Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne jumps into the Dawkins eugenics row

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Almost like he must:

Artificial selection will work if a trait has any positive heritability, that is, if any proportion of the total variation in a trait among individuals in a population is due to genetic variation—what we specifically call “additive genetic variance” in the trade. And virtually all morphological or behavioral traits have some positive heritability.

Look at domestic dog breeds, for instance. All of them descend from the wolf, yet all the huge variety of their traits: the variation in their size, their shape, their color, and even their behavior (retrievers, border collies, etc.) have come from selecting on traits that have a positive heritability. As Darwin said in The Origin, “Breeders habitually speak of an animal’s organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost as they please.”

That happens to be true. And it would be true of humans as well if we were able to select on them.

Jerry Coyne, “Dawkins makes a tweet” at Why Evolution Is True

Actually, eugenics wouldn’t work in humans because reason and personal choice can frustrate efforts at programming.

Another issue was raised by a reader who reminds us that, in any event, dog breeding is devolution for dogs. It usually works that way, as Michael Behe points out in Darwin Devolves. Dogs are bred by humans at the expense of their genetic health. Some call it “malgenics.”

That’s quite correct. Domestic dog breeds often have serious inbred problems that the feral cur never knew. He stays alive despite all those who want to kill him. The pampered pedigreed with the fashionable but costly features might expire despite the vet’s best efforts to save him. – News

See also: Richard Dawkins says eugenics works because he assumes we are just like animals At one fell swoop, Dawkins exposes another frequent weakness of naturalist atheism: direct conflict with facts. Eugenics does not work for humans. Unlike animals, we make personal choices, which could be based on reason and free will or on the apparent lack thereof. And those choices confound the ambitions of others.

Comments
I really don’t understand the antipathy toward these statements. Neither are saying that we should apply selective breeding to humans. They are just saying that if it was applied, it would work. And it would. The argument that selective breeding of dogs has resulted in traits that would be negative in nature are irrelevant. We breed them for traits that are beneficial to us. In a dystopian future, is it impossible that some authoritarian ruling sect of humanity couldn’t treat the rest of humanity as breeding stock and produce “breeds” of humans that have traits that are beneficial to the ruling sect? Sadly, this is not biologically or scientifically impossible. But let’s flip this around. Are our efforts in medicine also not an attempt at selective breeding? Not in the sense of selecting for specific traits, but in that we exert great effort to keep “negative” traits in the breeding pool.Ed George
February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
Nooooooooooooo Jerr Bear Don’t join Richard Dawkins on that sinking ship Taps plays softly in the background as two atheists no longer could be heard as they sink below an ocean of their own stupidity I love it when smart people throw their careers awayAaronS1978
February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
dawkins and coyne, the pigeons need to be feed.Truthfreedom
February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
Our numerous anti-ID interlocutors have nothing better than to suggest that a Peircean triple can crystallize from aqueous solution. As if all of a sudden, matter decided to control itself. What a mess they have in their heads!EugeneS
February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
That happens to be true. And it would be true of humans as well if we were able to select on them.
Again, the atheist evolutionist contradicts himself. "We are able" implies we know something is not ok and then we choose not to do it. But according to coyne (the dim-witted biologist), we do not have free will :
“The concept of free will is incompatible with the theory of evolution. According to Darwin’s theory, we came to be what we are by passing on genes that proved useful in the struggle to survive. If human actions (e.g. eating and mating) were freely chosen, then we couldn’t explain our evolution in terms of natural selection.” https://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2019/11/are-my-beliefs-about-free-will-freely-chosen.html
Any materialist explanation, please? Truthfreedom
February 18, 2020
February
02
Feb
18
18
2020
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply