U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-01-2013, 12:54 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,073,754 times
Reputation: 14878

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marissy View Post
I think you posted to the wrong person?
You're right, a case of friendly fire.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2013, 01:28 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,073,754 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I would say degrading. Up until a hundred or so years ago, the strongest and smartest people were able to bear and raise more offspring who would survive to an age to reproduce themselves. The weakest and least fit tended to die off more - not in every individual case but in the aggregate.
That is absurd.

Diseases like influenza, yellow fever, small pox and typhoid, struck down geniuses and he-men alike without much in the way of discrimination. Many of the most talented and brilliant minds of the last few centuries were born to not particularly bright or strong parents. Many of the brightest minds either never successfully produced children who would survive into adulthood never producing offspring to carry their genes forward. While by the same token frail weaklings have children who go on to be world class athletes.

Genetics just doesn't work the way that you and 19th century eugenicist imagine that it does. Albert Einstein, consider the greatest mind since Isaac Newton arguably one son became a university professor another a schizophrenic. Mark Twain, only son died in childbirth, oldest daughter suffered from chronic depression and died of spinal meningitis at age 24, ask anyone who bought a offspring sired by Secretariat. Or more to the issue, his second daughter led an unremarkable life and youngest daughter Jane died at 29. So much for the best and brightest.

But if that doesn't work for you, ask anyone who has invested in a offspring of Secretariat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 03:34 PM
 
1,288 posts, read 2,303,241 times
Reputation: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I would say degrading. Up until a hundred or so years ago, the strongest and smartest people were able to bear and raise more offspring who would survive to an age to reproduce themselves. The weakest and least fit tended to die off more - not in every individual case but in the aggregate. But then gradually (and suddenly with the advent of the birth control pill) the smartest and most successful people were able to decide to have fewer children at the same time as the least mature and stupidest people continued to have large numbers of children. Again, not in every case, but in the aggregate. In addition, advances in medical care keep the weakest alive until an age at which they reproduce, and widespread and generous societal welfare programs provide incentives to popping out more children on the part of people who are poorly equiped to raise them well.

Natural selection produced our remarkably intelligent species which gained dominion over the natural world to such an extent that we have essentially repealed natural selection as it applies to us! What irony.

And now, perhaps our gene pool could use a little chlorine. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that last sentence).

I think you might be right. And I think you would be interested in the following topic as well:

What Do You Think About National Birth "Control?" *************
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,022 posts, read 16,962,264 times
Reputation: 32180
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
That is absurd.

Diseases like influenza, yellow fever, small pox and typhoid, struck down geniuses and he-men alike without much in the way of discrimination. Many of the most talented and brilliant minds of the last few centuries were born to not particularly bright or strong parents. Many of the brightest minds either never successfully produced children who would survive into adulthood never producing offspring to carry their genes forward. While by the same token frail weaklings have children who go on to be world class athletes.

Genetics just doesn't work the way that you and 19th century eugenicist imagine that it does. Albert Einstein, consider the greatest mind since Isaac Newton arguably one son became a university professor another a schizophrenic. Mark Twain, only son died in childbirth, oldest daughter suffered from chronic depression and died of spinal meningitis at age 24, ask anyone who bought a offspring sired by Secretariat. Or more to the issue, his second daughter led an unremarkable life and youngest daughter Jane died at 29. So much for the best and brightest.

But if that doesn't work for you, ask anyone who has invested in a offspring of Secretariat.
You seem to have missed one phrase from my post, namely "in the aggregate". I agree that a brilliant child can come from ordinary and even sub-ordinary families, and that brilliant families can produce a mentally retarded chld. Therefore, all the specific examples you cite are meaningless. On average, intelligence and talent run in families, such as the remarkable musical genius which descended from Johann Sebastian Bach. That Bach example doesn't prove anything either, by itself. But unlike your examples, it is an illustration of a general tendancy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 09:32 PM
 
Location: too far from the sea
18,047 posts, read 17,182,887 times
Reputation: 30225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
I would say degrading. Up until a hundred or so years ago, the strongest and smartest people were able to bear and raise more offspring who would survive to an age to reproduce themselves. The weakest and least fit tended to die off more - not in every individual case but in the aggregate. But then gradually (and suddenly with the advent of the birth control pill) the smartest and most successful people were able to decide to have fewer children at the same time as the least mature and stupidest people continued to have large numbers of children. Again, not in every case, but in the aggregate. In addition, advances in medical care keep the weakest alive until an age at which they reproduce, and widespread and generous societal welfare programs provide incentives to popping out more children on the part of people who are poorly equiped to raise them well.

