Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Richard Dawkins says eugenics works because he assumes we are just like animals

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

But we should oppose it on moral grounds, he hastens to add:

In a bizarre Twitter post on Sunday, Dawkins said that the practice of eugenics – an offshoot of social Darwinism – has a scientific logic that would actually work if implemented, arguing that people should oppose it strictly on moral grounds.

“It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice,” tweeted Dawkins. “Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology.”

Paul Bols, “Famed Atheist Richard Dawkins Bizarrely Defends Eugenics: ‘Works For Cows, Horses, Pigs,’ But ‘Fight It On Moral Grounds’” at DailyWire

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.

Put simply: Beagles beget beagles; that is all beagles can do. So if you want a beagle, you need only go to the source.

By contrast, not only do few geniuses pass on their gifts to any extent but wise and prudent parents often have foolish and imprudent children. Much great literature has featured such “fall of the house of” themes.

Do Dawkins’s remarks have anything to do with Darwin Day (February 12) or Evolution Weekend (grinding onward, with the sheer dullness one would associated with dying liberal churches)?

See also: Darwin Reader: Darwin’s racism

How Jonathan Wells is celebrating Darwin Day. Wells: A biologist wrote years ago that we should celebrate Darwin’s birthday instead, because Lincoln only freed some slaves while Darwin freed our minds. [eek!]

Everyone is bugging us to do something for Darwin Day (today). How about a brief reflection: Darwin is the village atheist’s answer to serious thinking about origins.

and

Evolution Weekend downplays Darwin, morphs into climate concern, muffles racism issue. Remember, anyone can be a racist if all he must say is: My ancestors were gods, yours were gobs of clay. Absent evidence, he might prevail by force of arms and entrench his view. Darwinism led to racial theories with the trappings of science. That matters and it has never been dealt with honestly because dealing with it honestly endangers the basic ideas of Darwinism.

