[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 110 KB, 500x384, Eugenics_congress_logo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2972897 No.2972897 [Reply] [Original]

Hello /sci/
since we have developed science and gained knowledge,
evolution is nowadays a fact that can not be denied and therefore we, as we are here and today, we are also
a product of evolution.
The theory says that evolution is undirected and only
determined by the genetic potential of the population
and the surrounding factors e.g. food supply ect.
But as we as humans figured out how evolutionary mechanisms and evolution itself is functioning, would it not be the right way to direct the human evolution in a way we want to. I am not speaking in a racist way, I am speaking of a eugenic way.
Would it not be right to let only those of us reproduce who are free from any genetic disease and mistakes, to gradually take the next step to a new human kind without genetic determined diseases?
I want to point out that I am not speaking about racial breed or euthanasia.
I want your opinion on eugenics.
Please only valid and no racist comments.
Thank you and discus.

>> No.2972912

please don't let this 404

>> No.2972934

>eugenics discussion
>no racism

pick one

>> No.2972939

bio evolution< darwin evolution
no racism was involved, just genetic manipulation.

>> No.2972957

>>2972939
I mean >

>> No.2972974

>>2972934
it is has not necessarily have to be racist if you talk about eugenics, because people from different ethnics can have healthy genes which can lead to positive features, thus they could complement each other. But there is a need for neutral selective methods.

>> No.2973006

>in a way we want to.

It will be like 100 more years before scientific concentric with the public is broad enough to even talk about what "we" want.

>> No.2973011

>>2972934
This.

>> No.2973013

>>2973006
>concentric
= consensus

>> No.2973017

>>2972939
what exactly do you mean with "bio-evolution" and "darwin evolution"
i am talking about the natural evolution which is taking place.
And my point is, that with eugenics we can abolish genetic determined diseases.
Of course there are always mutations and other factors which are able to alter the genome,
but we are in a state that we are able to minimize the amount of genetic diseases.

>> No.2973034

>>2973006
that might be right.
But if we assume that the scientific lobby was strong enough to influence the government.

>> No.2973038

Eugenics itself is usually just a cover for racism and has incredibly little basis on science.... nuff said.

euthanasia I think is ok in some situations, although it is a grey area.

>> No.2973055

>>2973038
usually not science

>> No.2973068

The main problem is - it takes about 400(20 generations) years to reduce probabilty of genetic deases from 1% to 0,1%.

>> No.2973088

>>2973038
we know what mutations in which gene causes a specific disease, of course the knowledge is not complete yet, but on this kind of foundation, is it legit to try to convince a couple who is on risk having kids with a genetic determined diseases not to have a child, or is the parent's wish more important ?

>> No.2973099

>>2973068
I am talking about a long term plan and goal and not about results you'll have next summer

>> No.2973136

Even if we managed to decide which alleles are cool and which aren't, how would it benefit people with the good alleles to have people with bad alleles killed?

>> No.2973139

It would be possible to create a society that looks down upon passing on deformities. But what would you do when someone broke the law?

Would we bar people from breeding if we weren't sure if their case was genetic? ( I don't know much about genetics)

The whole thing raises very difficult questions, so it would be pretty hard to get everyone on the same boat even if we agreed that we could save a lot of pain in the future from eugenics.

>> No.2973189

>>2973136
>>2973136
which alleles are "good or bad" is easy to figure out, those alleles which encode well functional enzymes are good because they don't make metabolites which are threatening for the organism. Alleles which encode misfunctional enzymes or proteins are bad.

There is no need to kill the people with bad alleles, they can live until they die naturally (or because of the genetic disease xD jk), but they are told not to reproduce, this way they still are a use for society.
The use would be less, or optimistically viewed , no more genetic diseases.

>> No.2973195

Eugenics used for eliminating disease and disabilities = good

Eugenics used for altering appearance, intelligence, physiology, racial characteristics, or anything not to do with only improving health problems = BAD, BAD, BAD, BAD , BAD.

>> No.2973227

>>2973034
>But if we assume that the scientific lobby was strong enough to influence the government.

If that were the case, then we wouldn't need eugenics, since dumb ass red-necks have no control over anything any more.

The only real 'problem' with our society is the sociological baggage of living in trees and being stupid for several million years.

>> No.2973232

>>2973189
Any iris colour other than dark brown eyes is caused by alleles that code for malfunctioning proteins.

>> No.2973242

>>2973189
but the people with genetic diseases would be people with the bad alleles


i mean, what you're saying is "oh hey let's save people from genetic diseases by not letting people who'd have those diseases be born in the first place"

>> No.2973251

>>2973139
you don't consolidate this in law, I think it would be better if the doctor's take the role of convincing people to do so, so that the people don't feel like they are forced to but convinced to the better choice.

if you don't know how the genome of one looks like you could run tests to figure it out, that is possible today.
This would make that kind of procedures cheaper and available to more people, who want to check if their genome is ok. Furthermore the research could develop faster and think of mechanisms of improving the test-methods.

>> No.2973276

>>2973242
"i mean, what you're saying is "oh hey let's save people from genetic diseases by not letting people who'd have those diseases be born in the first place""

thats it... if people are not born they are not killed.
if you argument this way you should use each of you sperm cell to create new life, because if you just jack off and flush them down the toilet you kill thousands of potential lives.

