Marah wrote:But then again it's not a question of bad or good, it's just a question of adapted or not adapted.
I'd say "fit" or "unfit", and fitness changes as soon as the environment changes.
There was an experiment with midges on a windswept reef where it was shown that the only midges who survived had atrophic wings, because those with normal wings were blown away and died as soon as they tried to fly up.
In their usual environment these midges with atrophic wings are usually not able reproduce, but on that reef they were the only one able to do so.
An eugenetic reasoning would have mandated the removal from the population of the genes that caused atrophic wings, thus determining its likely extinction on that reef.
Sol Invictus wrote:That doesn't make it unscientific, just again goes to prove it is stupid. You can select two individuals with certain traits you desire, like blond hair, blue eyes and white skin, and expect their children to be more likely to inherit those traits than, if somebody with those traits had children with whomever they please - people have done it with other species for ages with obvious success
This is called artificial selection, not eugenics.
Artificial selection is a mere tool, not a theory.
You can select those genes you want but it is unscientific to say that they are better in absolute terms and thus the gene quality has improved because the "bad" genes have been removed.
A tomato plant is fit to make tomatoes, but not necessarily to survive in the wild.