Possible Genetics?

[Anonymous No.4154306]

What if it turned out that every single person has 2 sets of genes for intelligence?

One set of genes causes a person to be "smart"
The other set of genes will cause him to be "stupid".
When he reproduces, he passes on both sets and only one of them will take action.

Because most human minds are limited, the brain is born "focusing" in a certain direction. The reason "stupid" people have many more kids is because that is what their brain focuses on; understanding other "people" and just reproducing as much as possible.

"Smart" people, on the other hand, will normally reproduce with few kids.

So why would genetics do this? If genetics allows deliberately gave people a chance a 50/50 chance at being smart or stupid (not saying that's the case), a single line of genes that has both "intelligent" and "stupid genes" will be able to create both leaders AND followers. And the "followers" will be unknowingly making new leaders!

This would explain all of the inconsistencies regarding how some times, "smart" parents develop "stupid" kids and how "stupid" parents will create "smart" kids.
And this will continue for a few generations until the gene chooses to "switch" again.

A single line of genetics could literally BE "designed" to create an entire society. The reason "stupid" people exist is BECAUSE they are meant to exist. Stupidity is, literally, programmed into our genetics. The genes for "intelligence" are like a retrovirus, allowing it's reproduction by spurring into action and falling dormant completely at random!

The genetics would have "reproductive" and "dormant" stages. When a line of genetics is "reproductive", it's stupid and fucking like rabbits. When it's "dormant", it's off sitting in a little cubicle with a dead end job and allowing order to grow in society.

Of course, this is an extremely simple view of a much more complex system. But maybe the world has "frycooks" not because we need them, but because they are "born"!

[Anonymous No.4154310]

Intelligence is like beauty.

[Anonymous No.4154321]

>>4154306
More so:

This would explain why its so fucking impossible to determine which kids will be smart and which kids will be dumb

Frankly, the smartest fucking people I know are the most socially awkward fucks I know, but damn, do they know their way around a calculator. There's a reason genetics literally "doesn't" benefit from being too smart! Because people like that don't help "society" in the long run, and die off anyway.

[Anonymous No.4154327]

>When he reproduces, he passes on both sets and only one of them will take action.
Stopped here.
why?
>assuming all people are either smart or stupid
>autistic detected

[Anonymous No.4154326]

>>4154310
Beauty is like strength.

[Anonymous No.4154333]

>>4154306
More so:

This would explain why its so fucking impossible to determine which kids will be smart and which kids will be dumb

Frankly, the smartest fucking people I know are the most socially awkward fucks I know, but damn, do they know their way around a calculator. There's a reason genetics literally "doesn't" benefit from being too smart! Because people like that don't help "society" in the long run, and die off anyway.

Retardation and Autism are not "genetic diseases". They are what happens when the mind becomes too effective at either being "stupid" or "too smart".

Most people can't tell the difference because they are in the "normal" range, but retardation and austism literally stem from the same "disorder", but taken in completely opposite directions.

[Anonymous No.4154337]

I would tell you that you clearly got the stupid set, but that would imply I agree with your theory, making me stupid too, making my judgement of your stupidity worthless.

Paradox.

Oh and also:

>>4154326
Strength is like vanity.

[Anonymous No.4154332]

You should write a book OP

True fascinating

[Anonymous No.4154340]

>>4154337

Vanity is like greed

[Anonymous No.4154343]

Hurr Durr intelligence is a discontinuous trait hurr durr.

No. all of my No.
Pic related

[Anonymous No.4154344]

>>4154327
OP here.

I'm not assuming that. I'm just thinking of a possible explanation for general trends. Do you think we'd have ever discovered the concept of "evolution" if we continually stared at individual specimens?

Trends may not be as "random" as we think and arise with good reason, reasons outside of the trends themselves.

[Anonymous No.4154347]

>>4154340
greed is like lust

[Anonymous No.4154356]

>>4154344
>just thinking of possible....
no
I have no clue what trends you are speaking of because your initial premise is so obviously wrong it's incredible.
You are a troll.
>>4154343 has the right idea

[Anonymous No.4154357]

Because the one who is smart and wants to reproduce obviously wins.