>> No.2973285

>>2973232

these are not malfunctioning proteins, these are altered proteins which have no negative influence on the organism, therefore are no bad alleles

>> No.2973291

>>2973276
yeah well but at least i don't say i'm saving them from anything

>> No.2973293
File: 85 KB, 757x737, 1298409280703.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973293

the attached picture is the sole reason why evolution is still regarded as a theory today.

>> No.2973320

>>2973251

Different guy.

I just thought I would mention how difficult it would be for doctors to convince people to breed/not breed.
When it comes right down to it, what average joe really gives a shit about human genetic evolution? Especially when you look at the state of our society's today.

"If you and everyone with the same problem as you chooses not to breed for the next ~5 generations, the incidence of the problem you have will substantially decrease!"
Tough sell, to say the least.

>> No.2973323

>>2973291

You'd be saving them from having such a horrible father, and that is a very worthy cause.

>> No.2973324

>>2973291
listen...i did not say that i will save the people with genetic diseases from anything, my point is to prevent the following generations of there diseases. People who have the diseases already can live, I don't want to kill them. But why should other people suffer from that disease too?

>> No.2973331

>>2973324

because who's going to be the peons of the next generation who buy diet coke and cars that they cannot afford?

who's going to go to war with people who don't agree with us? everybody we can get.

>> No.2973343

>>2973293
It's not even proved that Jesus existed, but i don't want to switch the topic

>> No.2973344

>>2973324

because the other option is to not live

and because people having genetic diseases doesn't harm people who has them

>>2973323

Okay I'll tell this to my cum every time i masturbate then

>> No.2973358

>>2973343

OP I just gave you the answer in >>2973293.

The reason why evolution is still a theory is because it contradicts the opiate of the masses and we can't have that as a society otherwise people are going to go running around without morals everywhere.

>> No.2973362

>>2973344
>>2973344
"and because people having genetic diseases doesn't harm people who has them"
of course it does harm people who have those diseases, people die because of genetic diseases!

>> No.2973371

>>2973362
sorry i meant people who doesn't have them and assumed you'd be clever enought to figure it out for yourself

>> No.2973383

>>2973358
>>2973358
>>2973358
Evolution is not a theory, it was proven on the Galapagos Islands, where evolution took place within a few decades in altering the Darwin-finches, after the El Nino.

>> No.2973397

>>2973371
don't push your inability to write on my ability to read

>> No.2973402

>>2973397

okay sorry about that but that still doesn't answer my point

>> No.2973419

>>2973371
>>2973402
to answer you question: of course people who have genetic diseases do not harm people who haven't them, but if these people reproduce the disease spreads and harms members of the following generation, and those suffer.

>> No.2973425

>>2973419
but

people who'd suffer from genetic diseases are people born from people with genetic diseases

>> No.2973449

>>2973425
people who suffer genetic diseases are the result of the reproduction of people who have genetic diseases already, and therefore people with genetic diseases should not reproduce.

>> No.2973452

If eugenics existed Hawking would have never existed. And OP may have not existed.

>> No.2973458

>>2973449
>if we wipe out people with genetic diseases, there will never be anymore genetic diseases

NOPE

>> No.2973467

>>2973449

so who does it help again?

>> No.2973469

>>2973189
>but they are told not to reproduce

On what basis on whose authority are you telling them this?

btw, evolution has no end goal. it's not heading anywhere. there is no higher form of evolution. just different types. if things reproduce, then so be it. when evolutionary biologists talk about the 'best' genes being passed on, they really just mean whatever works, or even simply whatever doesn't interfere with the ability to reproduce.

So the kind of people with the genes that you think shouldn't be passed on have as much right to pass their genes on IF they get passed on! Any justification you can make for why they shouldn't be allowed this right is completely arbitrary and somehow based on the ridiculous assumption that people with a congenital disability are somehow 'less evolved'. Evolution is simple: if it's here, then it deserves to be here.

>> No.2973476

>>2973452
OP is perfectly healthy just as all members of my family, therefore i would exist and i am existing. :)
We don't know what possible results we would have, if eugenics would have been practised earlier, but the discussion is not about the past, we are talking about the future from todays initial point.

>> No.2973480

>>2972897
Or we could just continue research cure them and help those poor fucks reproduce?

>> No.2973495

>>2973458
i said your answer here >>2973017

>> No.2973502

>>2973480
of course we could and it will be like this but why should people need to be treated like when they suffer from cystic fibrosis, instead of being healthy and not on medication?

>> No.2973512

Do you know how incredibly rare it is to be born able to survive in the jungle? I'm not just talking about being born with the physical strength required, but also the mental fortitude.

This doesn't mean that we kill off the 99% of the tribe that can't survive. Humans are a tribal species, the only reason we've made it this far is because we take care of our weak, sick and elderly.

Just because one does not have the "best" traits, does not mean one has nothing to contribute to the tribe.

>> No.2973520

>>2973449
ooooor How about instead of depriving people of their ability to live how they want to live, (which they are entitled to do since they are here, living) A better solution would be to allow those people to reproduce but separately advance medical research to the point where we can identify genes and remove whichever the parent considers problematic. We are doing this. It's just that its very slow work and we don't yet know where all the genes are located.

