|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/28/2007 : 21:40:48 [Permalink]
|
And just for fun: | Much was published on heredity and argued about the program's (eugenics) feasibility. When someone suggested that Shaw ought to have offspring with Isadora Duncan, he is said to have replied: "It might have my body and her brains." |
-From Dawn to Decadence by Jacques Barzun, page 694. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/28/2007 21:41:05 |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 05/28/2007 : 23:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox said:
| When I was an undergrad I was shocked in a human development class to learn that genetically-caused mental retardation is occurring less frequently in industrialized nations. Due to modern medical care, the children live, but need special care their whole lives; parents of mentally retarded children tend to have less children than those with children of average intelligence, thus reducing the frequency of those genes. |
This probably has a lot to do with standard screening for PKU in newborns. A pure euphenics approach to dealing with an allele that would otherwise produce significant developmental deficiencies in the people who have it. Beats the shit out of the eugenics approach, which would never eliminate the recessive allele unless they screened all potential parents before they had children, and sterilized anyone carrying the recessive allele.
Jerome said:
As humans have the intelligence (from evolution) to discern "good" and "bad" traits; would it not be proper within evolution, for man to highlight the "good" traits and reduce the "bad" traits?
|
More trolling... /sigh
But really, what would you say are "good" traits and "bad" traits Jerome? Just give us an example of a couple that you think we can breed for or breed to remove.
I don't think you have a basic understanding of genetics and inheritance. If you had some idea of a few of the basic concepts in genetics, like incomplete dominance, partial penetrance, co-dominance, linked vs non-linked traits, epigenetics, the often poorly understood relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the potential for hundreds of alleles for a single trait to exist in a population.... you might begin to grasp the impossibility of establishing a human breeding program.
Also, to reiterate Ricky's point, diversity is a good thing. Any breeding program, by its very nature, lessens diversity.
Should mankind decide which genetic traits to be allowed to reproduce and which genetic traits should be prevented from reproducing?
|
No.
There is no such thing as "mankind" when it comes to making decisions. Who would get to decide what traits are desirable and what traits have to go? What criteria would be used to evaluate a given trait?
On that basis alone eugenics is a bad idea. The fully subjective nature of such decisions should tell anyone all they need to know. Eugenics is about control of reproductive rights, not about "improving" human stock.
And, as marf pointed out, eugenics attempts in the past have been everything from foolish to utterly inhumane.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 05:38:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Due to modern medical care, the children live, but need special care their whole lives; parents of mentally retarded children tend to have less children than those with children of average intelligence, thus reducing the frequency of those genes.
|
I never reflected upon that. Thanks Marf!
So Natural Selection and Genetic Drift is very much alive even in industrialised nations. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 05/29/2007 07:01:13 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 07:27:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by marfknox
Due to modern medical care, the children live, but need special care their whole lives; parents of mentally retarded children tend to have less children than those with children of average intelligence, thus reducing the frequency of those genes.
|
I never reflected upon that. Thanks Marf!
So Natural Selection and Genetic Drift is very much alive even in industrialised nations.
|
Dont forget though, that 80% of babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted, when they wouldnt have prevoiusly* and that it is now possible for those with major genetic defects to breed with each other whereas that was prevoiusly a no-no.
*I think I heard some pro-lifers menton this stat somewhere...the exact number doesnt matter.
--
On eEvolution/directed evolution in general though, I am all for anything which would increase the number of Heidi Klum-like women.
|
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 05/29/2007 07:29:13 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 07:31:16 [Permalink]
|
| http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18919206/ New limb-less lizard found, good design God! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 07:52:55 [Permalink]
|
BPS wrote: | New limb-less lizard found... |
Meh, big whoop. Until the end, that article makes it sound like this was the first limbless lizard ever discovered. But we've known about them for a while. They even have a live one on display at the Academy of Natural Science here in Philly. Its head looks a bit like a blue-tongued skink (minus the blue tongue).
