Has eugenics been "disproven"?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=Scylla]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Can you provide arefernce for this claim? I would dearly love to see evidence of a herd of feral horses anywhere in the world that remains phenotypically and genotypically thoroughbred. As I said earlier, all the feral herds I have ever herd of very rapidly revert to the small horse/large pony wild type. The idea of a herd of feral genetically an phenotypically throughbreds seems unlikely.

42

You have to seperate the general truth from the rare exceptions. The vast majority of people have children before the age of 45 - especially if you discount the last fifty or so years (which in evolutionary terms haven’t had any effect yet). I don’t have the statistic in front of me, but I’m willing to bet that over 99% of the children ever born have been to parents below the age of 45. From a natural selection standpoint, the number of children born to parents over the age of 45 is too small to have had any evolutionary effect.

As for the frequency of parenting, it’s obviously connected to natural selection but has nothing to do with the issue I was discussing. A question of whether a person had no children or fifteen children in their twenties and thirties has nothing to do with whether they died in their forties or nineties.

43

[QUOTE=Blake]
Yes, without a doubt. That is why, as you said, you never, ever find feral herds that look or behave anyhting like throughbreds.
[/quote]

Hmmm. I haven’t really noticed any major behavioral differences that could be characterized as “thoroughbreds,” and I’ve seen some mustangs that were thoroghbred in everything but name.

They are not thoroughbreds simply because their name is not documented in a book. Genetically there are certainly lots of wild horses that share a lineage compatible with “thoroughbred.” Probably more so than any other breed as “thoroghbred” represents an interbreeding of Mideastern and European stock and has high genetic variability.

Exactly what traits are you talking about?

Sorry, but no. You don’t know what you’re talking about. Probably you’ve just read Misty of Chincoteague.

I’ve seen plenty of large wild horses. Here, look for yourself:

http://www.mustangs4us.com/choosing_the_right_one.htm

14-16 hands is about average for Mustangs, which is by no means “small.” 17-18 or even more isn’t all that unusual.
The size of wild horses is a result of the stock from which it’s derived, not any “reversion” that I’m aware of. If you show me a picture of a wild horse I can generally hazard a pretty good guess of where it come from geographically (if it’s from the US) as there is typically not a lot of intermixing between diverse populations.

44

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
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.
[/QUOTE]

No, no, no. You are still arguing a strawman.

It isn’t that eugenics didn’t explicitely encompass this novel technology when first concieved of. It is that what you are attempting to do with this technology isn’t eugenics. It isn’t a position that any eugencists has ever held. It’s a blatant strawman.
“For academic purposes, eugenics is defined as the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally…A racial quality is presumably any character which differs in frequency or which (when it is metrical) differs in average value in two or more large groups of people.”
Penrose, L.S. 1998 “Phenylketonuria a problem in eugenics” Annals of Human Genetics 62 Emphasis mine.
Note that it is only eugenics if you are attempting to improve large groups through social control. Attempting to improve indivduals as an individual choice, genetically or otherwise, is merely medicine. Eugenics is where society seeks to improve the race through genetic manipulation. If a parent seeks to improve the individual child through genetic manipulation that isn’t eugenics. What you are describing simply isn’t eugencist.

And needless to say the end result isn’t the same. In one case the end result, if successful, is a group that meets standards decided by society. In the other the end result is that some individuals meet standards decided by the parent. I’m sure you can see why the end result of these two processes is going to be wildly different.

45

[QUOTE=Blake]
Can you provide arefernce for this claim? I would dearly love to see evidence of a herd of feral horses anywhere in the world that remains phenotypically and genotypically thoroughbred.
[/quote]

I just gave a link with some pictures you can look at. Again, what is it that you think a thoroughbred looks like? What does it mean to be “genotypically” thoroughbred or “phenotypically” thoroughbred. I don’t think it has much meaning. Genetically, thoroughbreds are Arabs mixed with European stock. They were mixed with a wide variety of European animals and there is a lot of genetic diversity within thoroughbreds. The “breed” is only about 300 years old and comes in all colors and sizes.

You can go to a Mustang auction or look at them online and finds animals that could pass for thoroughbreds without a second glance if you had papers saying they were thoroughbreds. Mustangs tend to be a little thicker in the chest, more muscular and have a bigger pad than your average thoroughbred… but not all do. They tend to this because they tend to have a lot of Quarter Horse in them, and a lot wild stock derives from working horses.

I doubt you’ll find a herd of “pure” thoroughbred wild horses anywhere. You’ll find some thoroughbred blood in a lot of wild horses though. Some will display it enough as to be indistinguishable.

Still not true, though.

46

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
<snip>
In addition, most eugenic programs end up going overboard. They start out by saying “let’s encourage the voluntary selection of good traits” but usually slide down the slippery slope of eliminating undesirable traits, compulsory paticipation, sterilization programs, and genocide.<snip>
[/QUOTE]

On that line of thought, the OP should read the information found at The Eugenics Archive to more completely grasp this idea.

47

[QUOTE=Scylla]
Probably more so than any other breed as “thoroghbred” represents an interbreeding of Mideastern and European stock and has high genetic variability.
[/quote]

So what excatly are you claiming when you say that tehse horses are genetically throroughbreds?

Size. muscularisation and temperament to begin with.

:rolleyes:

What exactly am I looking at here? An individual horse from a herd that “probably have Thoroughbred and Draft in them” that haven’t yet reverted back to smaller size? Note that nobdoy has said that there are no large individual feral horses, usually due to recent introudcution of large breeds. However that does not alter the fact that worldwide herds very rapidly conform to that 14-15 hand size of a large pony/small horse.

No, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Average size is 14.2 hands. Since a large pony is 14 hands I think I can quite comfortably rest my claim that feral herds revert back to a large pony/small horse phenotype.

You have no idea what you’re talking about then.

“Over time stocks tend to increasingly conform to a presumed ancestral form and display a smaller stature but more heavily muscled and heavier boned.” Strahan, R. “Horses” in “The Complete Book of Australian Mammals” The Australian Museum 1986.

Then you really don’t know what you are talking about.

You said that the reaosn thes enaimsl cease to be throiughbred wasn’t genetic because they cease baing genetically throroughbred. Now you say that the term doesn’t mean anything.

You also said that thoroughbreds do fine in the wild. If the term is genetically meaningless then the only way can define a thoroughbred must be through phenotype.

Honestly if you don’t beleieve a throurougbred is genetically consistent and it doesn’t have any distinguishing phsycial marks then how exactly do you know that thoroughbreds do fine in the wild? How do you even know there are any thoroughbreds in the wild after the first generation?

You seem to be tying yourself in knots, on one hand claiming that thorougbreds can’t be distinguished once the stud record is lost and on the other trying to claim that they exist in large numbers in a feral state. Both comments can’t be true.

But you just said that there is no mustang phenotype. How can an animal look like a mustang if there is no mustang phenotype?

Indistiinguishable from what? You just said that thoroghbred phenotype has no meaning, now you claim that you can distinguish a thoroughbred by appearance. Honestly Scylla I have no idea what your position is here anymore.

If a mammalogist at an internationally recognised musem says it’s true I think I’ll trust him over you. I’ll also trust a semi-reputable webpage that says the average size if large pony over your baseless denial of that claim.

48

[QUOTE=Scylla]
All horses legs are very thin for their weight.
[/QUOTE]
Sure they are. The horse on the left is heavier but the legs are much heftier.

49

I found Scylla’s posts extremely informative and interesting.

It makes me wonder whether shoving a thoroughbred mare in foal in with a herd of feral mustangs would result in a slightly different ‘thoroughbred’, physical characteristics are influenced by the enviornment - apprentice a 5 year old to a blacksmith and you’ll get a rather different result from the same kid sitting in class all day.

I’m not sure that I would take a 1986 book by an Australian museum mammalogist as the last word.

50

[QUOTE=Blake]
No, no, no. You are still arguing a strawman.