>> No.2973522

>>2973469
as you said "its here then it deserves to be here"
but look at the present an think of the future: genetic diseases are a problem for the science, doctors and especially people who suffer from them, and why should people in the future suffer form them too? only because the gene deserves to be there, therefore the affected person deserves to have a genetic disease?
would it not be better if following generations would not have to suffer from that kind of diseases, or less, because the chances of mutations are still there but we decrease them by decreasing the reproduction of the people who are already affected

>> No.2973527

>>2973522
but no one has the moral authority to prevent reproduction. and we wouldn't wipe out genetic disease by doing this anyway.
a better idea is what doctors already do: >>2973520

>> No.2973532

what you're saying op is instead of studying how genes work we ought to start adopting babies from a couple guaranteed to produce viable offspring and whose sole purpose in life is to produce more of them to ENSURE THE FUTURE OF THE HUMAN RACE!
and a lot of incest down the line...

anyway the idea would be retarded even if there weren't a billion people currently living in squalor due to lazy economists

>> No.2973533

>>2973520
this would lead to the so called "designer babies" that is a different topic

>> No.2973535

>>2973533
it's not a different topic.

>> No.2973543

>>2973532
>>2973512
read my posts an you'll get your answers

>> No.2973548

>>2973543
No, you just don't have an adequate response.

>> No.2973556

>>2973548
>>2973548
>>2973548
i have but i dont want to type EVERYTHING again

>> No.2973566

>>2973556
You're not fooling me.

>> No.2973587

>>2973566
I am not fooling anyone

>> No.2973604

>>2973587
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY

One day I'm gonna get mini tape recorder just for those times in conversation when youtube reaction videos are perfect.

>> No.2973610

OP here again,

I would like to thank all of you who took part of this very interesting discussion
I am going to bed now, because it is half past 12 in the night here in Germany.
Thanks again to all of you!
and good night

>> No.2973618

Addition to that>>2973610
if you want to continue do so...
if not /thread

>> No.2973625

>>2973610
>germany

why am i not surprised?

>> No.2973631

>>2973625
I just waited for that :D
I am not from German origin, originally i am from Georgia, came here 1997, I was 6yrs old

>> No.2973655
File: 113 KB, 389x251, LaughingGirls_laptop.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2973655

>>2973631
>personal information on an anonymous board.

>> No.2973664

>evolution is nowadays a fact that can not be denied
I deny it. It is not a fact and it will never be a fact. Theories are inferences based on facts, this is not debatable.

You seem to think Darwin's finches prove evolution. This is false and has been shown false. Darwin did not "witness evolution", he saw different populations of finches with largely different traits during a short range of time located on different islands. It has been shown that the genetic shift between small beaks and large beaks, etc. happens within one or two generations of finches based on the weather patterns. Darwin's assumption that these populations remained separate and evolved separate over millions of years was shown false.

I am not trying to force you to my way of thinking, but using false "evidence" in support of evolution clearly has no place in science or in a rational person's mind.

As for eugenics, I would suggest reading CS. Lewis' space trilogy, as it tackles this issue.

>> No.2973694

Transhumanism. Humans have been manufacturing adaptation for a very long time. One could say the brain is the most generalized trait. Let us forsake our biological frames for an entirely interchangeable, endlessly durable/repairable mechanical shell. It would allow individuals to steer their evolution in a lamarckian kind of way.

>> No.2973701

>>2973664
No. You are wrong. Evolution is a FACT. The theory is our attempt to explain it. We can observe micro-evolution which, if extrapolated over many many years, causes macroevolution and speciation.

>> No.2973706

>>2973664
Everyone knows Darwin wasn't that great. he's just the poster boy for evolution. Hell even Lamarck did a better job than Darwin although he couldn't prove it.

>> No.2973725

Sure is lack of genetic knowledge in there.
There are no "good" or "bad" alleles.
Evolution is mostly based on random events occurring in an environment.
What if some of those alleles that may increase the chance to have a genetic disease (yeah because 1 allele=/= 1 disease every time) could provide an evolutionary advantage in another context?
Genetic diversity is a strength against changes of the environment.

>> No.2973743

>>2973725
I agree with you.Imma email you so we can discuss it further. oh wait.

fuuuuuuu

>> No.2973762

>>2973743
There's nothing to discuss.
"Eugenics" are an outdated political concept that should be left in their dusty 30s drawer by people with the tiniest sense of ridicule.

>> No.2973841

Skipping some iffy premises, eugenics makes sense. We could, conceivably, shape the human population towards better health, both mental and physical. But to impose regulations on others based on this principle is a violation of some of a person's most basic liberties. It directly conflicts with one of the primary instinctive goals of life. Such policy is bound to cause trouble.

Eugenic's place is only in that of personal responsibility. Those with health problems have a responsibility to others - and especially to their own children - to take the necessary precautions to see that they don't extend their own suffering into future generation. And these days, what with in vitro fertilization and sperm donors and all that jazz, this doesn't even actually mean keeping yourself from having children!

So it should probably go into education. Write on the subject. Express your opinions openly. Don't make it an emotional matter - just try and be practical. But remember that it's *your* choice for *your* offspring, and you have no right to force your decision onto others.

>> No.2973850

>>2973706
Dude... what? Lamarck?
Lamarck thought that if I stretched my arms really long I'd have a son with really long arms. That wasn't "better than Darwin", you douche.