I don't think limbless lizards show good or bad design so much as they illustrate parallel evolution. I'm sure the Sepsophis are perfectly well adapted to their current environment. Until things change that is.
Dude wrote: | If you had some idea of a few of the basic concepts in genetics, like incomplete dominance, partial penetrance, co-dominance, linked vs non-linked traits, epigenetics, the often poorly understood relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the potential for hundreds of alleles for a single trait to exist in a population.... you might begin to grasp the impossibility of establishing a human breeding program. |
Thank you so much for writing this paragraph. I wanted to write something like it, but my brain was tired late last night and I got so involved with reading and referring to the history of eugenics. I tried to allude to the complexity of human genetics and why simple breeding is a dumb idea, but this paragraph gets so much more specific. Not that I'm confident Jerome will actually research any of the concepts and terms you mentioned here, but hell, he might! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 05/29/2007 07:54:26 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 08:40:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If you had some idea of a few of the basic concepts in genetics, like incomplete dominance, partial penetrance, co-dominance, linked vs non-linked traits, epigenetics, the often poorly understood relationship between genotype and phenotype, and the potential for hundreds of alleles for a single trait to exist in a population.... you might begin to grasp the impossibility of establishing a human breeding program.
|
I'm not sure that I see why the factors you mention would make it impossible to establish a human breeding program. If it is possible to do so with other organisms why is it impossible when it comes to humans?
I see it as a moral and social issue rather than scientific one. ie, whether or not we can, we shouldn't. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 08:56:07 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt wrote: | I'm not sure that I see why the factors you mention would make it impossible to establish a human breeding program. If it is possible to do so with other organisms why is it impossible when it comes to humans? |
I think in the larger context of Dude's post he meant NOT that human breeding similar to dog or cat breeding was possible, but rather, that human breeding for generally "good" traits and against generally "bad" traits is impossible.
If we're talking about a narrow set of mostly superficial traits (such as have been breed for in dogs and cats) the ethical problems are obvious to anyone who knows a bit about breeding. There are always some horrific consequences to domestic breeding in animals, such as grotesque and fatal deformities and high frequencies of certain health problems in certain species. To me, the ethical concerns that human breeding brings up are why a human breeding program would be "impossible". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 09:32:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Dont forget though, that 80% of babies with Downs Syndrome are now aborted, when they wouldnt have prevoiusly* and that it is now possible for those with major genetic defects to breed with each other whereas that was prevoiusly a no-no.
*I think I heard some pro-lifers menton this stat somewhere...the exact number doesnt matter.
--
On eEvolution/directed evolution in general though, I am all for anything which would increase the number of Heidi Klum-like women.
|
80% seems about right accordig to this Google search. |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 09:32:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I think in the larger context of Dude's post he meant NOT that human breeding similar to dog or cat breeding was possible, but rather, that human breeding for generally "good" traits and against generally "bad" traits is impossible.
If we're talking about a narrow set of mostly superficial traits (such as have been breed for in dogs and cats) the ethical problems are obvious to anyone who knows a bit about breeding. There are always some horrific consequences to domestic breeding in animals, such as grotesque and fatal deformities and high frequencies of certain health problems in certain species. To me, the ethical concerns that human breeding brings up are why a human breeding program would be "impossible".
|
Okay thanks, I thought Dude was speaking to the science.
Some eugenics methods such as state-imposed selective breeding, forced sterilization and genocide are clearly morally repugnant and should be condemned regardless of whether they are scientifically feasible or not.
But I wonder whether the moral concerns associated with eugenics will be somewhat mitigated in the not too distant future as more refined methods become widely available. Techniques such as genetic screening of embryos, genius level sperm banks, or some forms of genetic engineering are potentially much more palatable provided the science behind them is workable. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 10:12:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
dv82matt wrote: | I'm not sure that I see why the factors you mention would make it impossible to establish a human breeding program. If it is possible to do so with other organisms why is it impossible when it comes to humans? |
I think in the larger context of Dude's post he meant NOT that human breeding similar to dog or cat breeding was possible, but rather, that human breeding for generally "good" traits and against generally "bad" traits is impossible.
If we're talking about a narrow set of mostly superficial traits (such as have been breed for in dogs and cats) the ethical problems are obvious to anyone who knows a bit about breeding. There are always some horrific consequences to domestic breeding in animals, such as grotesque and fatal deformities and high frequencies of certain health problems in certain species. To me, the ethical concerns that human breeding brings up are why a human breeding program would be "impossible".
|
I think he was refering to the difficulty of getting everyone on board, we might breed some folks but to change the entire population would be an (near)impossible task. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 11:23:50 [Permalink]
|
I suspect that eventually, inheritable genetic changes will be induced for some extremely dangerous genetic flaws, and that this will be done via gene-splicing medical procedure, not by selective eugenic breeding. But there is a lot more we would first need to know about human genetics, as well as a need for ethical guidelines for any such "meddling."
As I understand the present state of human genetic ethics, it is ethical to alter genes in the body for medical reasons, except for ova and sperm cells. I would expect that eventually exceptions would be allowed for eradicating a very short list of deadly or debilitating inherited diseases. If such would be called "eugenics," it would be an entirely different type of eugenics than the abuses of the past.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 12:05:07 [Permalink]
|
dv82matt said:
I'm not sure that I see why the factors you mention would make it impossible to establish a human breeding program. If it is possible to do so with other organisms why is it impossible when it comes to humans?
I see it as a moral and social issue rather than scientific one. ie, whether or not we can, we shouldn't. |
and:
Okay thanks, I thought Dude was speaking to the science.
|
I am speaking to the science of it. Yes, you could easily breed humans for the same things we breed dogs for. Size, coloration, thickness of coat, and so on.
The problem lies in the less well defined and understood traits that most eugenics supporters would like to label as good or desirable traits. Can you breed humans to be more intelligent? Can you even define intelligence in human only terms? What chromosome/s carry the alleles for intelligence? Are genetic factors more important than epigenetic factors and overt environmental and social factors in producing greater intelligence? There are dozens human traits like this. Can you breed compassion, business sense, academic success, charisma, temperance, and so on?
For example, these people are in favor of human eugenics to breed "health, high intelligence, and noble character" more strongly into the race! So... what chromosome/s holds the allele for noble character again? The very concept is as scientifically empty as a creationists head.
Then you have to examine who gets to decide what is a desirable trait, and what criteria do you use to decide if a trait is a desirable one? Such things are entirely subjective. This alone places eugenics well outside the realm of sound science.
Then what about hybrid vigor? You can't breed homozygous genotypes out of a population and retain the benefit of the heterozygous genotype. Sickle cell anemia is a good example of this one. The heterozygous genotype results in a normal RBC and a resistance to malaria, this is obviously preferable to either of the homozygous genotypes (normal RBC and no resistance or sickle RBC). Any breeding of heterozygous couples will result in ~1/2 of their children having one of the undesirable genotypes. The only way you could maintain only heterozygous genotypes in a population would be through 100% artificial reproduction where you in-vitro fertilize, screen, and only implant heterozygous embryos. The implausibility of such a thing should be obvious.
I could go on...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 12:12:15 [Permalink]
|
I'll just add:
You could establish a human breeding program, on a limited scale, to breed certain well understood traits into the experimental bloodlines.
But none of the traits that eugenicists typically say are desirable have a well understood genetic basis for inheritance.
I could easily establish a human bloodline that is all tall, blond, blue eyed. Because the genetics and environmental aspects of those triats are fairly well understood.
Not so for "health, high intelligence, and noble character."
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 05/29/2007 12:13:12 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2007 : 16:47:24 [Permalink]
|
| I'm dying to know what Jerome is advocating in more specific terms. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
evolution is a tool of eugenics
