever and the next an allergy to seafood. A host of protein-coding genes would be responsible for the huge number of allergies out there.

Answer 7

Only nature can determine who or what will survive. I dare say the neanderthal man probably thought that he was the bees knees and he would whoop any other "humanoids" *** with his superiority. What determines who survise in the great evolutionary ladder is determined by nature and nature alone. If nature develops animals with enough knowledge and understanding of their surroundings to manipulate it to the benefit of themselves then this is part of the course that nature has chosen. I believe that everything us humans do is predetermined by the evolution of our breed of animal (this goes for good and bad things) so to answer your question, if humans are capable of developing comfortable and socially acceptable ways of dealing with ailments such as allergies then these people will be able or "allowed by nature" to survive. It is only if nature decrees that the human animal is incapable of developing uch a state then the allergie animals will be bred out after several generations, just as previous forms of humans have. Look at it fom the evolution from ape to human and you can see that it is only when you can master the environment can you survive and allergies may not be a reason for not mastering it, yet by the same argument they may be. This will only come to light several generations down the line

Answer 8

I get slight allergies from modern things. Exactly, get my point?
Certain cleaners used around the house, or certain perfumes make me tear up. Pollution does it too.
So.... Yeah, I wonder who's damn fault that is?
If I were in the wild, hunting and evolved like any other human being, I'd hunt better than anyone else. I have great aim with a bow and arrow, so I wonder???
If it wasn't for the creation of damaging chemicals, I'd be fine.
And yes, you did touch a nerve, but I went easy on you.
&#%$^@!!!!!!!
I'm not weaker, just injured, how's that for a scientific perspective?

Answer 9

Well you could put it this way. It isn't a very attractive feature in a person when it comes to light, so in theory they would not find a partner to have children and so in that way allergy sufferers die out of the human race.

However factors to be considered (one might say an anomaly) are that Humans are intelligent beings and really don't think anything of allergies as long as other aspects are fine especially as modern medicine is able to control allergies.

Ideally all unattractive features should have died out by now according to Darwin’s theories, however Humans' urges to have sex meant that we did not care who with, one might say we act like animals. Further to this those with unattractive features did not just die off without linage. They realise there are other in their situation and so were clever enough to get it on with them and so the human race is ever increasing.

By the way when I talk about attractive features I don't just mean by looks but also like wealth (it shows successive skills of survival) health looks and attitudes etc.

Answer 10

Not at all.

Allergies are brought on when an individual has problems adapting to a current situation, or environment.
The allergy shows that adaptation, or evolution is necessary, and in time, the human race will develop immunities to these allergies.

Allergies are, in fact, evolution in progress. Darwin said "survival of the fittest". that does not necessarily equate to "death to the weakest".