Stupidity is genetic: Apolyton Eugenics

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


As I said before, prevalence of a gene will only decline if it is selected against.



Dominants will win over regressives but if you have a population that starts out in equilibrium distrinbtion of those genes then percentages will not change without selection for or against the trait.

So if the blonde declining is true there is has to be selection against them?

[KrazyHorse]

As far as I know, myopia is caused entirely by physical problems in the eye, either "hereditary myopia" caused by the eyeball taking on a prolate form (myopia that shows up early in life, around or before puberty) or age-induced myopia caused by the lens losing its flexibility over time.

This is remembered from a Bio 301 class 5 years ago, though...

[KrazyHorse]

So if the blonde declining is true there is has to be selection against them?

No. The prevalence of blonde genes isn't declining; the percentage of people with a double blonde genotype is decreasing due to increased mixing of populations.

[tinyp3nis]

Ok so I just try to think it simple, if 2 parents make a 2 children, this is the rate that keeps population at same rates... (don't whine about exact 2 ). 1 healthy parent and 1 parent has the bad eye and gives it to both children... how does not this increase over time???

[loinburger]

That's my remembrance as well. There are some eye disorders that are caused by brain damage or disfunction, but myopia isn't one of them.

[KrazyHorse]

Tinypenis

What are you talking about?

[Az]

exactly, since 'Blond' is the recessive allele, its' phenotype only rarely exists in fully mixed populations.

Why would a physics student study biology?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by Frogger

So if the blonde declining is true there is has to be selection against them?

No. The prevalence of blonde genes isn't declining; the percentage of people with a double blonde genotype is decreasing due to increased mixing of populations.

hi,
double blonde genotype = blonde , rest = crap blonde no real blonde okok nono?? = muchos decline and burritos for all
have a nice day
thanks

[KrazyHorse]

Because we had to take Bio 301 in CEGYP to get a Diplome d'Etude Collegiale in Pure&Applied Science (which was the general degree required to enter a Quebec university in any science)

[Az]

The brain is flexible, but not so flexible that it can cope with something that no human brain has ever grasped before.

It's not such a great change, just a larger amount of visual input.
Besides, if we could grasp Calculus, and the structure of the atom, or Love, Hate, Envy, etc., I think this should be a little problem.

[Japher]

And I thought that everything that puts the child at a disadvantage due to itself (and not prejudice) is a defect.

Good point. Yet, what a disadvantage is is society dependent. I.e. Aleuts might want their children to have thicker skin to help against the cold, while Equator cultures might want their children to be better protect agains the heat. Or, if you live in a pigmy society you may not want your kid to be 6 feet tall. Just trying to generalize it more than by stating what and what isn't a disadvantage is, thus eliminating cultural or racial issues.

Parents can't do whatever they want, though, only enhancements. If the parents are crazy and want to cripple their child, it's illegal.

I hope not. Those types of ppl shouldn't even be allowed to have kids.

PtP: What if the only way to get hyper-active brain activity, thus creating a super-genius that could potential better society in many ways would require that the child be born crippled? Would it be worth it? Is it for us to decide?

All of the genetic deseases will be gone, but there are lots of other issues, as well as accidents, and further medical research into areas such as longevity.

There would still be many medical fields to engauge in. Yet, some fields would be lost or greatly reduced. If we have super people working in every field, would we need as many people working in those fields?

actually, one can enhance all traits. Its' not an "or either" decision.

good point

we're not playing dice. It's all well planned

"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray."
-Robert Burns

Why should it lead to our demise?

Hey, I'm for it, but I am not going to say that it will be all good.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by loinburger
I have given three specific examples: myopia, asthma, and bipolar disorder.

These can all be treated either with surgery or drugs - there is no need to fiddle about with the gene pool. And do you think you could fix these with genetic engineering without altering something else?

You haven't answered my other question: would you have genetically removed the defects of Hieronymous Bosch? Would you have fixed Beethoven's deafness? What about Newton's schizophrenia? Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?

The problem is that you are attempting to define what other people should be like.

Have a look at this and tell me if you think bipolar disorder can be genetically removed without losing anythng else:

http://mednews.stanford.edu/news_releases_html/2002/mayreleases/creative_gen.html

[Az]

Good point. Yet, what a disadvantage is is society dependent. I.e. Aleuts might want their children to have thicker skin to help against the cold, while Equator cultures might want their children to be better protect agains the heat. Or, if you live in a pigmy society you may not want your kid to be 6 feet tall. Just trying to generalize it more than by stating what and what isn't a disadvantage is, thus eliminating cultural or racial issues.

Ermm, but being smart, strong, and good looking would appeal to all, right?

PtP: What if the only way to get hyper-active brain activity, thus creating a super-genius that could potential better society in many ways would require that the child be born crippled? Would it be worth it? Is it for us to decide?

definetly not. He would live a miserable life, and being miserable and smart he'll cause a lot of pain to other people as well.

"The best laid plans of mice and men go oft astray."
-Robert Burns

cute, but that's just to say that we should not plan to build a bridge, becuase supposedly will create a communications tower instead.

Hey, I'm for it, but I am not going to say that it will be all good.

There are always new challenges.

[Az]

These can all be treated either with surgery or drugs - there is no need to fiddle about with the gene pool. And do you think you could fix these with genetic engineering without altering something else?

But if we can do it with Gen. Eng. once and for all, why not?

You haven't answered my other question: would you have genetically removed the defects of Hieronymous Bosch? Would you have fixed Beethoven's deafness? What about Newton's schizophrenia? Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?

IIRC, Beethoven became deaf only when he was old.

Would Byron have produced anything if he had not been manic-depressive?

perhaps yes, perhapse not, but It's good to know that you care about poetry than the welfare of people.

What about Newton's schizophrenia?

why do you connect his mental illness to his discoveries? I

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh


'kidding'???!!! I'm not f****** 'kidding', you dip****! That's the whole point! Selective breeding/genetic engineering is evil no matter whether you are breeding out big noses, low grades, or crap moderator skills.

So go suck on your toast

Whether it's evil or not, you in particular are able to express your position without resort to things like the crack about Jews, or without personally insulting people.

Normally, you're pretty much on my exempt list, but this one is a bit hard to ignore.

You can talk to Ming about when you'll be able to post again.