Reply #51: You are trying to fit far too many things into the theory of evolution.

[K-W]

First of all, yes fittest is a bad word. I would never use the term "survival of the fittest" to describe evolution or natural selection. It is misleading.

The natural enviroment is of a great deal of concern to us, and even more a concern to the massive number of people in this world who have not seperated themselves as far from the immediate consequences of the natural world as us. Or do you think all humans live like americans?

Class is not heavily correllated to genetics, so marrying for class is not an act with much evolutionary significance.

Sexual selection still occurs but its effects have been dulled by social factors unrelated to genetics and the fact that you dont actually have to secure a member of the opposite sex in a traditional sense to pass on your genes in many parts of the world.

There is no such thing as economic selection. Wealth, like class, is not genetically based, thus it has no significant effect on genetics.

The main factor in determinging the future genetic distribution in the human race are rates of reproduction in different groups and which groups are ingtermixing genetically and to what extent.