It isn’t that eugenics didn’t explicitely encompass this novel technology when first concieved of. It is that what you are attempting to do with this technology isn’t eugenics. It isn’t a position that any eugencists has ever held. It’s a blatant strawman.
“For academic purposes, eugenics is defined as the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally…A racial quality is presumably any character which differs in frequency or which (when it is metrical) differs in average value in two or more large groups of people.”
Penrose, L.S. 1998 “Phenylketonuria a problem in eugenics” Annals of Human Genetics 62 Emphasis mine.
Note that it is only eugenics if you are attempting to improve large groups through social control. Attempting to improve indivduals as an individual choice, genetically or otherwise, is merely medicine. Eugenics is where society seeks to improve the race through genetic manipulation. If a parent seeks to improve the individual child through genetic manipulation that isn’t eugenics. What you are describing simply isn’t eugencist.
And needless to say the end result isn’t the same. In one case the end result, if successful, is a group that meets standards decided by society. In the other the end result is that some individuals meet standards decided by the parent. I’m sure you can see why the end result of these two processes is going to be wildly different.
[/QUOTE]

(As a different example, but there are many)

"Definition of Eugenics

Eugenics: Literally, meaning normal genes, eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species by selective breeding. The use of Albert Einstein’s sperm to conceive a child (by artificial insemination) would represent an attempt at positive eugenics. The Nazis notoriously engaged in negative eugenics by genocide.
The word “eugenics” was coined by Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911) to denote scientific endeavors to increase the proportion of persons with better than average genetic endowment through selective mating of marriage partners."

Improvement at a population level necessarily occurs an individual at a time. If you want to take solace in arguing that eugenics only applies to efforts to improve “racial” qualities, go right ahead. “Race” is an inflammatory term in many academic circles, so I suspect whoever constructed the definition you cite has an ulterior motive of creating a definitional constraint which is more easily criticized–a strawman. You might consider that under your definition a single entrepeneur, not under social control, who creates a population of supermen is not practicing eugenics. Um…OK.

I took the point of the OP to be: “Has it been disproved that science can create a genetically superior population?” The answer is that it has not been disproved.

If we can improve or impair the genes of an individual, we can improve or impair the genes of a population. You may decide that the first is medicine or personal choice and the latter is “eugenics.” Fine. But the difference is one of scale and not scientific impossibility.

51

[QUOTE=Blake]
No, no, no. You are still arguing a strawman.

It isn’t that eugenics didn’t explicitely encompass this novel technology when first concieved of. It is that what you are attempting to do with this technology isn’t eugenics. It isn’t a position that any eugencists has ever held. It’s a blatant strawman.
“For academic purposes, eugenics is defined as the study of agencies under social control that may improve or impair the racial qualities of future generations either physically or mentally…A racial quality is presumably any character which differs in frequency or which (when it is metrical) differs in average value in two or more large groups of people.”
Penrose, L.S. 1998 “Phenylketonuria a problem in eugenics” Annals of Human Genetics 62 Emphasis mine.
Note that it is only eugenics if you are attempting to improve large groups through social control. Attempting to improve indivduals as an individual choice, genetically or otherwise, is merely medicine. Eugenics is where society seeks to improve the race through genetic manipulation. If a parent seeks to improve the individual child through genetic manipulation that isn’t eugenics. What you are describing simply isn’t eugencist.
And needless to say the end result isn’t the same. In one case the end result, if successful, is a group that meets standards decided by society. In the other the end result is that some individuals meet standards decided by the parent. I’m sure you can see why the end result of these two processes is going to be wildly different.
[/QUOTE]

Improvement at a population level necessarily occurs an individual at a time. If you want to take solace in arguing that eugenics only applies to efforts to improve “racial” qualities, go right ahead. “Race” is an inflammatory term in many academic circles, so perhaps whoever constructed the definition you cite created a definitional constraint which is more easily criticized–a strawman. You might consider that under your definition a single entrepeneur, not under social control, who creates a population of supermen is not practicing eugenics. Um…OK.

I took the point of the OP to be: “Has it been disproved that science can create a genetically superior population?” The answer is that it has not been disproved.

If we can improve or impair the genes of an individual, we can improve or impair the genes of a population. You may decide that the first is medicine or personal choice and the latter is “eugenics.” Fine. But the difference is one of scale and not scientific impossibility.

