[Moderating]
I’ve already asked justanotherdeaf to take this to another thread if he wants to discuss it; that goes for anyone else too.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Sorry, I must have missed it in all the drama with mla1.
Quoth samjones:
While it of course isn’t that simple, eye color is still a heck of a lot simpler than the genetics for most traits, such that the Mendelian dominant/recessive model is still a pretty good approximation for it.
Yeah, I think that’s right. I’m not even sure how much eye color is used in HS biology to discuss genetics. We did the smooth vs wrinkled peas thing a al Mendel. I seriously doubt many HS biology teacher are going to pretend that eye color is limited to blue or brown only.
First, then we don’t have to worry about known, pre-determined and then repaired genes. Second, “designer genes” is a whole separate debate. Gattaca is an interesting movie about the issue and unintended consequences. In the end we become the equivalent of a purebred domestic animal; assuming we don’t end up with governments deciding “the world needs more ditchdiggers” and producing a custom-made underclass of docile but strong lackeys…
Finally, there will always be transcription errors producing new mutations, many more of which are neutral or bad than are good. Unless every baby is the result of having a cell taken, put through the wringer and all known flaws fixed, before implantation… Then there’s still developmental errors to be considered.
An interesting example of a useful/bad gene is sickle cell anemia. As I understand, if the person has this as 1 gene of their pair then it confers a better immunity to malaria; while 2 results in a bad disease. As a result, the gene survives quite well in some African populations despite the problem.
We pick on blue/brown eye colour, since almost every characteristic - hair colour, skin colour, facial shape and characteristics, etc. are determined by multiple genes and manifest in degrees; so other than saying “look, it’s obvious X got this from his mother’s/father’s family” there are very few characteristics that so easy to demonstrate genetics (except gender).
Well, it does do that in countries with little healthcare, since appendicitis can kill people before they manage to reproduce and raise their offspring to be adults. So perhaps in those areas of the world, the appendix will eventually be selected against - eventually being the key word; evolution takes a long time, so this would only happen if those countries had mediocre healthcare for many generations to come.
Even if the appendix does turn out to have a few positive advantages, the fact that it can and does kill young people would put it up for deselection, at least in theory. In practice it probably won’t happen.
One possible eventual change might be the number of fraternal twins. There is a hereditary factor to fraternal twins, and the older the woman is, the more likely she is to have twins. (I’ll dig up cites for those if necessary, but I’d rather not have to on this crashy computer).
Given that more women are having children later, in richer countries, and the medical advances mean those twins are more likely to survive, and that any disabilities they have as a result of being a twin pregnancy are more treatable, perhaps we’ll see an increase in the number of fraternal twins. This could happen within a few generations.
Eye colour is not actually determined by only two genes, but by several. This is a surprisingly good article hosted on a contact lens site:
Yes, genetics is not as clean and simple as Mendel though. A lot of characteristics are controlled by multiple and duplicate genes. During DNA replication, chunks of genes can get relocated or duplicated. The genes then have several backup copies of the useful gene. Thus, a failure in one gene for a characteristic may not be noticeable, unless instead of NOT producing the required hormone or whatever, it actually produces something that is detrimental rather than useful; or it may take several expressions of the gene to produce enough to be harmful. IIRC, this is why a lot of diseases like hemophilia tend to express in males, because with only 1 X chromosome, if the needed gene is on an X, the guys have only one and if it is defective, they lose.
You talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded.
[Moderator Warning]
bump, insulting other posters is not permitted, even if you are using quotes from a movie to do so. Even intended as a joke, this is out of place in GQ. This is an official warning. Don’t do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Given the growing list of previously significant natural processes for human selection being rendered null and void by technological advancement, I believe the selection force for our species from this point onward will be primarily artificial, in the sense that it’s driving force is of conscious design—i.e. global cultural Americanization yielding females who overwhelmingly select hip-gyrating, Elvis Presley-type rebels for mates (that is the type chicks dig these days, isn’t it? :p)
…Ok, taking tongue out of cheek, isn’t there some validity to the idea of conscious mate selection being elevated in humans to a point of near exclusivity, certainly out of proportion to all other species who continue to have a wide variety of selection forces in play? And, if this is the case, how may this play out with repect to humans diverging even more significantly from our fellow species?
I don’t know what you mean by “conscious mate selection being elevated in humans to a point of near exclusivity”. At any rate, keep in mind that in most people in the world still end up in sort of some arranged marriage of some sort. Western style marriage is not the norm.
Yes, but those lassies still constrained by archaic arranged marriages surely cuckold their betrothed and mate with the Elvis Presley, hip-gyrating rebels, no? 
I consciously mate exclusively with humans.
Are you talking about conscious selection, sexual selection, or both?
Because, in addition to selection of the fittest (he/she who leaves the most descendants wins) there is also sexual selection, which may well account for much of the visible diversity of humanity. Different societies rate different traits as “sexy”. Those possessing such traits may be at a reproductive advantage.
Conscious selection would, of course, be deliberate engineering whether as simple as choosing a mate based on specific criteria you find good rather than lust or mom and dad arranging your marriage or mutual affection, or as complex as genetic engineering. In reality, there has always been some of this - people seen as defective were less likely to reproduce, there was the horrible business spawned by the eugenics movement in the early 20th Century (begun with mostly good intentions but quickly went to hell), and some people with genetic problems simply elect not to reproduce of their own free will (some remain childless, some adopt). Going forward, prenatal testing will probably become even more routine than it is, people will (where law and ethics allow) abort fetuses that aren’t up to their standards, and we may even have direct gene manipulation in the near future.
I do believe that initially gene manipulation will focus on eliminating blatant defects. Eventually, though, it’s going to head off to more ethically ambiguous territory. If such things continue as a minority of conceptions I doubt there will be a large effect, at least in the short term, but if it suddenly becomes very cheap and trendy there might be problems. Or maybe not.
On top of all that - there ARE factors that will impose natural selection on us for the foreseeable future, even if they aren’t as obvious as outrunning a saber tooth tiger. The ability to tolerate new chemicals better than average, for example, would be an advantage. Resistance to cancer might be selected for, particularly resistance prior to middle age. Tolerance for a different type of diet - people who can consume fats and cholesterol without developing heart disease might, over time, become more common. These traits are not as strongly visible as skin or hair color, but they do have genetic factors and can be selected.
Your court-ordered restraining orders seem to indicate otherwise, but, for the sake of getting back to the baa…baa*…basic premise, haven’t we eliminated many of our natural selection filters, making the conscious selection of mates more significant, by default?
…I sheepishly admit to kidding you, of course…
What do you mean by “conscious selection of mates”? It’s not like women do up a spread sheet to decide whom to marry.
Actually… I suspect some of them might do just that. Some of them certainly do seem to have a checklist.
We need to hack into that checklist and post it on the internet!!
No… that would be depressing.
I suppose my premise is a two-parter:
- Technology is eliminating many of our specie’s natural selection processes (e.g. keeping people with a variety of congenital disorders alive through their reproductive years; manipulating our environment to the extent extremes in climate no longer cull significant numbers of people with weak constitutions; successful elimination or control of all competing mega fauna and many microfauna; etc.)
These are, certainly, for the most part, commendable achievements of an advanced and compassionate civilization. But, what effect will the elimination of customary natural selection processes have on our species in the future? Will the effects be beneficial or detrimental? If the effects are detrimental, will genetic engineering come to the rescue?
- Female guided mate selection is certainly not the exclusive domain of humans. In many species, the females choose mates based on appearance, and their appearance criteria template is usually spot on, selecting the most robust or at least most clever males. This seems to be a beneficial selection process and it is kept in check and balance by being only one of a variety of other natural selection processes still in play with our fellow species. Example: a peahen can’t choose for a mate a peacock with genes for ornate plumage, if he died as a hatchling from some congenital pathology. So appearance is a selection process for other species, but, by no means, the only, or even the most significant, selection process.
But, the tables appear turned for contemporary humans. With the elimination of many/most natural selection processes, female mate selection, in my opinion, now seems to be the primary, almost sole, selective force. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but female guided mate selection in humans seems more “artificial” than “natural”, in that it is more of a conscious-driven decision process (e.g. female rhinoceros beetles may always choose males with the biggest horns as mates, but with female humans, some like guys with cute butts, others like pouty lips, others prefer large wallets…).
So, I ask, as someone who is not a evolutionary biologist, sociologist or ethicist: is this assessment correct? If it is correct, is this a good thing, or a bad thing, with regard to proceeding forward as the dominant species on earth?
Perhaps I’m just a wee bit apprehensive about the prospect of our specie’s destiny being in the hands of pubescent girls, whereby we speciate and transmogrify into a global infestation of Elvis Presley-type, hip gyrating bad boys…instead of people like me :D. Maybe genetic engineering will come to the rescue–we can only hope.