[Anonymous No.4154360]

>>4154344
guys
what if
each individual gene
coded for one trait
and they didn't effect each other at all.
imagine that
rectedry 232,

[Anonymous No.4154358]

>>4154326
No

[Anonymous No.4154361]

>>4154343
You're telling me why I'm wrong, but I'd rather have evidence for why you're right.

I'm sick of treating Genetics like they are "Direct" current instead of "Alternating" current. Genetics can and HAVE switched back and forth in the past between "stages". Retroviruses have done it before as well.

Further more, a genome that could switch between those two phases at random will be far more adept and complex than genes that are only "smart" or "stupid". It is not only likely that genes can do this, but in there very benefit that they do!

[Anonymous No.4154364]

>>4154310
>>4154326
>>4154337
>>4154340
>>4154347
/sci/ wrote a poem

[Anonymous No.4154370]

>that feel when no-one on /sci/ will ever understand genetics

[Anonymous No.4154379]

>>4154370
shut up OP. your shit's all retarded. but keep convincing yourself that it's our fault so you don't actually have to admit your mistakes.

[Anonymous No.4154381]

>>4154379
I'm not OP. I was laughing at his poor grasp on the subject. Lamenting, really.

[Anonymous No.4154383]

>>4154381
Shut up not-OP. your shit's all retarded. but keep convincing yourself that it's our fault so you don't actually have to admit your mistakes.

[Anonymous No.4154382]

>>4154357
OP again.

Tell me, when has that EVER either:
1) Been the case
2) Remained the case

People who are both smart and reproduce are anomalies. Beneficial anomolies, but any time a group of people gets "too smart", society either:
1) Forces them "down"
2) Makes them leaders.
Genetics would deliberately want to maintain status quo as much as possible and only deviate in "small amounts". People who are too capable or who are "not capable" tend to not fair well.

The idea that society would ever drive towards anything like what happens in "Idiocracy", THAT is what pisses me off. Even when intelligence "dies off", it never leaves for good. It's "dormant".

[Anonymous No.4154385]

>>4154361
>You're telling me why I'm wrong, but I'd rather have evidence for why you're right
>I'd rather have evidence for why you're right
>evidence for why you're right

>claims to have at least some credibility with biology
>doesn't know what a 'discontinuous trait' is.

mfw

[Anonymous No.4154390]

>>4154382
Look up Ashkenazi jews

[Anonymous No.4154394]

>>4154381
>>4154370
>Implying the current model of genetics isn't horrible inconsistent and single-minded

[Anonymous No.4154395]

>>4154382
>uses movie as reference

[Anonymous No.4154396]

You can never be sure you'll have a smart baby. And even if you do get lucky with the biology, the slightest thing can through it off course. Like you don't want to be a pushy parent but you also want to provide for and encourage every opportunity. Really, there's just too many variables. It's too much risk. That's why Im not going to have kids.

inb4 the sarcastic "Yeah That's why you're not going to have kids"

[Anonymous No.4154404]

>>4154394
the current model of genetics is cool guy, doesnt horrible inconsistent and doesn't single-minded anythink.

[Anonymous No.4154407]

>>4154390
I don't see how that has ANYTHING to do with what I wrote.

I'm not denying the concepts of "Dominant" and "Recessive" genes whatsoever. These ideas I'm proposing work in unison, if anything.

[Anonymous No.4154409]

>>4154382
>intelligence dies off
>idiocracy
>that's a fictional movie where someone time travels
>mfw they make tests harder now-a-days
>mfw the flynn effect
>mfw op is a fucking troll

[Anonymous No.4154410]

>>4154407
Because you obviously didn't do what I asked you to do.

[Anonymous No.4154415]

>>4154407
>thinks intelligence is coded entirely by one gene with complete dominance over another

[Anonymous No.4154417]

>>4154395
>>4154404
>>4154383
It's like I'm on fucking /b/, jesus fucking christ...

I don't know where you guys ever got the impression you were better than them.

[Anonymous No.4154422]

>>4154409
>uses mfw
>doesn't use picture

[Anonymous No.4154434]

>>4154410
>>4154415
And that's because neither of you tried to understand what I'm getting at.

