More likely, it has not been removed because it’s an age-related gene-degenerative disease that usually doesn’t manifest itself until people are well past the optimal breeding age of <35.
Bulldogs survive because they have someone taking care of them.
Well, many of them have bleeding problems. Their ankles are pretty thin for their weight. They OK on a track that is plowed 6" deep. I’m not at all sure that would work in rough country. Thoroughbreds like all animals that come from a restricted genetic pool require a lot of care.
And what you said is that thoroubreds do fine in the wild when the stop being thoroubreds. Great point.
Blather to the contrary, selective breeding, as Blake said, is always aimed at narrow band of characteristics that the human owners consider to be desirable. The animal’s overall suitability for survival is immaterial since it is always taken care of.
It also could be that the psuedoscience of “eugenics” as thinly disquised racism brought so much bad press that they few “right things” about eugenics (there are some unhappy conditions which are inheritable) are forgotten.
Take for example “Lamarkism”. The ridiculous “experiment” of August Weismann (cutting the tails off mice) is said to have disproved Lamarkism, whereas Lamark specifically excluded such injuries. In far, Darwin himself accepted some of Lamarks theories. From Wiki “Charles Darwin not only praised Lamarck in the third edition of The Origin of Species for supporting the concept of evolution and bringing it to the attention of others, but also accepted the idea of use and disuse, and developed his theory of pangenesis partially to explain its apparent occurrence. Darwin and many contemporaries also believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, an idea that was much more plausible before the discovery of the cellular mechanisms for genetic transmission.” However the ridiculous psuedosciene of Lysenko gave Larmark a bad name.
Now some biologists are rethinking *some aspects *of Lamarkism. Wiki "While Lamarckism has been discredited as an evolutionary influence for larger lifeforms, some scientists controversially argue that it can be observed among microorganisms.[2] Whether such mutations are directed or not also remains a point of contention.
In 1988, John Cairns at the Radcliffe Infirmary in Oxford, England, and a group of other scientists renewed the Lamarckian controversy (which by then had been a dead debate for many years).[3] The group took a mutated strain of E. coli that was unable to consume the sugar lactose and placed it in an environment where lactose was the only food source. They observed over time that mutations occurred within the colony at a rate that suggested the bacteria were overcoming their handicap by altering their own genes. Cairns, among others, dubbed the process adaptive mutagenesis.
If bacteria that had overcome their own inability to consume lactose passed on this “learned” trait to future generations, it could be argued as a form of Lamarckism; though Cairns later chose to distance himself from such a position. [4]. More typically, it might be viewed as a form of ontogenic evolution.
There has been some research into Lamarckism and prions. A group of researchers, for example, discovered that in yeast cells containing a specific prion protein Sup35, the yeast were able to gain new genetic material, some of which gave them new abilities such as resistance to a particular herbicide. When the researchers mated the yeast cells with cells not containing the prion, the trait reappeared in some of the resulting offspring, indicating that some information indeed was passed down, though whether or not the information is genetic is debatable: trace prion amounts in the cells may be passed to their offspring, giving the appearance of a new genetic trait where there is none.[5]
Finally, there is growing evidence that cells can activate low-fidelity DNA polymerases in times of stress to induce mutations. While this does not directly confer advantage to the organism on the organismal level, it makes sense at the gene-evolution level. While the acquisition of new genetic traits is random, and selection remains Darwinian, the active process of identifying the necessity to mutate is considered to be Lamarckian. "Lamarck’s Signature: How Retrogenes Are Changing Darwin’s Natural Selection Paradigm. Edward J. Steele, Robyn A. Lindley, Robert V. Blanden. Perseus Books, 1998
Note that I am not claiming Lamarkism is valid, just that it wasn’t the crap psuedoscience as commonly derided. Larmark was a true pioneer of Evolutionary thought -even though he may well have been wrong.
I didn’t mean to personally propose anything other than to encourage genetic diversity…did I miss something?
Your rejection out of hand of eugenics as being unscientific because it is not “objectively falsifiable” makes no sense to me.
