Not only the size but the appearance and the activity/niche. I mean, why think they were wolves instead of coyotes? or various other wild dogs?
In fact they look far more like other canids than wolves.
YES. Eugenics works and has in the past.
An example would be the Spartans of Ancient Greece who used to cast out that born frial, and not allow the undesirable types to breed. As such, they had a harder stock to fit their military culture. A form of Eugenics.
In the wild with mammals, it is almost always the most powerfull males that breed with the females, and research shows in mammals, that roughly 60% of the DNA is from the male side. Sorry moms, that;s what te science says. At any rate in the wild, there is a form of Eugenics in the natural selection process to give the species the best chance of survival in the future.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2015/03/03/genetically-more-like-dad/#.WQecEmXvGi4
In the future, it is possible to have several genetic fathers and a few mothers.
You can simply insert or pull out DNA into a fertilized egg. Highly unethical, yes but possible.
Humans gain much their innate abilities from hereditary. There are 4 base pairs of genes ( A, C, G, and T ), two of which match up with each other every time.
Much like a computer, our genes can be turned " on or off " based on the combinations of the DNA and enzymes, and there are millions of combinations per chromosome!
It is my belief that just about everyone has some genetic gold in them, whether the gene is expressed or not.
Once the human genome is fully mapped out, the sky of human potential can be achieved.
For the future, things such as physical size, muscle distribution, mental and cognitive abilities, athletic abilities, skin tone, hair, eyes, even personalities can be pre-configured at the will of a lab technician or the partners.
Now–we are not all just DNA coding, life experiences free will, and environment certainly plays a role as to who we are.
There is a great danger with this if those given " gifted combinations " become too plentiful and have a power struggle vs. the elite in power for politics and business. The danger is also great if those born without DNA pre-section rise up as they lose their jobs and social status to the human with DNA pre-selection.
In a lab, super mice and rats have been created that live longer, are twice as stong, and run distances that far exceed their species.
My guess is there are people born right now who have pre-selected DNA in them, and we’ll what happens in 20-30 years from now, once the floodgates open.
Most parents I think would want the best for their children. How far they would go depends on their ethics, beliefs, and religion.
Again, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. All these canids are fairly closely related. It’s not obvious to me that there’s much greater similarity to other canids, but if there is, what do you think that shows?
Chihuhuas have been subject to extreme artificial selection for the target “niche” of sitting in handbags. I don’t think you can claim the divergence between Chihuahuas and wolves as evidence for unusually high genetic diversity in wolves/dogs unless you specify, relative to what?
Wolves/dogs almost certainly have greater genetic diversity than humans, because we know humans have particularly low diversity. But relative to (say) cats? It may be true, but I think we need better evidence than just a subjective judgment that Chihuahuas and wolves look quite different.
Obviously.:rolleyes:
Define “work”. Because dogs aren’t people. Whoever owns the dog is both the one who decides how (when and with whom) they reproduce, and the one who decides if the outcome was desirable. But under eugenics, some bureaucrat decides when I get to reproduce and with whom, and I will undoubtedly decide that is undesirable. So, no, in my view, there is no set of circumstances under which eugenics “works”. People aren’t livestock.
In the wild, the dog branch carries between things like the fox, bear, and wolf. Cats carry between things like the lynx, bobcat, and lion. I wouldn’t say that that’s a strongly different range between cats and dogs, in nature.
In the domestic world, to be sure, we’ve stretched dogs quite a ways and cats we have not. But, it’s also likely that we have not made any concerted effort to do so. Cats aren’t pack animals, so they aren’t naturally inclined to perform work. A dog will try to help out, and if it happens to do so even a little bit, then that one will be bred more often than one who does not help out. Cats were just ancient roombas for rodents. You’re not really expecting nor desiring to interact with them.
If you have a cat and a dog around, the fact that the dog actually interacts with you and tries to be useful is going to lead to targeted breeding. And once you have that, why spend the energy fiddling around with the cat?
It’s possible that cats aren’t malleable. But I would suggest that the theory hasn’t really been tested. There was no reason to try when there was a better starting point to work from, easily available.
Eugenics is just intelligent design, so why wouldn’t it work? It works with pets and agriculture. We’ve bred a lot of plants and animals that are wildly different than their natural forms. Sometimes in just a few generations.
Good points all. But I gotta say I got a nice laugh out of that line above. Well done Good Sir!
Back in post #9 of this thread I linked to an earlier thread on topic. I expected a few folks to go read that then comment here. It appears nobody has.
Ref your comment and the several folks farther up-thread who said substantially the same thing …
Here I’ll quote myself from that old thread.
TLDR: It “works” in the sense that selective breeding is selective breeding is selective breeding. It fails at the next level up: making meaningful progress in heritable traits in a meaningful fraction of the stock.
You post would have a lot more credibility if it didn’t contain errors like calling nucleobases “genes”.
Sure; but on a practical level it works well as a stopgap solution to prevent people with the disease from being born. And in the long run it should be possible to outright remove such genes, at which point the increased prevalence ceases to matter (or exist).
We’re just at an in-between stage where we know enough about genetics to identify the genes responsible, but not advanced enough to eliminate them directly. So such a stopgap solution is good enough.
We can eliminate any deleterious genes we know about right now. Provided we can get everyone to use in vitro fertilization, that is. That, of course, is a big sticking point.
But if everyone does do that, we can use Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and avoid implanting any zygote that has deleterious genes. Using this technique to make other “improvements” would be much more difficult for reasons people gave above.
For one thing, genes inevitably mutate. For another thing. Racial separatists further separates into narrower gradients of quality until they become so rarified, only a few will represent. It is self-regulating.
If you wanted to judge African genes against European genes, you would have to collect samples from Timbuktu in 1100. Hard to come by back in days of yore when African emperors ruled Mohammedan cultures. I was just trying to see if you could measure Europeans at the top of their game versus Africans at the top of their game.
So there’s that. Centuries of hardship, heartbreak, and insecurity have a genetic effect that lasts to present. But again, the Republicans are stoned on blame, and ignoring responsibility.
Humans do not breed true. Look at the hemophilia that popped up in the royal family, Either Queen Victoria or her mother had a mutant X-chromosome.
We could breed out any genetic deficiency and it could just pop up again via mutation.
Derleth: great summary, and I entirely agree with it.
It’s important to note as you correctly do, that eugenics by definition simply boils down to “changing the human gene pool by design.” That doesn’t in principle have to be coercive (deciding whom to mate with is a form of selection too, even if it’s usual unconscious, so are noncoercive encouragements of people to have more or fewer children). Anyway, that stuff is probably going to be less relevant in the future anyway, since as you point out we will hopefully eventually have the capability to edit genes directly. This would avoid the ethical concerns of a lot of the past forms of eugenics like selective infanticide/abortion, forbidding people to reproduce, etc…
Changing the human gene pool by design can certainly be done in immoral ways but it’s not morally wrong in itself.