You've not taken these ideas seriously for a single moment during this entire thread. You've only abhorred them because they don't simply reiterate what's been stated on the current scientific model.

The fact of the matter is that you:
1) Are more concerned with telling other people they are wrong than actually explaining yourself
2) Are more concerned on showing off what you know than actually explaining yourself
3) Would never acknowledge you were wrong even if someone presented you evidence in the first place.

Regardless of whether I was right or wrong, the moment ANYONE disagreed with you, this is the course of action you'd have taken either way. And that's because you're an asshole.

I feel sorry for the genetics department that has to deal with you. Also, keep up with the greentexting and meme bullshit. It REALLY helps your case.

[Anonymous No.4154436]

>>4154434
Ashkenazi jews are conclusive evidence that you fully %100 wrong

[Anonymous No.4154444]

>>4154434
>get told
>attack the refuters
>"YOU GUYS JUST MAD AND USING MEMES"
>use a reaction image with O RLY? in it

We're not so different, you and I. But seriously retype your original post so that it makes a little more sense. Or read through Genetics.

[Anonymous No.4154446]

>>4154422
>2011
>never seen this happen before
mfw

[Anonymous No.4154449]

>>4154422
>mfw people have been omitting the face since the birth of mfw

[Anonymous No.4154453]

>>4154422
>ignores post
>implying >mfw is not whatever was to the left of your computer screen
>this thread is now:
>mfw
poast what my face was

[Anonymous No.4154457]

>>4154453
yfw an ipad

[Anonymous No.4154461]

>>4154422
>mfw that pic is an appropriate response to the post it came with
>mfw mfw is the evolution of >implying
>mfw this proves evolution, checkmate atheists

[Anonymous No.4154470]

>>4154444
Here's how this structure of this thread has been:
"Hey guys, I think apples are fruit."
>implying apples are fruit
"What have you proven to me by saying that?"
>If you think that apples are fruit, then do you think that bananas are apples?
"No. I think that both of them are fruit."
>Stupid jack ass. Go look up bananas, and then come back and admit why you're wrong
"I have no clue what you're asking for."
>TOLD!

>>4154436
You've not explained yourself whatsoever. That's why I refuse to take you seriously.

Explicitly show the connection between these two ideas and how they contradict each other, or fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4154483]

[Anonymous No.4154484]

>>4154444
Then you could have simply asked for clarification instead of immediately deciding I was wrong. I seriously hope you don't handle discussions with people like this in real life. Because if you do, then people must think you are a total asshole.

I'm done here. This thread is a fucking circle-jerk.

[Anonymous No.4154486]

>>4154470
Except you've made some claims about genetics purposefully producing less fit individuals. As in individuals who despite being more intelligent, are less likely to reproduce.
You're using genetics to explain complex social phenomena which are results of, at the very least, a mix between genetics and upbringing.

[Anonymous No.4154511]

>>4154486
OP here.

When did I ever say it produces purposely "less fit" individuals? The "Stupid" gene reproduces faster. The "smart" gene builds social structure. Each person carries and reproduces each gene because they contain both genes.

A single gene that allows for both traits will be able to drive in both directions, and is adaptable as a result. By delibrately allowing for "stupid people" and "smart people", it allows for society to be build, thus ensuring its own survival.

I'm not saying that genetics "deliberately" creates society. But Genetics doesn't "delibrately" create a human being either. Genes just reproduce in whatever way allows them to reproduce better. If a human, or a society, or a cell are the result of that, so be it.

But these ideas all fall straight in line with why there are "Alpha dogs", "Beta dogs", and runts. It's because these so called "inferiors" create social structure, thus ensuring the gene's survival.

[Anonymous No.4154528]

>"stupid" people have many more kids is because that is what their brain focuses on; understanding other "people" and just reproducing as much as possible.
>"Smart" people, on the other hand, will normally reproduce with few kids.

Fitness is living to reproductively active age and producing children. You explicitly say stupid people produce more children. Hence, more fit.

[Anonymous No.4154534]

>>4154511
To clarify further;

I'm saying that "social structure" is an evolutionary trait in humans. That "social structure" takes many different forms and doesn't need to have any exact look or method. But genes make both the "smart" and the "stupid" dependent on one another, and then creates both of them. That, in turn, creates a "group" of people who will outrace any "smart" individual.

Genetics literally does not benefit those who are "too smart" because if society does cannot keep up with them, they are not useful. While it doesn't seem like it, humanity has been "trending" towards intelligence for a long time now. And it's not because of individuals. It's because of society as a whole.

[Anonymous No.4154566]

>>4154528
But societies with only stupid people degrade into chaos and lack social order. Hence, they are unfit.

Additionally, a society of nothing but "smart people" will still fight amongst themselves or completely leave each other. Hence, they are unfit.

Society works because genes produce both stupid AND smart people. By creating both "leaders" and "followers", social order is made. And by allowing each both "leaders" and "followers" to have each set of genes, social order is maintained in the long run because the "leaders" will never be able to separate from the "followers".

The only way society would evolve towards "intelligence" is if it's done slowly and is unnoticeable to the people within it. And that is exactly why we don't see it happening. Because when it does get noticed, it gets exploited, and results in disaster. This is nature's "fail safe". Making "intelligence" seem random is a failsafe against "intelligence" itself.

[Anonymous No.4154575]

>>4154566
>Making "intelligence" random is a failsafe against "intelligence" itself.
fix'd. I shouldn't have put the "seem" in there.

Intelligence IS "random". Between individual sets of active genes, at least. It's still in the code, but it's activation itself is "random".

[Anonymous No.4154598]

>>4154434
Okay, OP let me explain myself.
>What if it turned out that every single person has 2 sets of genes for intelligence?
Very probable
>One set of genes causes a person to be "smart"
The other set of genes will cause him to be "stupid".
When he reproduces, he passes on both sets and only one of them will take action.
This is incorrect as you are assuming that every human being on the planet has the same set of genes coding or intelligence, which would result in only three or four different possible levels of intelligence. we know this is not the case, as intelligence can range from OP's to 180+
You are also incorrectly assuming that an entire karyotype is passed down in reproduction and you have completely omitted the effects of meiosis.
[cont]

[Anonymous No.4154604]

>Because most human minds are limited, the brain is born "focusing" in a certain direction. The reason "stupid" people have many more kids is because that is what their brain focuses on; understanding other "people" and just reproducing as much as possible.
All human minds are limited. please provide a citation for your claim that stupid people have more kids, and this 'focusing' metaphor you have.
>"Smart" people, on the other hand, will normally reproduce with few kids.
[citation needed]
>So why would genetics do this? If genetics allows deliberately gave people a chance a 50/50 chance at being smart or stupid (not saying that's the case), a single line of genes that has both "intelligent" and "stupid genes" will be able to create both leaders AND followers. And the "followers" will be unknowingly making new leaders!
Despite the fact that you have stated that you aren't saying this is not the case, you continue with your proposal that is is, when, if you had more than a 16 year olds understanding of genetics, you would know that it isn't.
>This would explain all of the inconsistencies regarding how some times, "smart" parents develop "stupid" kids and how "stupid" parents will create "smart" kids.

[Anonymous No.4154612]

[citation needed] for these 'inconsistencies.'
>And this will continue for a few generations until the gene chooses to "switch" again.
No, it wouldn't. Genes cannot 'choose' to do anything, let alone support your argument.
>A single line of genetics could literally BE "designed" to create an entire society.
No, it couldn't.
>The reason "stupid" people exist is BECAUSE they are meant to exist. Stupidity is, literally, programmed into our genetics.
Finally! you understand something!
>The genes for "intelligence" are like a retrovirus, allowing it's reproduction by spurring into action and falling dormant completely at random!
This contradicts your claim that smart people cannot produce smart children, if the chances of the 'intelligent genes spurring into action' was random this pattern would not exist. And once again, No, it wouldn't.