If, as an example, I set out to create a population of star basketball players I think it would be possible to create objective criteria against which to judge the success of such an endeavor. Ditto with any number of other similar traits.
Such a eugenics endeavor may or may not be successful, of course. But it’s not an insurmountable obstacle to define criteria against which that success might be judged.
It’s essentially a strawman to pretend it’s only eugenics if the goal is so vaguely stated and subjective as to to be unmeasurable, and therefore there is nothing scientific about it. The core concept of eugenics is whether or not deliberate breeding of humans can produce improvements similar to the kind of improvements that have been produced in other species such as horses and dogs. While we may disagree on the desirability of some specific traits, on average we don’t want slower, weaker, dumber, disease-prone, tone-deaf, socially hostile, obese, ugly, spatially-challenged progeny.
Those are measurable traits, and no large-scale eugenics effort has been undertaken to see whether or not human populations can be bred for them. Therefore, to the question of the OP, it has not been scientifically “discredited.”
That does not mean it’s a good idea to try it, nor am I proposing it.
As an aside, on a narrow scale, infertility clinics practice eugenics as best they can, classifying donors on any number of things which are assumed indirectly to reflect the genetic potential of the embryos.
The argument that through selective breeding we can reduce congenital defects fails on the fact of impracticality. The “unhappy conditions” result from recessive genes.
Eliminating such “unhappy conditions” would require testing everyone for all possible bad recessive genes. Then it would be necessary to prevent two people with the same recessive gene from reproducing.
Yes, without a doubt. That is why, as you said, you never, ever find feral herds that look or behave anyhting like throughbreds. If those traits weren’t countersurvival then they would never be weeded out. Size alone is a massive countersurvival trait for thorougbreds, that is why feral herds worldwide invariably revert to a small horse or large pony size within a few generations.
Possible, but not likely. First off 35 is not in “past optimal breeding age” for males.
Secondly 4% of cancers (18 000 cases annually) develop in people under the age of 35, and 10% (44 000 cases) in people under the age of 45. To suggest that such losses are evolutionarily insignificant is stretching things.
Evolution might eliminate childhood cancer but natural selection doesn’t really care whether you die at 45 or 90 - once your sperm or eggs have hit the road, it’s done with you. But while my genes might not care if I die in my fifties, I do.
Yes, you proposed that eugenics could be tested scientifically. I explained why thatis not possible because the idea is psuedoscientific at best and in many cases purely sociological.
That is because you are not a scientist I suspect. If somehting can’t be objectively falsified then almost be definition it can be rejected out hand as unscientifc.
This is true, but you are no longer talking about eugenics in any recognisable form. Can you point to any eugeneicts who prosed such a narrowly deifned improvemnt of such a narrow human population? If not then you are simply beating a strawman, it’s a position that nobody ever held.
No, that is a fact at this stage of the debate. I can point you to any number of eugenecist publications where the goal is so vaguely stated and subjective as to to be unmeasurable. If you can point to a eugenecist publictaion where that is not the case then you have a point. Until then it is you who are indulging in a straw man because nobody who identified as a eugenecist ever held such a position.
CITE! Seriously I want a reference for this claim. I have never seen any eugenics proposal where such minor and mixed ‘improvements’ of isolated populations was the core concept.
Don’t we?
So we don’t want Einstein because he was slower than Karl Lewis?
And we don’t want Andy Warhol because he was dumber than Einstein?
And we don’t want Hawking because he was more disease prone than Bogart?
And we don’t want Bruce Lee because he was weaker than Ali?
What a load of nonsense. We want all of those things in large segments of the population.
For the reasons I pointed out:
-
Because some of those traits aren’t meaurable as stated: Is Warhol really dumber than Einstien?
-
Because most of those traits are mutaully exclusive with other desirable traits. Bruce Lee would always be weker than Ali. Ali would always be slower than Lee. We can’t breed for both simultaneously. Ditto for “socially hostile”. Winston Churchill was by all accounts on of the most abrasive, rude and socially hostile people in the world, it was large part of why he was a great leader. But you want to remove social hostility? By what standard is that an improvement?
*Because the traits themsleves are in no way objective. What the hell is “ugly”? To me Uma Thruman is one of the ugliest women I have ever seen. Others rave about her beauty. Good luck calling ‘ugly’ an objective an measurable standard.
[quote]
Therefore, to the question of the OP, it has not been scientifically “discredited.”
[/quote[
No, neither has Communism or Dadaism, that’s because they were never scientific to begin with. They can’t be objectively falsified as presented, which is the only way to scientifically discredit anything. WHat we can do is logically discredit the idea precisely because it is psuedoscience, ie social policy dressed up a science.
CITE! Please can you show me where a fertility clinic has ever stated that it practices eugenics to the best of it ability?
Once I again I suspect you are arguing a strawman by incorporating things that have never been included by anyone as being eugenic under the umbrella.
no, they respond to market pressures. Cryobanks label donor sperm with donor traits and allow the buyer to decide what to do. While there are certain market pressures (certain heights, eye/hair color), there is no identifiable and reliable “best seller”. Cryobanks give more to athletic and smart people because customers are willing to pay more for the higher chance of having athletic and smart offspring. But that hardly qualifies as eugenics, otherwise the mere process of finding a mate would be a process of “eugenics”, which, I suppose, it is, only it’s undergone on a personal level: each person decides which traits are desirable, as opposed to a societal level, with the forced breeding of pairs deemed likely to produce “desirable” (again, this is where eugenic paradigms run in to problems, defining “desirable” as a one-size-fits-all idea) offspring.
A few points
Eugenics Swedish style: sterilize low IQ females to prevent them popping out two morons in 18 months
Eugenics with dogs, mutts are smarter because they have to be, to survive - ditto for cats.
Farm bred dogs and cats are the best, as any defects get drowned or shot.
Eugenics has been turned into a ‘slur word’, but you can be sure it has been going on a long time - women can be sneaky - select a mate that is a good provider and shag an alpha male when fertile.
[QUOTE=Blake]
Yes, you proposed that eugenics could be tested scientifically. I explained why thatis not possible because the idea is psuedoscientific at best and in many cases purely sociological.
That is because you are not a scientist I suspect. If somehting can’t be objectively falsified then almost be definition it can be rejected out hand as unscientifc.
This is true, but you are no longer talking about eugenics in any recognisable form. Can you point to any eugeneicts who prosed such a narrowly deifned improvemnt of such a narrow human population? If not then you are simply beating a strawman, it’s a position that nobody ever held.
No, that is a fact at this stage of the debate. I can point you to any number of eugenecist publications where the goal is so vaguely stated and subjective as to to be unmeasurable. If you can point to a eugenecist publictaion where that is not the case then you have a point. Until then it is you who are indulging in a straw man because nobody who identified as a eugenecist ever held such a position.
CITE! Seriously I want a reference for this claim. I have never seen any eugenics proposal where such minor and mixed ‘improvements’ of isolated populations was the core concept.
Don’t we?
So we don’t want Einstein because he was slower than Karl Lewis?
And we don’t want Andy Warhol because he was dumber than Einstein?
And we don’t want Hawking because he was more disease prone than Bogart?
And we don’t want Bruce Lee because he was weaker than Ali?
What a load of nonsense. We want all of those things in large segments of the population.
For the reasons I pointed out:
-
Because some of those traits aren’t meaurable as stated: Is Warhol really dumber than Einstien?
-
Because most of those traits are mutaully exclusive with other desirable traits. Bruce Lee would always be weker than Ali. Ali would always be slower than Lee. We can’t breed for both simultaneously. Ditto for “socially hostile”. Winston Churchill was by all accounts on of the most abrasive, rude and socially hostile people in the world, it was large part of why he was a great leader. But you want to remove social hostility? By what standard is that an improvement?
*Because the traits themsleves are in no way objective. What the hell is “ugly”? To me Uma Thruman is one of the ugliest women I have ever seen. Others rave about her beauty. Good luck calling ‘ugly’ an objective an measurable standard.
[quote]
Therefore, to the question of the OP, it has not been scientifically “discredited.”