Comments
Yeah, so this is one of those cases were knowing literally anything about a topic is helpful. For genuinely interested folks. Genetic variance is the is ~ the total variation in genes that contrbute to variation in some trait. Additive genetic variance is the protion of total genetic variance that is additive (that is the effects of two different genes can just be added up, withoug invoking complex interactions and the like). We can estimate the amount of additive genetic variance from pedigrees and the like. There is good reason to think most genetic variance in complex traits is additive Mimus
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
Mimus, thank you for bringing up additive genetic variance. It made me look into it in more detail. I don’t understand how anyone can take exception to it. All it is referring to is the ways in which the different alleles get expressed in the phenotype.Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
I gave you an opportunity to retract. I have now flagged it up to admin..bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:56 PM
3
03
56
PM
PDT
Ed George first off are you good with “BS77”? If so, we will correct that ad hominem first and foremost. I will flag it up to admin if you do not retract. And you can argue your case with him or her.
While you are at it you should also raise the fact that another commenter frequently uses the term “Bob (and weave)” when referring to another commenter. A term that means the same as BS in the context it is being used.Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:54 PM
3
03
54
PM
PDT
Additive genetic variance? Seriously? See Waiting for TWO Mutations:
Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.
That's for TWO additive variations.ET
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
Ed George first off are you good with "BS77"? If so, we will correct that ad hominem first and foremost. I will flag it up to admin if you do not retract. And you can argue your case with him or her.bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT
BS77
There is no such thing as “additive genetic variance”.
Then feel free to publish a rebuttal to this or the hundreds of other peer reviewed papers that disagree with you. https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000008Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
Mimus, if “additive genetic variance” does not mean what it seems to mean from simply reading the term “additive genetic variance”, i.e that beneficial mutations should 'add up' over time to eventually produce a new species, then I don't know what it means. nor do I care since it apparently has no bearing on whether Darwinian evolution is actually true or not. The empirical evidence I presented falsifies Darwinian evolution. Period!, regardless of what the term “additive genetic variance” means to evolutionists. Darwinists simply have no evidence that mutations to DNA can lead to new species:
Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12. None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–,,, (As Jonathan Wells states),,, We can modify the DNA of a fruit fly embryo in any way we want, and there are only three possible outcomes: A normal fruit fly; A defective fruit fly; or A dead fruit fly. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html
Shoot, Darwinists, with their reductive materialistic framework, are not even on the correct theoretical foundation in order to properly understand biology in the first place:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
Of supplemental note that may or may not have bearing on 'additive genetic variance' and how Darwinists use the term, Dr. John Sanford has now falsified Fisher's theorem:
Defending the validity and significance of the new theorem “Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection With Mutations, Part I: Fisher’s Impact – Bill Basener and John Sanford - February 15, 2018 Excerpt: While Fisher’s Theorem is mathematically correct, his Corollary is false. The simple logical fallacy is that Fisher stated that mutations could effectively be treated as not impacting fitness, while it is now known that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious, providing a downward pressure on fitness. Our model and our correction of Fisher’s theorem (The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations), take into account the tension between the upward force of selection with the downward force of mutations.,,, Our paper shows that Fisher’s corollary is clearly false, and that he misunderstood the implications of his own theorem. He incorrectly believed that his theorem was a mathematical proof that showed that natural selection plus mutation will necessarily and always increase fitness. He also believed his theorem was on a par with a natural law (such as entropic dissipation and the second law of thermodynamics). Because Fisher did not understand the actual fitness distribution of new mutations, his belief in the application of his “fundamental theorem of natural selection” was fundamentally and profoundly wrong – having little correspondence to biological reality. Therefore, we have reformulated Fisher’s model and have corrected his errors, thereby have established a new theorem that better describes biological reality, and allows for the specification of those key variables that will determine whether fitness will increase or decrease. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/defending-the-validity-and-significance-of-the-new-theorem-fundamental-theorem-of-natural-selection-with-mutations-part-i-fishers-impact/ Geneticist Corrects Fisher’s Theorem, but the Correction Turns Natural Selection Upside Down - December 22, 2017 | David F. Coppedge A new paper corrects errors in Fisher’s Theorem, a mathematical “proof” of Darwinism. Rather than supporting evolution, the corrected theorem inverts it. Excerpt: The authors of the new paper describe the fundamental problems with Fisher’s theorem. They then use Fisher’s first principles, and reformulate and correct the theorem. They have named the corrected theorem The Fundamental Theorem of Natural Selection with Mutations. The correction of the theorem is not a trivial change – it literally flips the theorem on its head. The resulting conclusions are clearly in direct opposition to what Fisher had originally intended to prove.,,, The authors of the new paper realized that one of Fisher’s pivotal assumptions was