>> No.2975943

>>2973841
nice one

>> No.2975978

>>2973850
>>2973706
In defense of Lamarck, he was not entirely wrong.
Of course it is impossible, if we take his famous example of the giraffes, that if they just "wanted" a longer neck
they got it.
But molecular biologists have discovered that during our lifetime, there are changes in our genome,
I don't mean mutations. With the lifestyle an individual leads,
he influences his genome, because there are regulation mechanisms, for the chromosomes and because of that,
genes can be altered, by methylisation of those genes,
what can lead to an inactivation of that specific gene.
This changes of genes during the lifetime of one individual, can be transmitted to the next generation.

>> No.2975988

>>2975978
Oh god, this shit again?

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
>Epigenetic features may play a role in short-term adaptation of species by allowing for reversible phenotype variability. The modification of epigenetic features associated with a region of DNA allows organisms, on a multigenerational time scale, to switch between phenotypes that express and repress that particular gene.[39] When the DNA sequence of the region is not mutated, this change is reversible. It has also been speculated that organisms may take advantage of differential mutation rates associated with epigenetic features to control the mutation rates of particular genes.[39] Interestingly, recent analysis have suggested that members of the APOBEC/AID family of cytosine deaminases are capable of simultaneously mediating genetic and epigenetic inheritance using similar molecular mechanisms.[40]

>> No.2976014

>>2975988
Ack, quoted wrong part.

>Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation.

>> No.2976024

>>2975988
same article, some lines before:
"Although epigenetics in multicellular organisms is generally thought to be a mechanism involved in differentiation, with epigenetic patterns "reset" when organisms reproduce, there have been some observations of transgenerational epigenetic inheritance (e.g., the phenomenon of paramutation observed in maize). Although most of these multigenerational epigenetic traits are gradually lost over several generations, the possibility remains that multigenerational epigenetics could be another aspect to evolution and adaptation. A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is expected to be far more common in plants and microbes. These effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern evolutionary synthesis.[37][38]"

i did not mean that this is a major mechanism of evolution, but that changes in the DNA of an individual, because of methylisation, can be transmitted to the next generation, of course it isn't a great argument for Lamarck(I really don't want to support his theory), but he was not entirely wrong

>> No.2976031

>>2976024
He was entirely wrong. Merely because he took a stab in the dark, and there's something remotely similar does not make him right.

None of this epigenetics is at all similar to "I reach up to the tall leaves everyday, so my children will get taller". That kind of reasoning is simply wrong.

>> No.2976056

>>2976031
Dude, are reading, what I am writing?
I don't support him at all!
I am just pointing one little thing out, that the hypothesis, which says "changes in the individual genome are not transmitted into the next generation" is not right anymore, because they are transmitted.
This of course does not mean that this mechanism plays a major role in evolution.

>> No.2976062

>>2976056
I'm afraid you're not listening to what I'm saying. I agree with everything you just said, except that Lamark was not completely and utterly wrong. Lamark is completely and utter wrong with his theory of change and inheritance.

>> No.2976084

>>2976062
I think he was wrong to what he referred -> giraffes getting longer necks because they want to
but i think his statement "through changing habits, the organism changes" (paraphrased), is right by referring it on the DNA, because the DNA changes with changing habits, such as nutrition etc.
Sure he couldn't know that in his time and that what makes it wrong, the reference to a organ and not to genes.

>> No.2976086

>>2976062
well i'll butt in here since neither of you two really understand what your talking about. Lamarck was NOT entirely wrong about his theory of change and inheritance.

Darwin claimed it was all random chance inheritance. Lamarck claimed the actions of an individual during their life effected their inheritable traits. In this respect Lamarck was correct and Darwin was wrong. This is not only due to the heritable epigenetic traits you have mentioned, but also due to the fact that the more any gene is transcribed the greater its risk for mutation(therefore the genes that are
"used" more will be more likely to mutate.)

>> No.2976103

>>2976084
>>2976086
But that's not what Lamarck said, which is my problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism
>Lamarck incorporated two ideas into his theory of evolution, in his day considered to be generally true:
> 1- Use and disuse – Individuals lose characteristics they do not require (or use) and develop characteristics that are useful.
> 2- Inheritance of acquired traits – Individuals inherit the traits of their ancestors.
Idea 1 is simply wrong.

>> No.2976119

>>2976103
wikipedia is bullshit, and clearly your entire understanding of the subject was informed from there.

read my last post.>>2976086
any given genes rate of change is partially based on how much it is used.

>> No.2976128

>>2976119
First, you're setting up a false dichotomy, that any amount that Darwin is less right makes Lamarck more right. This is false.

Second, your silly little observation that when the DNA is used more results in more possibility of mutation. This is asinine to suggest that Lamarck meant this. Lamarck clearly meant phenotypes that are useful and used will be more likely propagated to children or more likely "pronounced" in children, and phenotypes which are less useful and less used will be diminished in children or less likely propagated.
This is not talking about the strands of DNA and how often you make proteins from which genes and chromosomes. Those are two entirely separate things dude. Lamarck was simply wrong.

>> No.2976133

>>2976103
I agree with you about that, but my focus relies on something different.
My point is that by certain habits you have influence on your genome, which can be transmitted to your offsprings, thats what epigenetic says(still not saying that this plays a major role in evolution).
But of course you can not influence in which way these changes go, and I think here is the point where you meet.
Lamarck said, as we know, that the organisms "wanted" to influence their development, and i agree with you that this is wrong. BUT it is not wrong that changes of your lifestyle (nutrition and stuff) influence your genes.
And of course Lamarck was wrong by saying that those organs disapear by not using them. If we refer this on genes, it is wrong too, because the altered genes are still there, but in an inactive status.
I hope we can solve our problem,P

>> No.2976135

>>2976128
it as if you are pretending phenotypes are somehow independent of genotype. they are two things in which one is derived from the other.

if you use certain muscles more, then the genes controlling the growth of the those muscles will be more likely to mutate.