[/quote[
No, neither has Communism or Dadaism, that’s because they were never scientific to begin with. They can’t be objectively falsified as presented, which is the only way to scientifically discredit anything. WHat we can do is logically discredit the idea precisely because it is psuedoscience, ie social policy dressed up a science.
CITE! Please can you show me where a fertility clinic has ever stated that it practices eugenics to the best of it ability?
Once I again I suspect you are arguing a strawman by incorporating things that have never been included by anyone as being eugenic under the umbrella.[/QUOTE]
OK. I give. Not much point trying to win over a true Believer. 
I’ll give genetics another 50-100 years and re-post when the sperm bank can provide genetic material that lets you have a robust combo of Karl, Albert, Steven, Bruce and Muhammad. (I don’t think Andy will be a big seller.)
At that point the debate will rage around whether to have children “naturally” and risk them being disadvantaged, or whether to use genetically altered sperm and maximize the chances of having highly successful progeny. In my own opinion the timeline may be open to debate but not the ultimate availability of practical eugenics.
In the interim a narrow-enough definition of eugenics may allow you to continue to believe the concept is a pseudoscience unworthy of further review. My caution to you is that Mother Nature is not inherently kind. While we may hope the potential in our genes remains unmeasurable and believe it is undeliverable in a fertility menu, science has a long history of ignoring Hope and Belief as foundations for for what it delivers.
Also, it’s a nit and I apologize for bringing it up, but it’s “pseudo-” not “psuedo-” (hey…when you give up arguing you gotta find something the other guy is doing wrong… 
)
As has been alluded to in an earlier post, not only is eugenics possible, it will be a reality, and genetic engineering will make it so. Already, plenty of genes have been identified–such as BRCA1–which either directly cause disease or increase one’s likelihood of acquiring a disease (such as cancer). As soon as it becomes technologically feasible to eliminate such genes in vitro or in utero, wealthier couples will take advantage of this.
But this is not necessarily objectionable. Bioethicists generally distinguish between negative eugenics (the removal of negative traits, such as a tendency to develop cancer) and positive eugenics (the addition of positive traits, such as increased intelligence). The former seems less objectionable–if you can make your child not inherit your Huntington’s Chorea, why wouldn’t you?–but the latter is more problematic. Of course, as other posters have pointed out, the problem with positive eugenics is that various traits (such as intelligence) are not obviously controlled by a single gene, and modifying one trait might lead to other, less desirable side effects. (To give a stupid example, trying to reduce international conflict by making people less aggressive might also make people less competitive and less driven to innovate and contribute to society.) I wouldn’t rule out positive eugenics via genetic engineering in the future, as one is always unwise in predicting the impossibility of some future technological innovation. As for the ethical side–I think history teaches us that when something becomes technologically possible (e.g., in vitro fertilization), people will take advantage of it and moral acceptance (at least by most people) will follow.
This is all very well, but eugenics refers to the control of reproduction so as to prevent genetic weaknesses or reinforce genetic strengths for a partucular purpose and doesn’t involve repair of genetic mistakes after the fact.
That’s why I pointed out the distinction between negative and positive eugenics. Positive eugenics is eugenics of the sort being discussed in this thread. Granted, it is performed by technology, not by coercing people’s reproductive choices. But it’s still eugenics.
I think this is where we can end up getting sidetracked arguing about the definition of eugenics instead of the concept of it.
I use the term “eugenics” to refer to the broad concept that we humans can proactively and deliberately control the genes of future generations–in effect, taking charge of our own evolutionary destiny without being entirely dependent on external circumstance or “natural” selection.
This might occur at an individual level such as a mother choosing which ovum and which sperm she personally incubates, or at a population level–a dictator dictating what gene contributions are permitted to survive, e.g.
As science evolves, the definition may need to broaden, but the underlying principle and ethical considerations don’t really change just because the technique used to implement the concept changes. If, for instance, we could inject intelligence-enhancement genes post partum, we might be using a different pathway to achieve the “optimum” humans, but I don’t see a fundamental difference in the issues. Adult humans would have genetic expressions distinct from what natural selection, unencumbered by scientific intervention, would have dealt them.