clearly false, and in fact was falsified many decades ago. In his informal corollary, Fisher essentially assumed that new mutations arose with a nearly normal distribution – with an equal proportion of good and bad mutations (so mutations would have a net fitness effect of zero). We now know that the vast majority of mutations in the functional genome are harmful, and that beneficial mutations are vanishingly rare. The simple fact that Fisher’s premise was wrong, falsifies Fisher’s corollary. Without Fisher’s corollary – Fisher’s Theorem proves only that selection improves a population’s fitness until selection exhausts the initial genetic variation, at which point selective progress ceases. Apart from his corollary, Fisher’s Theorem only shows that within an initial population with variant genetic alleles, there is limited selective progress followed by terminal stasis.,,, The authors observe that the more realistic the parameters, the more likely fitness decline becomes. https://crev.info/2017/12/geneticist-corrects-fishers-theorem/
bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
what do you think additive genetic variance means? This post doesn't relate to the term in any way I can detect.Mimus
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Mimus, not confused at all. There is no such thing as "additive genetic variance". That just another one of those materialistic myths that Darwinists believe in. Moreover, you certainly don't have to be a professor of evolution to understand the simplicity of "additive genetic variance" or why it is a myth. As Laszlo Bencze noted, "The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this.
"You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einstein's Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived." – Laszlo Bencze
Yet Darwinists simply have no evidence that this simple story line of "additive genetic variance" is a biological reality. As the following article states, "all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, "
Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? - Kevin Anderson, Ph.D. Excerpt: Resistance to antibiotics and other antimicrobials is often claimed to be a clear demonstration of “evolution in a Petri dish.” ,,, all known examples of antibiotic resistance via mutation are inconsistent with the genetic requirements of evolution. These mutations result in the loss of pre-existing cellular systems/activities, such as porins and other transport systems, regulatory systems, enzyme activity, and protein binding. http://www.trueorigin.org/bacteria01.asp
In fact, "Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not."
Unexpectedly small effects of mutations in bacteria bring new perspectives – November 2010 Excerpt: Most mutations in the genes of the Salmonella bacterium have a surprisingly small negative impact on bacterial fitness. And this is the case regardless whether they lead to changes in the bacterial proteins or not.,,, using extremely sensitive growth measurements, doctoral candidate Peter Lind showed that most mutations reduced the rate of growth of bacteria by only 0.500 percent. No mutations completely disabled the function of the proteins, and very few had no impact at all. Even more surprising was the fact that mutations that do not change the protein sequence had negative effects similar to those of mutations that led to substitution of amino acids. A possible explanation is that most mutations may have their negative effect by altering mRNA structure, not proteins, as is commonly assumed. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-unexpectedly-small-effects-mutations-bacteria.html
Moreover, when the ' ‘top five’ ‘beneficial mutations from Lenski’s long term evolution experiment were combined then "the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually."
Mutations : when benefits level off – June 2011 – (Lenski’s e-coli after 50,000 generations) Excerpt: After having identified the first five beneficial mutations combined successively and spontaneously in the bacterial population, the scientists generated, from the ancestral bacterial strain, 32 mutant strains exhibiting all of the possible combinations of each of these five mutations. They then noted that the benefit linked to the simultaneous presence of five mutations was less than the sum of the individual benefits conferred by each mutation individually. http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/1867.htm?theme1=7
As should be needless to say, that is the antithesis of "additive genetic variance". A Casey Luskin noted, "If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?"
New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011 Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does? http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/new_research_on_epistatic_inte047151.html
Moreover, the last four decades worth of lab work are surveyed here, and it was found that "the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain."
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/
In fact, it is now found that "Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations"
Biological Information - Loss-of-Function Mutations by Paul Giem 2015 - video (Behe - Loss of function mutations are far more likely to fix in a population than gain of function mutations) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzD3hhvepK8&index=20&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNUUhiC9VwPnhl-ymuObyTWJ Michael Behe - Less is More: How Darwinian Evolution Helps Species Adapt by Breaking Genes - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKmXMlsQ5sg&list=PLS591mpvSTo3vP8g1BNfIMh3wUyrrWzQA&index=9
As the following summation of Behe's book 'Darwin Devolves explains, "The upshot of all this is that Darwin was right in believing that natural selection operating on random variations can cause organisms to become adapted to their environments, but he was wrong in believing that the process was constructive. Nowhere has the Darwinian mechanism been shown to build a complex system. It has only been shown to modify an already-existing system, usually in a loss-of-function manner"
When Darwin’s Foundations Are Crumbling, What Will the (Darwinian) Faithful Do? Excerpt: Here’s a summation of the evolutionary picture that has emerged, according to Behe (in his new book "Darwin Devolves": • The large majority of mutations are degradatory, meaning they’re mutations in which the gene is broken or blunted. Genetic information has been lost, not gained. • Sometimes the degradation helps an organism survive. • When the degradation confers a survival advantage, the mutation spreads throughout the population by natural selection. In genetics, a loss of information generally translates into a loss of function, so it might seem counterintuitive to suppose that a degradatory mutation would confer a survival advantage. Behe gives several examples, though, of instances where damaged genes have been shown to aid survival. In the case of the sickle-cell gene, for example, a single amino acid change causes hemoglobin to behave in a way that inhibits growth of the malaria microbe. It’s a loss-of-function mutation, but it confers a survival advantage in malaria-prone regions. The upshot of all this is that Darwin was right in believing that natural selection operating on random variations can cause organisms to become adapted to their environments, but he was wrong in believing that the process was constructive. Nowhere has the Darwinian mechanism been shown to build a complex system. It has only been shown to modify an already-existing system, usually in a loss-of-function manner. This is significant enough to upend the Darwinian narrative, but it gets worse. The same factors that contribute to adaptation work to prevent a species from evolving much further. Random mutation and natural selection quickly adjust species to their environmental niches, Behe writes, and then they maroon them there. He cites results from the long-running experiment conducted by Michigan State microbiologist Richard Lenski, whose E. coli lineage has surpassed 65,000 generations (equivalent to more than a million years for a large, complex species like humans), as sound evidence that random mutations wreak havoc in a species—and then that havoc gets frozen in place by natural selection. Behe sums up his main argument like this: “beneficial degradative mutations will rapidly, relentlessly, unavoidably, outcompete beneficial constructive mutations at every time and population scale.”1 The only Darwinian examples of evolution that have been observed have followed this pattern and resulted in evolutionary dead ends. Darwin devolves.,,,, https://salvomag.com/article/salvo49/darwinism-dissembled
Darwinists simply have no evidence for their belief in "additive genetic variance". Dr. John Sanford has also done yeoman's work demonstrating that 'genetic entropy' is true and that "additive genetic variance" is false:
John Sanford gives lecture at NIH (National Institute of Health) on mutations and human health – video - November 15, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=eqIjnol9uh8 Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013 Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.]. African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare! - per creation dot com
In short, like Santa Claus, the belief in 'additive genetic variance' is a fairy tale that simply does not exist in reality.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Of course Dawkins is correct that selective breeding of humans could, in principle, work to, for example, remove genetic diseases from the gene pool, or breed miniature humans - see for example, my tongue-in-cheek entry at https://thopid.blogspot.com/2019/12/small-could-be-beautiful.html However, Dawkins also says (and I agree) that we should never use eugenics to modify humans. We are simply not wise enough to choose how best to "improve" humans, and we lack the worldwide totalitarian control (fortunately) to enforce and continue such an experiment for several generations. Thus, what is theoretically possible is clearly unwise and practically impossible. As another random thought, one wonders how dogs or cows, for instance, would choose to control their selective breeding, if they could do so? This is one of those rare times when one can mostly agree with what Dawkins actually says.Fasteddious
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT
Do you think, BA, that is might be possible that you are confused an actual Professor in this subject knows something about it. It doesn't matter if there are 3 genes or 3 thousand underlying a trait, if there is additive genetic variance (Va) for that trait (phenotypic variance in which is Vp) the response to selection (z) can be modelled as z = (Va/Vp)*S, which "S" is the strength of selection. In other words, if you have additive genetic variance in a trait you can select for it.Mimus
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
@16 Bornagain77:
In short, far from ‘selfish genes’ as Dawkins envisioned, genes are instead best thought of as existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation.
dawkins has made lots of cash thanks to lots of fools who despise their own thinking processes. No 'selfish gene' and no 'blind watchmaker'. Just piles of crap, non-sense and illogical thinking. Naturalism is a big mess.Truthfreedom
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
Bob’Ooooooooooh I’m sorry I couldn’t help that I’m dating myself but I see your name and I am mediately remember peter pan with Robin Williams and Rufiooooo https://www.google.com/amp/s/io9.gizmodo.com/why-eugenics-will-always-fail-5925024/amp https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5382686/#idm140417540743232title But here’s two a quick links The wiki isn’t too bad on this either even though I’m not a big fan of wiki the treatment of certain things like oxytocin is an absolute disaster also their treatment of free will which they are entirely out of dateAaronS1978
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
Bob (and weave) O'Hara claims
Having lots of genes involved isn’t an issue – as long as there is (additive) genetic variance, you can select on the phenotype. Linkage is probably a minor problem, because it would have to be tight, and only a small number of genes involved in the trait of interest
Bob (and weave) apparently doesn't even understand his own area of supposed expertise,
The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology – Bard - 2011 Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation.. http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf What If (Almost) Every Gene Affects (Almost) Everything? - JUN 16, 2017 Excerpt: If you told a modern geneticist that a complex trait—whether a physical characteristic like height or weight, or the risk of a disease like cancer or schizophrenia—was the work of just 15 genes, they’d probably laugh. It’s now thought that such traits are the work of thousands of genetic variants, working in concert. The vast majority of them have only tiny effects, but together, they can dramatically shape our bodies and our health. They’re weak individually, but powerful en masse. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/its-like-all-connected-man/530532/ Theory Suggests That All Genes Affect Every Complex Trait - June 20, 2018 Excerpt: Mutations of a single gene are behind sickle cell anemia, for instance, and mutations in another are behind cystic fibrosis. But unfortunately for those who like things simple, these conditions are the exceptions. The roots of many traits, from how tall you are to your susceptibility to schizophrenia, are far more tangled. In fact, they may be so complex that almost the entire genome may be involved in some way,,, One very early genetic mapping study in 1999 suggested that “a large number of loci (perhaps > than 15)” might contribute to autism risk, recalled Jonathan Pritchard, now a geneticist at Stanford University. “That’s a lot!” he remembered thinking when the paper came out. Over the years, however, what scientists might consider “a lot” in this context has quietly inflated. Last June, Pritchard and his Stanford colleagues Evan Boyle and Yang Li (now at the University of Chicago) published a paper about this in Cell that immediately sparked controversy, although it also had many people nodding in cautious agreement. The authors described what they called the “omnigenic” model of complex traits. Drawing on GWAS analyses of three diseases, they concluded that in the cell types that are relevant to a disease, it appears that not 15, not 100, but essentially all genes contribute to the condition. The authors suggested that for some traits, “multiple” loci could mean more than 100,000. https://www.quantamagazine.org/omnigenic-model-suggests-that-all-genes-affect-every-complex-trait-20180620/
In short, far from 'selfish genes' as Dawkins envisioned, genes are instead best thought of as existing in a holistic web of mutual interdependence and cooperation. Which is, needless to say, the exact polar opposite of being ‘selfish’. (And should, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of being an unfalsifiable religion for atheists, count as yet another direct falsification of the theory).bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
Is this man nuts? (rhetorical question)
Unlike animals, we make personal choices, which could be based on reason and free will or on the apparent lack thereof.
- How can you make choices if you lack free will? I think he is senile. Although when he was younger he was always saying non sensical things. And people buy his crap without thinking.Truthfreedom
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
As to dogs,
The Dog Delusion - October 30, 2014 Excerpt: In his latest book, geneticist Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig of the Max Planck Institutes in Germany takes on the widespread view that dog breeds prove macroevolution.,,, He shows in great detail that the incredible variety of dog breeds, going back in origin several thousand years ago but especially to the last few centuries, represents no increase in information but rather a decrease or loss of function on the genetic and anatomical levels. Michael Behe writes: "Dr. Lönnig shows forcefully that one of the chief examples Darwinists rely on to convince the public of macroevolution -- the enormous variation in dogs -- actually shows the opposite. Extremes in size and anatomy come at the cost of broken genes and poor health. Even several gene duplications were found to interfere strongly with normal growth and development as is also often the case in humans. So where is the evidence for Darwinian evolution now?" The science here is indeed solid. Intriguingly, Lönnig's prediction from 2013 on starch digestion in wolves has already been confirmed in a study published this year.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/the_dog_delusio090751.html
As well, inbreeding (continual selection for a particular trait in dogs,) is a very big problem in 'Pure Breds' that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry since it accelerates genetic degradation:
Inbreeding - Pros and cons Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise. http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm Due to population bottlenecks, inbreeding and stringent artificial selection by humans for particular traits, it was long suspected that modern dog breeds harbor more deleterious mutations due to low effects of natural selection. This research took larger number of dog genome samples than ever did before. The prediction is true. The researchers performed 90 whole-genome sequences from breed dogs, village dogs, and gray wolves including golden jackal. After comparing the data, it was found recent dog breeds have 2-3% more deleterious allele variants than wolves. Human's persistence for desirable traits and low population size have resulted in less efficient purifying selection. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/12/17/1512501113
of supplemental note:
Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012 Excerpt: In my dissertation on the incredibly abundant and well preserved fossil mammals of the Big Badlands of the High Plains, I had over 160 well-dated, well-sampled lineages of mammals, so I could evaluate the relative frequency of gradualism versus stasis in an entire regional fauna. … it was clear that nearly every lineage showed stasis, with one minor example of gradual size reduction in the little oreodont Miniochoerus. I could point to this data set and make the case for the prevalence of stasis without any criticism of bias in my sampling. More importantly, the fossil mammals showed no sign of responding to the biggest climate change of the past 50 million years (the Eocene-Oligocene transition, when glaciers appeared in Antarctica after 200 million years). In North America, dense forests gave way to open scrublands, crocodiles and pond turtles were replaced by land tortoises, and the snails changed from those typical of Nicaragua to those of Baja California. Yet out of all the 160 lineages of mammals in this time interval, there was virtually no response.”,,, In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/12-02-15/#feature
bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Seversky claims
We are not “just like” animals, we are animals,,,
Hannibal Lecter would like to have you over FOR dinner to chat about that claim,,
"I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner." - Hannibal Lecter https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09TAIcCqFpg
As to selective breeding,
“This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create….” (Lynn Margulis Says She’s Not Controversial, She’s Right,” Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011) "The real number of variations is lesser than expected,,. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... [If you have the time, read all of the following paper, which concludes] The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism." - IGOR POPOV, THE PROBLEM OF CONSTRAINTS ON VARIATION, FROM DARWIN TO THE PRESENT, 2009,
Moreover, Natural Selection reduces genetic information
"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..." Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament EXPELLED - Natural Selection And Genetic Mutations - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6z5-15wk1Zk
Case in point for natural selection reducing genetic information, humans are losing genetic information, They are not gaining it:
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.- New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012 Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago. This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced. http://phys.org/news/2012-10-analysis-fuller-picture-human-expansion.html Finding links and missing genes: Catalog of large-scale genetic changes around the world - October 1, 2015 Excerpt: "When we analysed the genomes of 2500 people, we were surprised to see over 200 genes that are missing entirely in some people," says Jan Korbel, who led the work at EMBL in Heidelberg, Germany.,,, African genomes harboured a much greater diversity overall. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151001094723.htm If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011 Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.” “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,, He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.” http://discovermagazine.com/2010/sep/25-modern-humans-smart-why-brain-shrinking Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution? by Jerry Bergman – December 1, 1998 Excerpt: Curtis found that both predynastic Egyptians and Nubians rarely had wisdom teeth problems, but they often existed in persons living in later periods of history. He concluded that the maxillary sinus of the populations he compared were similar and attributed the impactions he found to diet and also disuse causing atrophy of the jaws which resulted in a low level of teeth attrition. Dahlberg in a study of American Indians found that mongoloid peoples have a higher percentage of agenesis of third molars then do other groups and few persons in primitive societies had wisdom teeth problems. As Dahlberg notes, third molars were ‘very useful in primitive societies’ to chew their coarse diet. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v12/n3/wisdom-teeth The Genetics of Blond Hair June 1, 2014 Excerpt: ,,,When he and his colleagues studied this regulatory DNA in human cells grown in a laboratory dish, they discovered that the blond-generating SNP reduced KITLG activity by only about 20%. Yet that was enough to change the hair color.“This isn’t a ‘turn the switch off,’ ” Kingsley says. “It’s a ‘turn the switch down.’ ” “This study provides solid evidence” that this switch regulates the expression of KITLG in developing hair follicles, http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/06/genetics-blond-hair Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013 Excerpt: "Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world's total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene "turned off the ability to produce brown eyes." http://www.examiner.com/article/daily-thought-blue-eyes-and-other-gene-mutations Melanin Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism. - per wikipedia
So much for Sev's, E.G.'s, Bob's, Dawkins' and Hitler's plan to evolve a master race via eugenics and selective breeding.bornagain77
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
This is an incredible fallacy dogs and canines are far more genetically plastic than humans are humans apparently lost most of their genetic plasticity many thousands upon thousands of years ago somewhere around 35%
Is this true? I haven't looked, but I thought dog genetic diversity was low too. It certainly is within breeds, but I don't know about it overall.
Furthermore we have tons of gene now that are all intertwined and interconnected making it even more difficult to filter specific genes out because if you take one gene out you take another one with it
Having lots of genes involved isn't an issue - as long as there is (additive) genetic variance, you can select on the phenotype. Linkage is probably a minor problem, because it would have to be tight, and only a small number of genes involved in the trait of interest (if lots of genes are involved, few will be in tight linkage with other important genes).
Point in case myopia is directly connected to a gene that involves high levels of intelligence get rid of one and you get rid of the other
Oh, I wasn't aware of this. Do you have a citation? The nearest I could find was this study, which suggested a slight correlation (~0.14) between the two traits.Bob O'H
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT
Sev, that has always been the risk of selective breeding. Breeding to obtain positive traits (eg Arnie’s physique, Einstein’s intelligence and Michelangelo’s artistic abilities) often comes hand-in-hand (and inseparably) with some serious negative traits (eg. Trump’s and ET’s pathological narcissistic tendencies). :) Society has decided that it is better off without increasing the frequency of those negative traits.Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
We are not "just like" animals, we are animals so we should be just as susceptible as other mammals to selective breeding practices. As Dawkins points out, though, the issue is not whether we could use eugenics on humans, it has always been whether we should. When we talk about a "better" human being, what do we mean? Someone with the physical build of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the scientific genius of Albert Einstein and the artistic flair of Michelangelo? Maybe, but what if all those were coupled with the personality of a Donald Trump? What would you see as a "better human"?Seversky