Eugenics has neither been discredited (as a scientific possibility) nor disproved. What hasn’t been attempted is a large-scale effort. Success at the level of individual gene manipulation suggests that the only barrier is social and not scientific.

52

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
You have to seperate the general truth from the rare exceptions. The vast majority of people have children before the age of 45 - especially if you discount the last fifty or so years (which in evolutionary terms haven’t had any effect yet). I don’t have the statistic in front of me, but I’m willing to bet that over 99% of the children ever born have been to parents below the age of 45. From a natural selection standpoint, the number of children born to parents over the age of 45 is too small to have had any evolutionary effect.

As for the frequency of parenting, it’s obviously connected to natural selection but has nothing to do with the issue I was discussing. A question of whether a person had no children or fifteen children in their twenties and thirties has nothing to do with whether they died in their forties or nineties.
[/QUOTE]

I was not objecting to the age, but the idea that “once your sperm or eggs have hit the road, it’s done with you”. With humans, living longer can directly translate to more offspring, thus it is not a given that NS no longer selects against illness or disease that might have a later onset agewise.

53

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
I recall reading about a Jewish sect that has a high incidence a a particular genetic disorder ( I don’t recall which ), which has for many years tested it’s children for the disease and forbidden couples who both has the gene to marry. Result : they have a far lower incidence of that disease that groups that don’t do that.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not a sect of Judaism. It’s a Jewish organization called Dor Yeshorim. Other Jewish organizations provide similar screenings as well- I had a Tay-Sachs screening before I converted that was sponsored by Hillel, IIRC.

They don’t screen all Orthodox Jewish children and forbid carriers from marrying, either. What they do is test people for being carriers of genetic diseases, then, when a couple is considering marriage, they tell the couple if both of them are carriers of any of the diseases they test for. They don’t have the authority to forbid that couple to marry or have children.

Incidentally, their program isn’t doing anything to reduce the number of carriers of Tay-Sachs or any similar disease in the Jewish population. They’re just trying to prevent two carriers from marrying and having a child affected by the disease. They wouldn’t tell a carrier not to marry and have children with a non-carrier, which is what would be required to get rid of the gene itself. I would say that makes it debatable whether what they’re doing is really eugenics.

That theory has been discredited, at least for Tay-Sachs disease. Of course, that doesn’t mean that being a carrier for Tay-Sachs doesn’t confer some other advantage. Sickle-cell anemia is a better example of a trait providing a heterozygote advantage by making carriers resistant to an infectious disease (in this case, malaria).

54

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Improvement at a population level necessarily occurs an individual at a time.
[/QUOTE]

While any alleged improvement may occur on an individual-by-individual basis, the movement is a social one, not an individual one. A single individual determined to make the world a better place by mate selection / genetic alteration / whatever is not eugenics. An entire society making a concerted effort to improve the species or a sub-population is.

55

[QUOTE=Darwin’s Finch]
While any alleged improvement may occur on an individual-by-individual basis, the movement is a social one, not an individual one. A single individual determined to make the world a better place by mate selection / genetic alteration / whatever is not eugenics. An entire society making a concerted effort to improve the species or a sub-population is.
[/QUOTE]

My point is that if genes can be improved on an individual level, it follows that entire populations could be improved. It’s a question of scale and control but not scientific possibility.

For that reason, eugenics, even if you define it as being a “social movement” on a broad scale, has not been scientifically discredited.

56

[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Sure they are. The horse on the left is heavier but the legs are much heftier.
[/QUOTE]

Link don’t work.

57

[QUOTE=Blake]
So what excatly are you claiming when you say that tehse horses are genetically throroughbreds?
[/quote]

That they would be indistinguishible without an entry in a studbook.

What about these things is different in thoroughbreds?

What do you mean “revert.” The average size of horses in general is about 1,000 pounds and 14-16 hands. That’s wild or domestic.

Horses aren’t really being released into the wild so much these days.

Which just happens to be the average size of domestic horses, so that’s not really saying much.

From here:

“Light horses such as Arabians, Morgans, Quarter Horses, Paints and Thoroughbreds usually range in height from 14.0 (142 cm) to 16.0 hands (163 cm) and can weigh from 386 kg (850 lbs) to about 680 kg (1500 lbs)”

Again, about the same average size of horses elsewhere.