>> No.2976139

>>2976135
It is not that simple

>> No.2976140
File: 44 KB, 375x500, 56654w5e.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976140

>>2972897

>eugenics

>human emotions

eugenics + human emotions = epic disaster.

>> No.2976145

>>2976135
>if you use certain muscles more, then the genes controlling the growth of the those muscles will be more likely to mutate.

I would like some citations of this please. I believe it is very non-obvious that there is a correlation between "good" phenotypes and how often proteins are transcribed from the corresponding genes.

Secondly, even granting this IMHO dubious claim, this gets us no closer to making Lamarck less wrong. Lamarck claimed that such phenotypes would be "enhanced" when passed down to the individual's children, and/or that it would be more likely passed down than other phenotypes. I fail to see the step of logic that gets us from "more mutation" to "enhanced in children and/or more likely to be in children than other phenotypes".

>> No.2976157

>>2976145
here's the logic you're missing: if its an important trait for survival, then non-beneficial mutations will die out and only the "improved" mutations will succeed.

>> No.2976158

>>2976145

Hope you have read what i have written here>>2976133
I am once again saying goodbye to you folks, because I need to study now
have a nice day

>> No.2976169

>>2976157
But that's not what Lamarck said. Lamarck's idea of inherited traits is clearly non-Darwinian. Lamarck clearly believed that if I jump a lot, then my children will be better jumpers. This is clearly unrelated to the rate of mutations of DNA strands.

>>2976158
Yep. I think I have no complaints with you, just this anon.

>> No.2976190

>>2976169
if you jump a lot, and this jumping is relevant to your survival, then your children will (eventually be better jumpers.

all the genes involved in jumping, from all the proteins in muscle and bone density regulators and neuromuscular transmitters ...et al, will all be more likely to mutate.

any mutations that hurt your jumping ability will decrease survival/reproductive success(or spur alternative strategies) and any that increase jumping ability will increase survival and repro success.

>> No.2976207

>>2976190
So many things wrong. Let's pick it apart.

First, you're not using proper capitalization and punctuation, which makes you a retard.

>if you jump a lot, and this jumping is relevant to your survival, then your children will (eventually be better jumpers.
>all the genes involved in jumping, from all the proteins in muscle and bone density regulators and neuromuscular transmitters ...et al, will all be more likely to mutate.
>any mutations that hurt your jumping ability will decrease survival/reproductive success(or spur alternative strategies) and any that increase jumping ability will increase survival and repro success.

So, your argument is that if I jump alot, then I will transcribe more proteins from those genes, and this will cause more mutation than for other genes. So far, I may agree. I think this claim is actually wrong as a lot of phenotypes don't require lots of active protein transcription, such as your height, but let's continue.

Next, you claim that this rate of mutation, if negative, will hurt that individual's chance of survival and reproducing. I can again agree. The actual effects I assume will be ludicrously small compared to standard neo-Darwinian synthesis, but sure. It's there.

Finally, the part where you went full retard - the claim that this is inheritable. It is not. Only the genes in your sperm or egg are going to get inherited, not the mutated genes from your leg muscles.

>> No.2976218

>>2976169
consider this. darwin's classic study on island fiches, how their were several types with widely varied beaks.

using their beak was very important for their survival, so they used it a lot and therefore this part of their phenotype changed greatly, while the rest of their bodies ended up being nearly identical. when one ecological niche was being exploited random changes allowed for alternative routes to be pursued, but the continued usage also allowed for the honing/improvement of that niche. this repeats several times, and bam, a whole slew of nearly identical finches with crazy amounts of variation in their beaks.

>> No.2976228

>>2976218
I would ask you to see the clear refutation of such silliness here:
>>2976207

>> No.2976230

IMHO, a eugenics based breeding plan or laws to improve health standards will never work, since we are pre-programmed to want to have kids (yes its true that some people just hate kids and some people have a burning desire to have them, but those are outliers).

this means that if you're going to outright forbid people with diseases to reproduce you'll quickly have a very very angry crowd of people knocking at gov'ts door, due to when a disease is latent in a person but might be prevalent in their offspring. you'll soon have a black market of corrupt doctors willing to falsify documents stating that there were no previous family cases of a certain disease and children that are born outside of hospitals and not registered in communes at birth.

If you restrict people to reproduce with "diseased", and let the diseased only hang out with other diseased, then still you get unhappiness due to it basically being the same as forced marriage.

The only way I see it work is as a procedure for the rich only where a sperm sample and egg sample are taken from the parents, the dna is extracted, modified to remove or deactivate the parts responsible for bad traits, and then re-injected into new cells, at which point the egg is artificially fertilized and re-injected.

... ist this done in in-vitro already?

>> No.2976237

>>2976230
>... ist this [genetic engineering] done in in-vitro already?
Hell no. With expensive tests, they /may/ (?) be able to identify certain eggs and sperm and such that have certain undesirable traits, but I'm pretty sure no one is currently choosing traits and splicing them together.

>> No.2976252

>>2976237
excuse me, I didnt write that last sentence correctly. what I meant was that its awfully close to what we are doing today. perhaps in 50 years it might be a possibility if we can prove that we can splice DNA reliably without fucking everything up, and if the social stigma is removed.