Certainly Blake’s reservations would seem to be independent of whether the gene manipulation was a pre- or post-fertilization.
Oh, I agree that if gene manipulation in an embryo prevents the passing along defective, recessive genes later on it achieves the purpose of eugenics. I don’t know enough about that matter to know whether or not that’s the case, though.
But even if it doesn’t prevent passing along the (undesired) genes, isn’t the core concept creating adult humans whose phenotypes are the result of genetics which have been artificially manipulated, whether that happened pre or post conception, and whether or not their offspring will also “need” to have their genes manipulated? I fully recognize the term “eugenics” didn’t include this when it was developed as a term–it wasn’t conceived of as a possibility. I’m just suggesting that the end-result is the same, even if you have to re-control the genes post-conception for every succeeding generation.
Words do change meaning over time, I guess. However, I would reserve “eugenics” for the attempt to improve the breed through managed reproduction and “gene therapy” for correcting faulty genes by technology.
Your definitions may vary.
A common misconception, I’m afraid. The real objective is to have as many offspring as possible during your lifetime. That is the stuff of evolutionary legacies. A person who lives to 90 and fathers (or bears) many children will be more evolutionarily successful than one who mates once, or just a few times, and dies of cancer at 25. Thus, I would argue that natural selection does “care” whether you die at 45 or 90.
This isn’t eugenics; it’s just personal choice in mating. Eugenics is a social philosophy, not a personal one; the idea being that you are benefitting the species as a whole in your mating habits, rather than just yourself.
Right. That’s why I agreed that you might have a point in general. For thoroughbreds, not so much.
This is a problem that is common to all horses, and not thoroughbreds in particular. Contrary to your statement this “bleeding” or EIPH as it is more accurately known results from a survival adaptation of horses. This is off topic, but I find it fascinating and apologize for the hijack.
The gallop is a natural gait of all horses and represents their fastest sustained effort. The ability to move the large mass of a horse at fast speed over long distances has been a key to the horse’s survival from an evolutionary standpoint. They must be able to outrun and outdistance predators. The problem is that in order to power all that weight and muscle at speed over you need a huge volume of air coming into the lungs bringing oxygen and a huge volume carrying away CO2. In fact, the requirement is far more than the horse is capable of producing with the normal action of its diaphragm and musculature. If that was it, they would only be able to run a short distance at speed before going into severe oxygen debt and needing to stop. The musculature and apparatus of breathing is already as practically robust as possible, exageratedly so. No further gains are possible in this area. The horse simply cannot power any more air into and out of its lungs without adding so much more muscle and mass as to outweigh any potential gain. So they were at a dead end in this manner and that would have been the end of that except.
The horse evolved a supercharger. Really.
The gallop and the horse’s physiology evolved together to create a supercharger effect that moves more mass into and out of the lungs than is possible by chest and diaphragm. The skeletal structure and suspensory ligaments of the intestines actually swing like a pendulum, backwards as the horse extends. The diaphragm pulls back into the vacuum created by the intestines forcing a huge mass of air to be drawn into the lungs at much greater speeds and volumes than is otherwise possible. When the horse contracts its strides the intestines swing back against the diaphragm forcing the air out with the same explosive force. At this time the horse is no longer powering its breathing by normal muscular action the way you and I do, or the way it does at any other time. Its whole body is acting as a pump, forcing air in and out of the lungs. It has no choice but to take one full breath per stride, and the faster it gallops the harder and faster it must breathe. In this manner it is able to get the oxygen it needs for sustained efforts of tremendous speed which is one of the main common survival traits of horses everywhere. They can run fast for a long time.
It’s an incredible evolutionary adaptation, this “supercharger” and the horse’s skeleton, musculature, ligament layout, indeed a large part of its whole physiology is built around it.
But, it comes with a price. EIPH comes in two forms. The first is a simple infection which has nothing to do with the horse’s supercharger adaptation. You, or I, or a horse can get an infection or an allergy that can cause you to cough up blood.