He’s wrong.

I think you’re slurring. I can’t understand you, so I think I’ll just stop here.

58

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
Improvement at a population level necessarily occurs an individual at a time. If you want to take solace in arguing that eugenics only applies to efforts to improve “racial” qualities, go right ahead. “Race” is an inflammatory term in many academic circles
[/quote]

Sigh. If this goes on much longer it’s a pitting for you

  1. The term race in this context is in no way inflammatory, this was spelled out in the reference I provided.

  2. Whether improvement occurs at an individual level or not is totally irrelevant. You are either not capable of understanding what was clearly spelled out, or unwilling.

Your own definition states that “eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species”. That is even more restrictive than my academic definition which at least only requires improvements of large groups. By either definition it is only eugenics if it applies to large groups. And since you seem to have missed it, the entire species is a large group. In fact the largest.

If the aim is not improvement of the human species then it isn’t eugenicist. A man selecting a mate is not aiming to improve the human species even if that is the unintended consequence. A woman deciding t abort an unhealthy child is not aiming to improve the human species even if that is the unintended consequence. I really don’t know how many ways we can point out this simple concept before you get it. You are arguing a straw man. Something is not eugenicist simply because it makes an individual genetically better. It is eugenicist if ** and only if** it has the explicit goal of improving large groups.

That’s nice, but that isn’t what the OP Asked. You can’t just play fast and loose with definitions and expect to do anything but produce ignorant nonsense. Eugenics has a specific meaning: a social movement intended to induce genetic improvement of large groups.

No!

The difference is purely that one is directly contradictory to the very definition of eugenics and the other is not. That is the sole difference.

You may also decide that a dog’s tail is a leg and hence a dog has five legs. That difference isn’t one of scale or scientific impossibility. The difference is that you are utilising a particularly ignorant, erroneous and outright stupid standard that is utilised by no one else on the planet.

You are utilising the worst form of equivocation: equivocation via a personal definition.

Bullshit.

I already explained this. You already conceded the point. To now attempt to renege on that is the worst form of academic and intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to try to fly this nonsense again then go back and provide the requested references for your earlier rubbish. You can’t avoid calls for evidence for your silly statements by conceding and then repeating the same tripe on the next page. Nobody here is going to let that slide.

More bullshit.

Another statement that was debunked earlier. Another point that you earlier conceded and are now attempting to drag out again. More dishonesty from Chief Pedant.

Dude if you want any respect around here you are going to have to do better than this. Anyone can go back to the last page and see where you already conceded this point is baseless and unsupportable.

Only if we also believe that success at the tail level only proves that the barrier to 5 legged dogs is social.

Look for the last time, the very definition of eugenics requires that it explicitly have the goal of success at the level of large populations. If that is not the explicate goal then it is not eugenics by your own definition. I’ve already pointed out why such large scale applications have been universally non-scientific, and you already conceded that this is the case.

It is both rude and dishonest for you to now regurgitate the same tripe and expect us to swallow it a second time.

59

[QUOTE=Scylla]
That they would be indistinguishible without an entry in a studbook.
[/quote]

Then how is that not a phenotype?

Sigh. I already pointed out that they are larger. Let’s start with that.

The average thoroughbred is 16 hands. If herd is 14 hands withoin a few generation thatis a reversion

No, it isn’t. The link you provided doesn’t say anything about the average size of horses, It says that different breeds range from 14 to 16 hands. Morevover you are ignoring the point that the average size of thorougbreds is nothing like the 14 hand average size that feral horse herds revert to.

Can you honestly not see this? If a herd contains significant thoroughbred and draft input yet over time they decrease to 14 hands that is a reduction in size form the ancestral type. It is irrelevant whether that is because the smaller breeds are favoured or because the smaller genetics in the larger breeds is favoured. Either way the population has shrunk.

Again you ignore the point in what seems quite a dishonest manner. You made a claim that feral horse in the US average 14-16 hands. I provided a reference showing that in fact they average just 14 hands. Your (baseless) claim that all horses are in this size does not in nay way alter the fat that your original claim was incorrect.