>> No.2976259

>>2976252
I didn't mean offense. The "hell no" was meant to be "The sky is falling? Oh no it isn't." It wasn't meant as a personal attack, nor as an attack on your poor spelling, punctuation, and grammar.

>> No.2976281

Human rights.

>> No.2976282

>>2976207
Height as phenotype IS proteinlevel dependant. GH is a peptide hormone. Even if it wouldn't be a small protein, more GH = bigger, taller.

>Implying the germ line can't somatically incorporate genetic change over time, like increased protein production.
Although you're right, the only way to have more protein production in the next generation is to have this incorporated in the sperm or egg cells, which would either need a stronger promoter, a gene duplication or whateverthehell that helps in your benefit.

>> No.2976312

>>2976282
Just because it's fun to continue to poke holes in someone's argument who cannot admit that he was wrong, allow me to continue.

You just assumed that taller = better. Bad assumption. What if shorter was better? Then there'd be less of that hormone, and thus less protein transcription, and thus mutation.

>> No.2976320

>>2976312
>*less* mutation.
Ack. Fixed.

>> No.2976325

>>2976312
this is like the 3rd thread that you two are duking it out. Go make a seperate thread for scientist vs SAGEGOESINALLFIELDS

>> No.2976329

>>2976325
Sorry. Not my fault. He only starting name-fagging it up /after/ I made post in that other thread (as far as I can tell).

>> No.2976330

>>2976312
>What if shorter was better?
Nice reductio ad absurdum
But yeah, ok, didn't want to give you the feeling I was nitpicking. Never said you were wrong, just wanted to point out that phenotype is proteindependant.

>> No.2976344

>>2976330
>Nice reductio ad absurdum
You use those words, but I do not think that you know what they mean.

I have further ripped apart your argument. It is apparent to me that the survival value of a phenotype as understood by Lemarck is relatively independent of the rate of protein transcription in DNA as we understand that now. I'm not entirely convinced, but shorter = better is just a perfect example I think. For any trait you can think of, I half suspect that sometimes you want to "increase" it, and sometimes you want to "decrease", causing protein transcription rates to be relatively independent.

>> No.2976361

>>2976344
All I said was phenotype is proteindependant...

>> No.2976602

>>2976190
>>2976190
I just want to give here an information which may be relevant:
if you jump a lot you get more muscles because of higher proteinexpression that is true,
but there is a little mistake in the logic.
When you use your muscles often, only in this part of your body the higher proteinexpression takes place.
This porteinexpression in that specific organ has no effect on other genes in the cell, like shutting others down.
And especially has no effect on your spermcells because it does not matter for your sperm, that in your muscle the production of actin and myosin is increased.
Your sperm would only be affected if some metabolites of your muscle get to your testicles and methylize some genes. But this is unlikly to happen, except you have a genetic disorder already which would cause such a metabolization in you muscles.

>> No.2976646
File: 167 KB, 470x478, techpretre.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976646

>ITT we think the next step of our evolution as a specie is something organic.
Ok.

>> No.2976677

It's a nice idea OP but where do you draw the line?

Virtually every human being has _something_ wrong with them, whether it's ADHD or Alzheimer.

>> No.2976705

>>2976646
>Implying our future evolution wont contain carbon

>> No.2976724

Anybody who believes in eugenics DOES NOT understand evolution in the slightest.
You are a fool, OP.

>> No.2976730

>>2976705
>Implying you're not a total and utter faggot who should be hung from a tree, shot, and run over by a truck for using >>Implying

>> No.2976731

>>2976677
i don't think that every single person has a genetic disease, there are certainly a few among us (sarcasm) who are perfectly healthy.
And thats the point. If we know who is healthy and who is not, there might be a chance of extinct genetic diseases
to a certain point. To a certain point only because chances of mutation are not well to be controlled.
And by saying "extinct", I am not talking about killing those people, just convincing them not to reproduce.
For further information, read the thread :)

>> No.2976744

>>2976724
and could you explain why I seem to misunderstand evolution?

>> No.2976747

>>2976724
>>2976724
I would like to mention that I wrote my graduation exam on evolution and had the best grade...

>> No.2976748

>>2976730
You're right
It's not an effective way to argue
Oh wait!
It is!

>> No.2976752
File: 12 KB, 688x432, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976752

>>2976744
It is very common that you need to take on a bad trait before taking on a good one.
Consider our potential as a bunch of hills, in which the higher up you are the "better" you are.
Now, look at the picture.
There is no way that you can get to the top of the higher hill without first descending down the smaller one.
Eugenics is extremely short sighted

>> No.2976758
File: 50 KB, 492x318, OP is a fag_granny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976758

OP you are a flaming faggotron.

Embryonic selection does away with the need for eugenics.
Then we can humanely remove genes for amorality, sociopathy and excessive hatred from the genepool.

In the future, genetically diseased people like yourself won't exist. How does this make you feel?

>> No.2976759

>>2976748
Please kill yourself.
I'm not the person you were arguing with. I just hate faggots who use that retarded >>Implying meme

>> No.2976788

>>2976752
that "diagram" only shows the development of a population (number of individuals) during and episode of time.
In this episode there was a major change after which the population became smaller than it was.
The remaining individuals could deal with the new conditions, because they had genes, which
led to certain phenotypes, that fit to the new conditions.
Therefore the number of individuals increased.