The second cause of EIPH is a consequence of the “supercharger.” The horse has several other physiological adaptations to avoid what I am about to describe, but they are not perfect. There is simply no way to get around the following problem.
The huge momentum of the swinging internal organs in the abdominal cavity drives the supercharger pump. When the horse has to adjust speed or alter course suddenly there is a lag as the internal organs adjust to the new rythmn. During this lag they swing out of sync with the horse’s stride. If you watch a slow motion video of a horse changing speed while galloping you can see this happening. What happens is the intestines collide violently with the diaphragm, adjusting to the new rythmn. The diaphragm bulges inward and gets pinched and pinches the lungs. In very severe changes at high speed this can crush some alveoli causing bleeding.
It happens in racehorses because we push them very very hard on a racecourse, and we do it when they are very young and not fully and completely developed. Once it happens it’s a problem for life.
Generally, horses won’t do this to themselves naturally. We have to train them and force them to that point of self-injury. We give them Lasix so we can still run them while we’re forcing them to kill themselves. Not very cool.
That’s more than I’m sure you wanted to hear about this, and sorry to nitpick, but what you are describing is not a defect from breeding, but a consequence of evolution, a consequence of a survival trait built into all horses.
They don’t bleed because they are thoroughbreds. They bleed because they are horses and they are run very hard very young on racetracks.
All horses legs are very thin for their weight. Again, that’s a survival trait. And, a horse does not have ankles. They have fetlock joints and they are actually pretty much the right size. What you are probably referring to is the canon bones. In most light breeds including thoroughbreds standard conformation for the canon bones is about an 8 inch circumference, which for the structure of the canon bone combined with the splint bone which runs along side it represents an optimum size, from a strength/weight bearing perspective. You can’t optimize it much without redesigning it from scratch, and anyway the point is moot since a thoroughbred’s conformation in this regard doesn’t vary significantly from other varieties. So… no.
I am. We have horses. I’ve worked with horses since I was ten. When we had a farm we bred and raised and trained them. I’ve purchased dozens of thoroughbreds from the track and retrained them and sold them to people who want to use them as pleasure horses, eventing horses, dressage horses and trail horses.
But I can tell you for a fact that thoroughbreds do very well in “rough country” They, and arabians with whom they share a common genetic heritage are the horse of choice for endurance riding which are rides of generally 50 to 150 miles over what is typically extremely rough country. Up and down the Rockies or Sierra Nevadas rough enough?
No offense, but I don’t think you know what you are talking about, here. The gene pool for thoroughbreds is huge. All that makes a thoroughbred a thoroughbred is that its breeding records have been kept and published in a certain way designed by Englishmen for the last 300 years so that it’s ancestry can be traced back to at least one of the 3 seed studs of the breed. As horse breeds go they have huge physiological variations and far less standardization than most. The thoroughbred is essentially a hybrid between Arabian and European stock and as such has a much larger gene pool than either.
And they’re not any more difficult to keep. I’ve had ten at once. They’re pretty easy.
The reason they stop being thoroughbreds isn’t genetic. The reason they stop being thoroughbreds is that their name didn’t get submitted to some uptight Englishmen. What makes a thoroghbred a thoroughbred is submission to the breeding standards and practices, which is simply record keeping. Wild horses don’t submit the names of their progeny to the registry. Genetically they do fine. Their just not thoroughbreds by definition. It is a good point that I’ve made. It’s just that I don’t think you know what saying a horse is a “thoroughbred” actually means.
Call it “blather” all you like, but it’s pretty obvious to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
In point of fact, you are completely wrong. Many bred animals including horses, sheep, goats, pigs, bovines of all kinds etc, etc have been left to fend for themselves for extended periods of time and generally only rounded up periodically to be bred, culled or harvested. Sometimes they don’t or get seperated and remain completely wild and do just fine. In fact, this was pretty much SOP until fairly recently (last 100-150 years.) Limited land for free roaming stock and more modern and efficient animal husbrandry practices have only recently supplanted these practices.
Sorry about the hijack, but someday you should come out and let me show you my breeding books. I still have a mare who represents the results of my breeding program. Perhaps you can tell me about her “ankles.”