Natural selection produced our remarkably intelligent species which gained dominion over the natural world to such an extent that we have essentially repealed natural selection as it applies to us! What irony.

And now, perhaps our gene pool could use a little chlorine. (Sorry, I couldn't resist that last sentence).
This.

Natural selection did the job for a long time. There are exceptions to all rules and lower intelligence or unhealthy people can certainly produce highly intelligent or healthy offspring. However, it is no longer survival of the fittest because people who would have died are being kept alive. In the past the weakest ones were culled by illnesses that are now prevented or cured. Add to that the ability to prevent pregnancy and you have a lot of highly intelligent people not having children for whatever their chosen reason. I know it's much more complicated than that, but that's the way I see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Canada
3,675 posts, read 2,488,418 times
Reputation: 4737
Does anyone have any global statistics to back up the claim that parents with lower IQ have a lot more children than parents of a higher IQ? U.S. statistics can't be extrapolated world-wide. For example, China and India combined have 8 times the population of the U.S. China has a one-child policy.

Also, is there anything to back up the idea that those who are physically more healthy have a higher IQ? It seems absurd to me. Stephen Hawking comes to mind. Who knows too how many geniuses and highly creative minds were lost to mankind in generations past because of "physical weaknesses".

I find the elitist tone of this thread rather disturbing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2013, 11:41 PM
 
2,319 posts, read 1,983,486 times
Reputation: 3812
Why do so many of these questions/discussions seem to end in fights? I'm not enjoying my "stay" here very much.

I'm sure someone will kindly offer that I depart before I trip over myself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,022 posts, read 16,962,264 times
Reputation: 32180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tobiashen View Post
Why do so many of these questions/discussions seem to end in fights? I'm not enjoying my "stay" here very much.

I'm sure someone will kindly offer that I depart before I trip over myself.
A discussion is an exchange of views. If the views do not agree with each other, the discussion becomes a debate. What is the difference between a debate and a "fight" anyway? Perhaps a debate is a more genteel version of a fight, with the fight being sharper in tone?

I find it strange that vigorous expositions of views would cause you to not enjoy your "stay". Poster Ovcatto called my position "absurd". That is strong, but also entirely legitimate. I do not think I am above criticism. Some positions are indeed absurd. But since I don't think mine was, I offered a rebuttal. Such an exchange is totally normal in public internet discussion forums. I hold no resentment, no sense of grievance, against poster Ovcatto.

Some things do go beyond the pale, of course. A pure insult without any content related to the thread would be enough to cause me to not enjoy my "stay" either. I encountered an example of that in the Economics Forum when I thanked a poster for an explanation. Someone else posted this single sentence to me: "Glad he was able to dumb it down for 'ya." I reported that post and it was taken down by a moderator.

But the good far outweighs the bad. Debate is mentally stimulating and it is also an opportunity to learn, in many cases. Perhaps you are overly sensitive?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 09:12 AM
 
1,302 posts, read 1,244,623 times
Reputation: 1004
Default Not everything segways to politics here BUT

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Just a question I've always had. Are people on the average being born with improve genetic material or degraded genetic material?
... had anyone here watched the Republican party debates and not wondered, "WTF?"

Anyway, the question asked here is bogus. Genetic success is measured in nature by the alpha male's control of his breeding population, and in man by, what, having loads of kids?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:08 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,073,754 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
You seem to have missed one phrase from my post, namely "in the aggregate". I agree that a brilliant child can come from ordinary and even sub-ordinary families, and that brilliant families can produce a mentally retarded chld. Therefore, all the specific examples you cite are meaningless. On average, intelligence and talent run in families, such as the remarkable musical genius which descended from Johann Sebastian Bach. That Bach example doesn't prove anything either, by itself. But unlike your examples, it is an illustration of a general tendancy.
You may think that you are discussing genetic evolution in a macro sense but the reality is that your proposal is microcosmic in nature and practice. Because as you have agreed that genetic inheritance can be both a bane and a blessing for individuals your arbitrary selection has no effect on the macro evolution of a population as a hold. In short encouraging more "middle class people" to have more children without any control for environmental factors is a fools errand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top