>The genetics would have "reproductive" and "dormant" stages. When a line of genetics is "reproductive", it's stupid and fucking like rabbits. When it's "dormant", it's off sitting in a little cubicle with a dead end job and allowing order to grow in society.
No, Genes cannot be dormant or active at random. They can only be dormant or active if the other genes for the other traits allow for it.
>Of course, this is an extremely simple view of a much more complex system.
No, it's not. it's you trying to make us think highly of a stupid idea, or to make us think if we didn't get your point when it doesn't make sense.
>But maybe the world has "frycooks" not because we need them, but because they are "born"!
No, we have frycooks because America has a high demand for fast food.

[Anonymous No.4154705]

>>4154612
>This contradicts your claim that smart people cannot produce smart children
I never said smart people cannot reproduce smart children. I said they CAN produce stupid children. I'm saying that like a retrovirus, the genes for producing smart children are spurned into motion for a few generations before shutting themselves off "on their own".

>Despite the fact that you have stated that you aren't saying this is not the case, you continue with your proposal that is is
>No, we have frycooks because America has a high demand for fast food.
Okay, see, this is why you're an asshole. You're not actually seeking discussion here. You're trying to show my why I'm contradicting myself instead of asking for more clarification on what I'm saying. This goes back to the whole:
>If you think apples are fruit, then you obviously think bananas are apples
thing.

I am NOT trying to create contradictions here. If I'm contradicting myself, it's because you are slipping your own personal assumptions into what I'm saying, which is exactly what you've been doing. Citing individual lines of my text and asking me to explain every single point is never going to get us anywhere.

Seriously. I mean that. Darwin had to put up with bullshit like that all the time because people nitpicked like that.
>If you think birds become other birds, do you think birds can become cows?
"No, not really, I'm saying that over long periods of-"
>But you just said that animals become other animals. You just contradicted yourself.
"But what I'm trying to say is that-"
>Look, Darwin, any 16 year old in who's learned about genetics will tell you you're wrong

Now, do you want to try this again, or are you going to keep this up?

[Anonymous No.4154783]

>>4154705
I'm not seeking discussion at all, no. this is because what you have to say is incorrect, in terms of your understanding of genetics.

Also, You still have several points of mine you must refute before we continue.

Furthermore, asking " do you want to try this again, or are you going to keep this up?" is not going to make anyone other then yourself think that what you have to say is valid.

Maybe, before you embarrass yourself further, you take another year of biology at high school.

[Anonymous No.4154790]

Because people don't have degrees of intelligent and are just smart or dumb and there's no in between

[Anonymous No.4154795]

>>4154705
>>4154612
>>4154604
>>4154598
>anus badly damaged

[Anonymous No.4154799]

>>4154790
Precisely.

[Anonymous No.4154837]

>>4154783
>I'm not seeking discussion at all
Well, then of course nothing I said was going to make sense to you. If everything I said agreed with your views, there wouldn't be a discussion anyway. The discussion NEVER happened because YOU were never looking for one.

>in terms of your understanding of genetics.
You are inserting your own assumptions on what I do and do not know about genetics, and have entertained my thoughts for a total of 5 seconds before deciding I was completely ignorant.

You have completely underestimated me, and have made no effort whatsoever trying to understand what I've been saying. Even on a board where everyone is anonymous, you still manage to be a completely pretentious asshole.

I hope you don't consider yourself a scientist. Because it's pretty damn clear you're more interested in being "right" rather than actually hearing the views of others.

This discussion was doomed from the get-go, and it's not just because I am wrong:

It's because you're convinced anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I honestly think you're right about genetics, but you've been too busy looking for the places that I'm wrong to see where Im only building on current assumptions on genetics.

tl;dr
You are an asshole. You are intelligent. But you are not a scientist. Fucking get over yourself.

[Anonymous No.4154848]

>>4154837
>This discussion was doomed from the get-go, and it's not just because I am wrong

I agree. it's because i am an asshole. But mostly because you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.4154875]

>>4154790
OP again.

I'm not saying there "isn't" an in between. Think of it like this.

There are two "intelligent" red switches, and two "dumb" blue switches.

Two red switches activate and create a man who is intelligent. Two blue switches activate and create a man who is stupid. Red/Blue and Blue/Red each create purple.

