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 02-02-2013, 11:53 AM
 
5,640 posts, read 16,929,451 times
Reputation: 3963

Advertisements

seems to me this is not the forum for this, should be in great debates?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,022 posts, read 16,947,806 times
Reputation: 32174
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
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.
Actually I never did make any "proposal". I was just describing the degradation of the gene pool that is resulting from the least successful people having the most children, or to look at it from the other end, the most intelligent people having the least children.

Since the world is already grossly overpopulated, I would never encourage any social class of people to "have more children". I wish there were some way to encourage the lower class people to have fewer children, but I remain pessimistic about that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 11:58 AM
 
1,459 posts, read 2,120,814 times
Reputation: 3084
I don't believe that we will meaningfully "degrade" the genome within a handful of generations. You won't undo hundreds of thousands of years in a single century.

My understanding of genetics is not strong enough to make an educated guess on how long it would take to do real damage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 12:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,022 posts, read 16,947,806 times
Reputation: 32174
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohirette View Post
I don't believe that we will meaningfully "degrade" the genome within a handful of generations. You won't undo hundreds of thousands of years in a single century.

My understanding of genetics is not strong enough to make an educated guess on how long it would take to do real damage.
Good point, and I agree on all counts. It's just that I see us starting down that road and it concerns me. Let us hope that no "real damage" has been done yet in this short amount of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Denver
2,976 posts, read 2,396,993 times
Reputation: 1819
I heard once though that the average Y chromosome has been shortened over time because not all of it has copied and that eventually problems could arise from this.
Any thoughts on this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Location: S.W.PA
1,361 posts, read 2,426,272 times
Reputation: 1038
Quote:
Originally Posted by rohirette View Post
I don't believe that we will meaningfully "degrade" the genome within a handful of generations. You won't undo hundreds of thousands of years in a single century.

My understanding of genetics is not strong enough to make an educated guess on how long it would take to do real damage.
I'm not sure about this. A dog breeder would tell you that he can manipulate traits in a line of dogs in just a few generations. They aren't necessarily superior or inferior traits, but manipulations such that some traits (longer legs for example) can be made either rare or prevalent in the offspring after say, 6 generations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 04:27 PM
Status: "happy again, no longer catless! t...." (set 6 days ago)
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,421 posts, read 16,686,996 times
Reputation: 16425
I'm sure there are people alive who never would have been because you don't have to win the self immunity prize to grow up now. But this just means that if we took away the medicine and vaccines and other advantages, a lot would die off and it would go back to the way it was before. One of the falicies of the 'average life span' is that in by gone times, people didn't live as long. This turns out not to be true. It is the average of numbers born to total lifespans, so if huge amounts of children died very young, it seems like nobody made it to fifty. However those who won the childhood lottery often did live far longer than we think. But to get there you had to be one of those with a superior immune system, and thus more were born with one.

It's like the gene mutation which saved a great many people from the black plague, the mutation centered in one village in England. It has no effect on other medical situations. But it was discovered when doing statistical research on AIDS. The modern people of that same area, still fairly stable a population, had a drastically lower incidence of AIDS, with no discernable reason. Thus they went looking and found some 'junk dna' which isn't always.

There is a pbs special called What Darwin Didn't Know about the latest mind boggling research on the human genome and its methods and makeup which suggests there is no 'bad' or 'junk' dna, but more failure of it to work properly. But I reccomend it to all interested in the subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 04:36 PM
Status: "happy again, no longer catless! t...." (set 6 days ago)
 
Location: Cushing OK
14,421 posts, read 16,686,996 times
Reputation: 16425
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo6 View Post
I'm not sure about this. A dog breeder would tell you that he can manipulate traits in a line of dogs in just a few generations. They aren't necessarily superior or inferior traits, but manipulations such that some traits (longer legs for example) can be made either rare or prevalent in the offspring after say, 6 generations.
There was an experiment done in Russia on wild foxes. They are not good pet material. The babies are more docile, but as they mature they grow more agressive. You wouldn't want one for a pet.

But they picked the most docile of each generation, and bred them together. Then being careful not to in breed them, they bred the most docile of the off spring.

In some five or six generations, they produced a tame fox. It is really a fox, looks like one, sounds like one, but the researchers have started keeping them as pets and describe them as like dogs. Its been suggested that dogs went from their wild ancestors to the modern generic dog in the same process, since people dumped trash and it would be a source of food, but the most wild and wary animals wouldn't approach a human area. The best fed would breed the most.

Interesting idea, but it was fascinating with the foxes. They have begun to sell the tame offspring as house pets as well. So behavior is one of the things which is genetically wired to some degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 09:07 AM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,057,040 times
Reputation: 14878
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevo6 View Post
I'm not sure about this. A dog breeder would tell you that he can manipulate traits in a line of dogs in just a few generations.
That is because the physical characteristics of domestic dogs are controlled by on 50 genetic switches so altering a dogs appearance only requires changes in six or seven areas of a doges genome. By comparison a human's height alone is controlled by some 200 genetic regions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2013, 10:52 AM
 
4,829 posts, read 4,808,096 times
Reputation: 6172
Evolution is the survival of the luckiest. Dinosaurs had the finest DNA to dominate the Earth and then BAM and dinosaurs no more. Usually evolutionary losers (like mammals) are put on the top of the world by one catastrophe or another. DNA prepares a specie to survive and dominate the world as it is, finely tuned DNA cannot save a specie from the future cataclysms. Evolutionary dead ends and oddities have always a chance to capitalize on their DNA in the world to come. Same with humans.
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