Sexual selection is a subcategory of natural selection

Weaker is in quotes, which suggests to me they don’t mean weaker, just those carrying potentially deleterious traits. Plus, if those people are reproducing, those traits can’t be that bad anyway.

They never said nor implied that

You need to read a genetics textbook and then some evolutionary biology so you understand OPs question.

Pretty much everyone here either misunderstands how evolution works, or is willfully ignoring it to push their viewpoint.

Yes! Finally someone else who knows how…

Humans at this point have very little evolutionary pressure from natural selection.

Oh come on! Such a strong start but then you fell on your face. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype. It never lets up. It’s more about reproduction than staying alive. Natural selection is happening every time someone reproduces more than someone else.

Survival of the fittest doesn’t mean what you think it means. Fitness, in the evolutionary sense, is a quantitative representation of individual reproductive success. So yes, the fittest of us do survive in the sense that their genes are passed on far more often than those that are less fit. For example, the overweight, nearsighted, diabetic car salesman with a lethal peanut allergy that has 16 children is more fit than most people on the planet.

Populations do not mutate. Mutations occur randomly within individuals, they do not occur to fit a changing environment, they only occur randomly. A mutation can spread through a population if nothing selects against it. Selection never waits, it’s always there in one form or another.

Bro you did not understand anything he asked about

Why are you doing this?

Water can move freely across the membrane, but the stuff that’s dissolved in the water cannot move across the membrane.

No? Water can’t carry anything across the membrane.

We don’t know what molecular mechanism creates the pressure.

No one really knows how osmosis works.

Evolution and natural selection never stops, we’ve only changed what the selective pressures are.

It’s like we’re going back to the pre-internet era but it’s obviously a little different. Before the internet, there were just a few major media providers on TV plus lots of local newspapers. I would say that, for the most part in the USA, the public trusted TV news sources even though their material interests weren’t aligned (regular people vs big media corporations). It felt like there wasn’t a reason not to trust them, since they always told an acceptable version of the truth and there wasn’t an easy way to find a different narrative (no internet or crazy cable news). Local newspapers were usually very trusted, since they were often locally owned and part of the community.

The internet broke all of those business models. Local newspapers died because why do you need a paper when there are news websites? Major media companies were big enough to weather the storm and could buy up struggling competitors. They consolidated and one in particular started aggressively spinning the news to fit a narrative for ratings and political gain of the ownership class. Other companies followed suit.

This, paired with the thousands of available narratives online, weakened the credibility of the major media companies. Anyone could find the other side of the story or fact check whatever was on TV.

Now what is happening? The internet is being polluted with garbage and lies. It hasn’t been good for some time now. Obviously anyone could type up bullshit, but for a minute photos were considered reliable proof (usually). Then photoshopping something became easier and easier, which made videos the new standard of reliable proof (in most cases).

But if anything can be fake now and difficult to identify as fake, then how can you fact check anything? Only those with the means will be able to produce undeniably real news with great difficulty, which I think will return power to major news companies or something equivalent.

I’m probably wrong about what the future holds, so what do you think is going to happen?

Nah it’s not really bad at all:

The use of microwave transmission of power has been the most controversial issue in considering any SPS design. At the Earth’s surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside the rectenna fenceline (the receiver’s perimeter). These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[original research?] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes.[citation needed] A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power?wprov=sfla1

Did something happen to you? Like was your mom, sister, granny, father, and/or brother killed?

Why did the federal agents back off? Don’t they have the higher authority in this situation?

Yeah what happened to that one out of South Korea?

This particular hierarchy is specific to medical science, it doesn’t fit the other scientific disciplines perfectly.

Also, if I had a nickle for every conflicting pair of meta-analyses… happens so often.