Any time any of these people reproduce, though, they still have 2 switches. While the red one will create. No matter how many times these genes reproduce, roughly 1/4 of the people will be "smart", 1/2 of the people will be "average" and 1/4 of the people will be "stupid". But each one still has the capacity to produce "average", "smart" and "stupid".

Genes do occasionally get bred out. However, that does not account for how people can produce stable societies in the long run, because a model like that would "wipe out" the stupid people, and smart people would not have "stupid" children. That isn't the case, because the genetics of each person contain at least some form of both genes. And that's why even when you DO breed for intelligence, it doesn't work; because every person has that 2 way "switch" that alternates independent of who the parents are. It's "designed" to be random.

This, combined with Gregor Mendel's model would create a much more stable and understandable model of genetics.

[Anonymous No.4154888]

>>4154875
But theres obviously more then three general intelligence levels?
IQ and whatnot?

[Anonymous No.4154903]

Regression to the mean OP.

And your theory is stupid.

[Anonymous No.4154908]

>>4154888
It wouldn't just be two red and two blue switches.

There'd be a lot of these matrices going on at once. And again, I'm not eliminating the idea that "nurture" determines IQ either. I'm just saying that it's possible for "nature" to have a much larger effect on intelligence than we think, but that there is much more than just Mendel's model going on in the genome that we have not been looking for.

Because we aren't always looking for these "switches" that are inherently in the code, we end up with results we completely don't expect. Genetics could be "deliberately" trying to create classes just because it found it was more successful by hosting both sets of genes and activating one at a time per "host".

[Anonymous No.4154944]

>>4154903
>>4154903

THIS

[Anonymous No.4154960]

>>4154908
Continuing this train of thought:

Let's say we have 3 sets of Red/Blue switches.

Those who were born Red/Red/Red would be austistic
Those born Red/Red/Blue would be both intelligent and social, and almost indistingishable from anyone else with 2 reds and one Blue.
Those born with 2 blue and one red will be just as common but considered "below average"
And those born with 3 blue will be considered retarded

We'd make anyone with at least 1 blue and 1 red the "average", but it's already become so varied that the trend is unnoticable.


By adding one more "switch", you end up with a grid of 16 possible "personality types" a person will be born with. Those in the middle will be almost the same as one another with only slight variations. Combine this with "nurture", and you will have a rough replica of our intelligence models" where all the "personalities" in the middle will have varying IQs, but very few of those personalities will reach the same IQ as those with all 4 "red" switches activated.

More so, because any of these types will produce any of the other types (They all have 4 switches), we wouldn't be able to notice it with Mendel's model of inheritance.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are just "16 personality types". But it would account for a hell of a lot of what we see going on in the human pscyhe and why we aren't able to related intelligence to genetics all that well. More so, it might even account for why autism rates have been sky rocketing; because certain switches have been getting permanently "set" into red mode.

Autism would be the result of when the "intelligent" become too separate from the "stupid". And retardation is the result of the "stupid" being too separated from the intelligent. The humans with all 4 switches that varying will naturally be best fit for survival

[Anonymous No.4154973]

>>4154960
tl;dr

If personality WERE genetic, we would never even know it because for all we know, ever single person contains the "genes" necessary to produce the other personalities and "intelligence" types in their offspring. And when the genes DON'T vary, we consider them "medical disorders".

[Anonymous No.4154986]

>>4154960
I'm followin' ya OP.
What's wrong with the current model? this is much more restrictive. and there is still the fact that people have different intelligences. more then 9 different values. what happens to these 'switches' in meiosis?

[Anonymous No.4154987]

>>4154848
I'm not wrong. You just don't see why, because you're a complete asshole.

/discussion

[Anonymous No.4155012]

>>4154986
Almost every single human has those switches, so their ability to vary is kept almost every single time offspring is produced. Pretty much the same reason that even though when two creatures of the same species only give off half of their genes, the resulting creature is still the same species.

Basically, the ability to "reproduce multiple personalities" is there in most every person because that's part of what makes humans both distinct and successful. It's when that ability is lost that we treat those people as "anomalies".

So it is possible to have those switches set to permanent "on" or permanent "off" mode. But neither of those modes last long because they spread too far from the social "norm" when that happens. This is also why inbreeding can't work for multiple generations and results in mental disorders.

Of course, Mendel's model also explains it, but when the two are used in conjunction, it makes the trend more noticeable. The ability to vary IS the genetic superiority.

[Anonymous No.4155053]

>>4155012
Additionally, genes do show the ability to "switch".

This goes back to the retrovirus example and why retroviruses are so hard to find and eliminate. The body seeks and eliminates cells with the retrovirus active in them, so whenever the retrovirus reproduces, it makes half of the cells it infects "active" and half of them "dormant".

Retroviruses are so hard to eliminate because they "activate" at random times. Those lucky enough to have their switch turned to "dormant" but not have it permanently set to "dormant" will then restart the cycle after treatment has ended.

[Anonymous No.4155072]

>>4155012
So what happens in meiosis?

[Anonymous No.4155102]

>>4155072
Let's follow one of the "switches".

Half of the "switches" produced will be able to make "on/off".

Half of the "switches" produced will make either a permanant "on" or a permanant "off". The mother and father put forth those four and get:

Switch/No Switch
No Switch/Switch
Switch/Switch
No Switch/No Switch

1/4 of the the children will have "no switch". 3/4 of the children will have the ability to "Switch".

Only 1/4 of the children will have their genetics lead towards a state where personality is strictly "genetic". The ability to "switch" is the dominant gene and while neither will be entirely wiped out, they will be more successful than those with "no switch" because once those with "no switch" are on a path towards retardation, they cannot stop it. Those that can "switch" will naturally leave out those who are unfavorable.

Therefore, those genes that have both sets of genetic codes will reproduce both sets of genetic codes. Codes that do no vary are wiped out over long periods of time. Or are you asking something else?

[Anonymous No.4155167]

>>4155102
In a picture:

Circles contain 2 sets of genetics it can vary between.
Squares only have 1 set.

Circle/Square will vary between 3 possible offspring
Circle/Circle will vary between 4 possible offspring
Square Circle will vary between 3 possible offspring
Square/Square will only have 2 possible off spring

A genetic code which can vary between which code it uses, therefore, is more adaptable than a code which only allows for the use of a single code.

The ability to vary, while also containing all of the same genetics is therefore a beneficial trait. Genes that allow (but don't restrict) possible types will be more adapt and prosperous than those that require.

The variation in genetics itself creates increased variation. Species that varied in different directions became separate species. Species that vary too little die out. Species that maintain the norm maintain equilibrium. The rate of variation is, in itself, a trait of genetics.

[Anonymous No.4155184]

>>4155167
More so, this is the same reason we have so much genetic "junk" code in genes.

Not just from the insertions that viruses add: but because those are all "switches" which have been forced into a permanent "off" mode out of necessity. The switches which are "dormant" decide what makes us human. The "switches" that are active are what create the variation among humans. This is why we all have the same genome, and yet personalities/looks are not the result of individual genetics: We all have roughly the same "active" switches, and can thus create a kind of variety independent of the parent's genetics.

[Anonymous No.4155194]

>>4155167
>>4155184
tl;dr

There is an actual difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. It's subtle, but it's no coincidence that you can cross-breed dogs to create new dogs, but you can't cross-breed a dog and a cat to create a cat/dog. Their abilities to "vary" are simply in two completely different directions.

[Anonymous No.4155286]

>>4154306

L2Demographics + History + Economics + Sociology + Biology

[Anonymous No.4155389]

>>4155286
This IS "Demographics+History+Sociology+Biology"

Variance and possibility applied in large scale is what creates all the eccentricities these things we call "random".

I'm not saying that this makes humans "predictable" by any means. But I am saying that the differences in society, sociology, and biology are created not out of randomness, but out of necessity. Our genetics both creates and thrives off of the sociology which it developed.

Humans don't create social structure. Genetics creates a social structure so complex that we simply don't understand it. And it's in such a round-about fucking way that it looks like it's the product of our own free will.

[Anonymous No.4157170]

>>4154306
>every single person
... but not married couples.