Bur what you are saying is that at first we have to wipe out the healthy alleles, so that the unhealthy alleles increase
just again to increase the healthy alleles again.
But it would be easier to increase the healthy alleles in the first place and decrease the unhealthy.
I think your "picture" of going from one hill on the other by walking through the valley first is not correct.
The better view on this would be a depiction of a linear diagram.

>> No.2976804

>>2976758
People like me will exist because I am perfectly healthy :)
but if i assume that you are really the man on the picture, I would respond that
people like YOU will not exist because you are wearing glasses which is a disability.

>> No.2976807

>>2976788
It takes many many generations for something awesome to come about.
You can't have four fully functioning arms without first having a kid that has weird looking stumps. A defect that in your world would make him intelligible to breed.

If an apes stopped having so much fur you would consider that as a bad thing because they'd be colder. But it results in them creating clothes and harnessing the power of fire

>> No.2976826

>>2976807
but take the example of cystic fibrosis which causes life threatening damages in your organs,
the only positive development we made is to put people who suffer from that on permanent medication.
That is not really a improvement, except for the pharmacy industry, because they are making money.
And still those people have a life expectancy of about 40 years.
Congratulations

>> No.2976837

>>2976807
addition to your apes: if they suffer from such disease it is likely that they just die because of the cold.

>> No.2976840

>>2976237

Biochemist here, for what difference that will make.

Preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) can be used for couples where one or both parties are in possession of a hereditary genetic condition, provided that the mutated allele/s can be succesfully identified in the affected individual.

The procedure itself resembles IVF, with the additional consideration that embryos which are shown to be positive for the mutant allele are not usually implanted.

It's fair to say that there is a deal of controversy surrounding the potential for abuse and the abotion debate.

There is also a considerable amount of pressure from disability rights campaigners who feel that the technique, in it's present usage, already represents a form of eugenics.

>> No.2976842

>>2976826
You never know what may happen. Any negative could easily turn in to a positive with a bit of luck and time.
Diversity is important.

Besides, those people who are truly fucked up won't get much chance to breed, so what's the point being a total asshole about it and prohibiting it?
No point what so ever. Just makes you look like a total prick

>> No.2976868

>>2976842
Thats the point, why wait and wish for it to happen while we are able just to do so.
Furthermore today those people who seem to be fucked up, have the chance of reproduction because of modern medicine, what leads to more fucked up people.
And wouldn't it be more helpful if we just use modern medicine to decrease the genetic disorders instead of increasing them?

Plus, your no point-post may let me look like a prick, who at least has arguments to offer, but it lets you look like a pointless idiot.
Enjoy yourself :)

>> No.2976887

>>2976868
You on the other hand will never breed. Luckily

>> No.2976904

>>2976887
Believe me I will , I have a gf who mostly agrees with me:D

Btw why so offensive? No arguments to offer anymore?
Oh forgot, the moment you had no arguments was your last post.

>> No.2976917
File: 605 KB, 2441x1621, irish woman with turnip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976917

>>2976804

but say if glasses are neccesary due to increased myelination of the eye as a side effect of increased myelination in the brain, which results in higher intelligence.
Higher intelligence> having to get laser eye surgery. surely?

And yes, you lack morality (something which is absolutely essential for a cooperating society). Imo, that's about as genetically diseased as a person can get.

>> No.2976918

>>2976904
Lies.
You're a teenager who has never even kissed a girl.
It's sad that you hide from the truth so much.
I bet you cry yourself to sleep every night and cry that the girls don't like you.
Plus, you haven't had a point for three posts

>> No.2976950
File: 46 KB, 307x350, 123456789123456.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2976950

>>2976917
so you are telling me that people with glasses are automatically more intelligent than people without?

pic related: person with glasses, is it also a smart person?

And please don't start the moral-discussion, because when I think of all the problems out there in the world, which can be solved if moral was our ideal, we would have the paradise in earth, but as it is not like this, the only moral thing seems to be how much money people need to make their moral shut up.

>> No.2976977

we already abort many kids with major genetic diseases (as we should, what's the good of having a kid that will live in pain for 3 years and then die?) but lots of things are only slightly damaging, when do we stop?

autism, dwarfism, having blue eyes, these are all damaging traits in a small way, so were do we draw the line?

if we start removing every trait we find even slightly offensive we will damage our genetic diversity.

even people with extreme health problems (like Stephen hawking) can make valuable contributions to society.

i'm not saying he is the norm, he is very much the exception to the rule but still these sorts of things need to be taken into account.

i'm pro improving ourselves but instead of abortion i think genetic therapy (when it becomes available) will be the better solution as it will let you keep the child as it was without the damaging parts.

until that part we can only tell the parents what the baby's problems are and leave the decision to them.

>> No.2976989

>>2976977
>blue eyes
>damaging
wat?
Blue eyes are awesome. Everybody should have blue or green eyes, especially asians.

>> No.2977011

>>2976989
Enjoy your niggereyes

>> No.2977012
File: 490 KB, 2437x1629, irish woman with banana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977012

>>2976950

>so you are telling me that people with glasses are automatically more intelligent than people without?

Only a fullretard.jpg could think that's what i was saying.

Obviously not EVERY mutation for poor eyesight is also a mutation for increased intelligence, but at least one (and probably by far the most common one) probably is.