:eek:

On the Straight Dope, board dedicated to fighting ignorance you make erroneous statements about matters of fact and when challenged with highly authoritative references by experts in the field you declare that they are wrong. With nothing whatsoever to back up your claims.

PMSL

How simple can I make it?

You claimed that there is no such thing a thoroughbred phenotype.
Then you claimed that animals of primarily thoroughbred descent could be distinguished based on physical appearance.

These two statements are mutually contradictory, They can not both be true.

I think you should stop. When a poster on the SDMB stats gainsaying world experts because they disagree with nonsense the poster has presented it’s high time for them to stop.

And I think my work here is done. You posts have been revealed as ignorant nonsese and youu have shown yourself to have no respect for the facts in this matter.

60

[QUOTE=Blake]
Sigh. If this goes on much longer it’s a pitting for you

  1. The term race in this context is in no way inflammatory, this was spelled out in the reference I provided.

  2. Whether improvement occurs at an individual level or not is totally irrelevant. You are either not capable of understanding what was clearly spelled out, or unwilling.

Your own definition states that “eugenics aims to improve the genetic constitution of the human species”. That is even more restrictive than my academic definition which at least only requires improvements of large groups. By either definition it is only eugenics if it applies to large groups. And since you seem to have missed it, the entire species is a large group. In fact the largest.

If the aim is not improvement of the human species then it isn’t eugenicist. A man selecting a mate is not aiming to improve the human species even if that is the unintended consequence. A woman deciding t abort an unhealthy child is not aiming to improve the human species even if that is the unintended consequence. I really don’t know how many ways we can point out this simple concept before you get it. You are arguing a straw man. Something is not eugenicist simply because it makes an individual genetically better. It is eugenicist if ** and only if** it has the explicit goal of improving large groups.

That’s nice, but that isn’t what the OP Asked. You can’t just play fast and loose with definitions and expect to do anything but produce ignorant nonsense. Eugenics has a specific meaning: a social movement intended to induce genetic improvement of large groups.

No!

The difference is purely that one is directly contradictory to the very definition of eugenics and the other is not. That is the sole difference.

You may also decide that a dog’s tail is a leg and hence a dog has five legs. That difference isn’t one of scale or scientific impossibility. The difference is that you are utilising a particularly ignorant, erroneous and outright stupid standard that is utilised by no one else on the planet.

You are utilising the worst form of equivocation: equivocation via a personal definition.

Bullshit.

I already explained this. You already conceded the point. To now attempt to renege on that is the worst form of academic and intellectual dishonesty.

If you want to try to fly this nonsense again then go back and provide the requested references for your earlier rubbish. You can’t avoid calls for evidence for your silly statements by conceding and then repeating the same tripe on the next page. Nobody here is going to let that slide.

More bullshit.

Another statement that was debunked earlier. Another point that you earlier conceded and are now attempting to drag out again. More dishonesty from Chief Pedant.

Dude if you want any respect around here you are going to have to do better than this. Anyone can go back to the last page and see where you already conceded this point is baseless and unsupportable.

Only if we also believe that success at the tail level only proves that the barrier to 5 legged dogs is social.

Look for the last time, the very definition of eugenics requires that it explicitly have the goal of success at the level of large populations. If that is not the explicate goal then it is not eugenics by your own definition. I’ve already pointed out why such large scale applications have been universally non-scientific, and you already conceded that this is the case.

It is both rude and dishonest for you to now regurgitate the same tripe and expect us to swallow it a second time.
[/QUOTE]

Sir, yes Sir! :slight_smile:

FWIW I am content to post my observations independent of whether or not they garner respect, particularly from those who disagree so vehemently. I’m pretty comfortable in my own skin and unconcerned with how my posting is perceived. Posting to the SDMB is my way of relaxing. It’s not my LifeWork. I don’t find much significance in it, I’m afraid.

In any case, to mostly quote my prior post:

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 which says it only applies to large groups 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.

And one more thing…simmer down, would you please? Easy…big fella…it’s just an internet message board for goodness’ sake. It’s OK to have a free exchange of ideas about which we disagree without getting so upset.

“More dishonesty from the Chief Pedant.” ?! :rolleyes:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.