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
AaronS1978, if I am reading Dawkins’ quote correctly, he is saying that there is no scientific reason why selective breeding could not result in significant changes in expressed traits for humans as it has for other animals. I don’t think this is seriously contested by biologists and geneticists. For example, I don’t know of any reason why we couldn’t use selective breeding to produce a population of humans with webbed fingers. It is quite possible that this would also result in the fixation of some negative traits as well, but we see the same thing with selective breeding of dogs and other animals. Saying that something is scientifically possible is different than saying that, as a society, we should permit it.Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
@5 Ed George
I believe that eugenics was forced on others. They couldn’t exert their free will.
So you do not believe in evolution? Because evolution and free will are incompatible, sorry to let you know.
"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
And the evolutive priest (a.k.a. j. coyne or the philosophical beast here):
"To assert that we can freely choose among alternatives is to claim, then, that we can somehow step outside the physical structure of our brain and change its workings. That is impossible. Like the output of a programmed computer, only one choice is ever physically possible: the one you made". https://www.chronicle.com/article/Jerry-A-Coyne-You-Dont-Have/131165
Truthfreedom
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
09:36 AM
9
09
36
AM
PDT
I think a lot of people get the idea that eugenics works on human beings the same way it works on dogs This is an incredible fallacy dogs and canines are far more genetically plastic than humans are humans apparently lost most of their genetic plasticity many thousands upon thousands of years ago somewhere around 35% Furthermore we have tons of gene now that are all intertwined and interconnected making it even more difficult to filter specific genes out because if you take one gene out you take another one with it Point in case myopia is directly connected to a gene that involves high levels of intelligence get rid of one and you get rid of the other Eugenics might work but not practically it kills the genetic diversity and we are already limited on thatAaronS1978
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Chesterton said (quoting from memory, so sorry for mistakes): "It certainly is possible that doctors and nurses can establish a breeding program that will lead to better humans in the next generation. However, if they are indeed better humans, the first thing they will do is get rid of the doctors' and nurses' involvement in reproduction."johnnyb
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Put simply: Beagles beget beagles; that is all beagles can do. So if you want a beagle, you need only go to the source.
Except that beagles were begat from selective breeding of non-beagles.
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.
I believe that eugenics was forced on others. They couldn’t exert their free will. I don’t see what is inaccurate about Dawkin’s statement. There is little doubt that we could use selective breeding on humans to produce a population of taller individuals, or a population of shorter people, or a population of people with webbed fingers. What is seldom mentioned is that even giving full free will many people continue to practice a form of eugenics. My brother’s wife is a haemophilia carrier. They decided not to have any children of their own. The wife of a friend of mine is a carrier of fragile X (causes a form of severe autism). They decided not to have any children. A coworker decided not to have any children because she was a carrier for another genetic disease. I don’t know whether the knowledge of these genetic diseases has resulted in a reduction in the incidents of these diseases, but it would be an interesting study. I think most of us would be opposed to forced eugenics. But I believe that couples who are carriers of genetic diseases should be encouraged not to have children. Possibly even provide incentives like putting them at the top of adoption lists.Ed George
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
Breeding works for broad characteristics that are simpler and determined by smaller numbers of genes. It doesn’t work as well for specific talents that are determined by “just right” outlier combinations of many genes. Same for all mammals.
Yes, same for all mammals. And classical breeding techniques have been incredibly successful in breeding "better" mammals (e.g. increasing milk yield in cows). This suggest that most traits aren't determined by “just right” outlier combinations of many genes. Or if it does, most of those genes are fixed for the relevant alleles.
Your free will distinction doesn’t work. Other mammals certainly have preferences and make choices. When not forcibly bred, a female dog knows who she wants, and rejects males that don’t fit her template.
I think you're agreeing with me.Bob O'H
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
Other animals make personal choices. People need to get out in the woods and observe what animals do.ET
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Breeding works for broad characteristics that are simpler and determined by smaller numbers of genes. It doesn't work as well for specific talents that are determined by "just right" outlier combinations of many genes. Same for all mammals. Your free will distinction doesn't work. Other mammals certainly have preferences and make choices. When not forcibly bred, a female dog knows who she wants, and rejects males that don't fit her template.polistra
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
05:13 AM
5
05
13
AM
PDT
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.
Animals also make personal choices - it's how they make their choices. e.g. Gouldian finches select mates based on head colour, but they can still be made to mate with partners of the "wrong" colour.Bob O'H
February 17, 2020
February
02
Feb
17
17
2020
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply