Do you agree with this statement?

[Ron Burgundy]

See poll question.

[Deleted]

Doesnt matter if we agree or not, its true.

[Gamdwelf]

Define superior DNA

[AmerikanRejekt]

Darwinism up in this bitch.

[Deleted]

Although I do partially agree with this, I believe it is possible to train "IQ" or atleast what things the brain is better at, such as math for example. Where you got much training when you were a baby, you will grow better as when you're older. Ofcourse there are many "born-with" things about IQ aswell but maybe a few things do improve by what you did as a child. Speaking of IQ as imagination and general problemsolving I don't think you can affect as much as a parent as in other places.

[CrusaderNerò87]

I dont understand the statement.

[Deleted]

DNA can be superior in that it does not contain hereditary diseases and such, no?

[smelltheglove]

could really use some clarification on the terms of superiority here. but i find it hard to think of any criteria where some people's dna would not be considered superior to others.

please tell me i didn't just contribute to some eugenics thread

[Deleted]

Not sure if I agree. Some people have born with damaged DNA that will cause them to have nasty diseases but superior? More attractive, more intelligent etc. isn't necessarily superior.

I have been born with good genes, have high IQ, probably better than average looks, I don't get fat, don't have any health problems other than a little too greasy T-zone and yet there have been many times when I've envied people that don't have half that because they're happy.

[jahasafrat]

Evolution is an ongoing process, there will always be somebody with "superior" DNA, although that is a bit relative. I just hope the OP is interested in Darwinism and not Eugenics.

[cFortyfive]

Well just taking a look at certain diseases I know at least my answer on that.

[Deleted]

i guess that the OP means something like ... let me give an example ...

1.) Some people eat and eat and eat and don't gain a single pound ... others have a hard time keeping their weight by forcing themselves to do special diets and such ...
2.) Some people need glasses to see clearly ... others don't ...

i could think of 1000s of other examples, but i think those to hit the nail ... or don't they ?

[Ynna]

What the hell does superior DNA mean? Is A better than T?

It's true that some people are "lucky" with their genes, which means they have some inherent advantages. But it's as much nurture as nature, so in the long wrong it doesn't matter as much.

[FathomFear]

No, given that it's ultimately relative. Superior traits today may not be superior ones tomorrow. It's ultimately relevant to the current environment. It's hard to look at genes in a complete vacuum.

[MerinPally]

This is not something you can disagree with once you define "superior".

If you definition of "superior" means that you have better genes and are less susceptible to diseases or you don't have defects, then yes this is true. People have superior genes, it's called EVOLUTION. Those who have genes which are good for todays issues, are superior beings. However those conditions won't last like a day they'll last years if they're anything to be worried about, in which case the system of evolution works. However, a few years after that, a different thing may come up and then the system restarts.

Evolution is pretty close, if not already, scientific fact. Therefore, superior genes, which is a MASSIVE part of evolution (by which I mean it is the defining point alongside survival of the fittest, they are all interlinked) do exist.

Therefore, the statement has to be agreed with by any form of rational thought process.

[muto]

Yes I do. I knew a kid who never studied, or anything like that and always got A's; he just had incredible memory. This dude could memorize the most minute information that most brains just flush out. Also, professional athletes, 50% of them have no common sense whatsoever, and they are only pro athletes, because of their physical attributes, and skills. As well, I believe obesity can be hereditary, most obese people I see, if both parents are obese, have chubby kids. Yes that is considered not superior DNA before someone argues with me, because it's not a healthy BMI to be obese.

[Deleted]

i guess that the OP means something like ... let me give an example ...

1.) Some people eat and eat and eat and don't gain a single pound ... others have a hard time keeping their weight by forcing themselves to do special diets and such ...
2.) Some people need glasses to see clearly ... others don't ...

i could think of 1000s of other examples, but i think those to hit the nail ... or don't they ?

i thought the same thing, my whole family cant seem to gain weight, we all eat quite a bit but none of us gain any weight, is that down to good DNA? if thats down to DNA then i would say that its superiour to someone who gains loads of weight from every meal. if thats what we mean then yes, i would say so. doesn't make them a better human being, but i would say the DNA is better.

/flameon i guess.

[ganush]

Superior is a subjective term, so the poll results are meaingless. Everyone has DNA that is superior over someone else in some regard. You may be great athlete, but those athletic skills don't mean you are the best at every sport, because the genetic make up required to excel at different sports is not the same. You may have a 200 IQ but completely tone deaf. You may be more likely to get cancer, but less likely to suffer heart disease. Silly question.

[Spectral]

I assume you're asking if some people have inherited traits that constitute superior phenotypes to other people. That's pretty obviously true. You didn't phrase it very well though - "superior DNA" implies to me that it's got higher replication fidelity or something.

[Deleted]

Yes, I agree.