>And please don't start the moral-discussion, because when I think of all the problems out there in the world, which can be solved if moral was our ideal, we would have the paradise in earth, but as it is not like this, the only moral thing seems to be how much money people need to make their moral shut up.

And that is why your genes are inferior. If somebody is born lacking in moral intelligence sometimes there's just not much you can do about it.

>> No.2977014

>>2976989

they look good but they are less developed the brown eyes causing people with blue eyes to have generally worse eyesight and a higher chance of needing glasses/going blind.

it's an extremely slight problem, but if we simply fix everything that is even slightly wrong blue eyes will be on the list.

that's kind of the problem with eugenics, if you have no proportion you might end up with a nation of clones and then genetic diversity goes out the window.

>> No.2977018

>>2976977
you should reread the thread, to many of your point there are answers already.

>>2976989
agree ;P

>> No.2977021

>>2977012

not that guy but:

>born lacking in moral intelligence

morality is more of a product of upbringing then anything else.
we are born with only very basic moral constants and they are usually very primitive, the rest is acquired.

>> No.2977029

>>2977012
Moral intelligence is not encoded in your genome, it is taught.
Because if there was something like moral intelligence, why are there wars? I always thought that killing people is immoral? Or am I wrong?

And a question to you: what is the deal with the Irish woman?

>> No.2977036
File: 540 KB, 2441x1621, irish woman with carrot.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977036

>>2977021

some people are born with excessive hate. Some people are born sociopathic.
Some people are born with a decreased ability to feel love.
Some people are born to closed-minded and set in their beliefs to morally develop properly.
Some people born less capable of using reason over emotion in their thoughts and thus incapable of over-riding their negative.
Some people are born less capable/less willing to engage in the sort of abstract thought neccesary to consider moral matters.
some people are born with genes which make it harder for them to engage in an action which is required to be a contributing moral citizen.

>> No.2977046

>>2977036
Bold claims, bro, and you haven't provided any evidence of inborn conditions whatsoever.

>> No.2977048

>>2977029

not that guy but:

>Moral intelligence is not encoded in your genome, it is taught.

that's not true, some morals (as in a correct way you should act within a group) are imbedded into you from birth.

not killing a person in your group is a simply one, not fucking your sister is another.

think about it, piranhas, humans, apes, every species on the planet that lives in any type of group obeys some laws, like: "don't eat the people in your group"

these are moral laws that don't need to be thought, they are innate, embedded into your d.n.a

>Because if there was something like moral intelligence, why are there wars?

ape morality.

you are thinking murder is wrong, but your definition of murder is different from a monkeys, you think of murder as killing a human being, monkeys think of it as killing people in their social group.

it's not murder if you kill a monkey that isn't part of your group, that's why armies are so big on instilling a sense of them and us into soldiers.

>what is the deal with the Irish woman?

they are fucking hot is the deal.

>> No.2977049

>And a question to you: what is the deal with the Irish woman?

she is me

>> No.2977060

>>2977048
>>2977046
>>2977036

this is the reason why I didn't want to start the moral-discussion, because, moral is such an abstract thing and means something different to each individual.
Moral is just in your conscience, because usually you wouldn't do immoral stuff but if you can deal with it even if it was immoral in the first place it is ok for all time.

So please people lets get back to the topic.

>> No.2977069
File: 37 KB, 785x535, WAY-267464.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977069

>>2977046

You have proven me wrong. I apologise for my post.
There couldn't possibly be genetic differences that relate to something as emotionally-charged, as cognitively demanding and as relevant to an individual's reproductive success in complex social groups, as morality.
That would go against the notion of genetic equality, and we all know that you can make something true by wanting it to be true.

pic related, it's a drug which can cross the blood/brain barrier and activate the oxytocin receptors in your brain, which should lead to increased feelings of closeness to others (emotional love- it's only been tested in rats afiak). I'm not sure if there are differences in oxytocin in humans (i'd be surprised if there weren't), but in a simmilar chemical (vassopressin) there are different versions of a related gene with men who have one version showing decreased marital stability and marital satisfaction than those with another version.

>> No.2977077

>>2977060

>this is the reason why I didn't want to start the moral-discussion, because, moral is such an abstract thing and means something different to each individual.

That's like saying "evolution means somethign different to each individual".
How to best increase fairness is not subjective.

>> No.2977107

OP shut the fuck up and die

>> No.2977109

>>2977077

>How to best increase fairness is not subjective.

fairness has nothing to do with any of this shit, not to mention it to is also subjective.

>>2977018

>u should reread the thread, to many of your point there are answers already.

not really, non of them are actually resolved, just swept under the rug.
anyway, genetic manipulation by genetic medicine is simply better then mass abortion, and you couldn't enforce abortion if you wanted to.

>> No.2977193

selection is frequency-dependent, for this reason any population that "strives" for genetic uniformity will dwindle and dwindle until they can't support parasitic intensity

>> No.2977224
File: 51 KB, 557x367, the more you know.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2977224

>>2977109

>not to mention it to is also subjective.

No it's not. It might be highly debateable around the edges, but it's not "subjective".

In the field of evolutionary biology they hypothetically work out cost/benifit analyses of cooperating in different scenarios in terms of individual evolutionary fitness.
Working out fairness is the same, but replacing "individual evolutionary fitness" with "individual happiness".
Then when you know what fairness is, you can talk about morality, which is the maximisation of fairness (and thus cooperation) within a system.