fucking up the gene pool = increasing frequency of deleterious alleles in a population with a history of cousin-fucking. Maybe fucking up the population, rather than the gene pool.
increasing frequency of deleterious alleles in a population
Inbreeders are only increasing the frequency of homozygous genotypes, not the freq of the deleterious allele itself. They'd only do the latter if homozygotes had a fitness advantage, which for deletrious alleles they surely don't. So if anything, they're helping the population -- they're sorting the bad junk into one sub-pop, which then dies off due to disease.
Imagine soaking up puke with a sponge -- you're not increasing or decreasing the number of puke particles in your house, just transferring them into an enclosed space within your house. Then imagine tossing the sponge into a landfill to be burned -- then you're actually eliminating the puke. This is what inbreeding is like. Of course, puke has a way of returning to your house...
In the same vein, here's a bizarre comment in a New Scientist article on "Are we still evolving?"
[Geoffrey] Miller also points out that people are far more likely to meet and have children with someone who is like them. "Assortative mating - for intelligence, personality traits, mental health, physical health, attractiveness - is getting ever more efficient through higher education, urbanisation, singles' ads, internet dating and speed dating," says Miller. Taken together, that is likely to mean that advantageous new mutations have a greater opportunity than ever to become fixed in the population.
It's unclear whether the last sentence is paraphrasing what Miller said in interview or is the author's interpretation, but again we have the same lack of attention to details. Even if you forgot that, though, wouldn't you think to check your idea in the real world? Just look somewhere where there is high positive assortative mating for anything -- intelligence, looks, whatever.
I rarely throw the word "Eurocentric" around because reasonble people will guess that I'm an imbecile, but here's an instance where it's warranted -- in South Asia, are beneficial mutations for brains, looks, etc. approxing fixation? Not even close. Same goes for studying the Swiss to detect signals of preference for dissimilar HLA profile due to ubiquitous pathogens: silly.
Cute! But why are you holding a letter opener?
itz a knife. no one better get between me & my books....
That is just so amazing, dude!
Votre chapeau est très jolie!
What, no animation, no song? I want to hear you croon, "stop f*@king up the gene pool cousin-f*@ker!"
What, no animation, no song? I want to hear you croon, "stop f*@king up the gene pool cousin-f*@ker!"
cousin fucker's aren't fucking the up gene pool. they are just combining alleles in a non-panmictic manner.
fucking up the gene pool = increasing frequency of deleterious alleles in a population with a history of cousin-fucking. Maybe fucking up the population, rather than the gene pool.
increasing frequency of deleterious alleles in a population
Inbreeders are only increasing the frequency of homozygous genotypes, not the freq of the deleterious allele itself. They'd only do the latter if homozygotes had a fitness advantage, which for deletrious alleles they surely don't. So if anything, they're helping the population -- they're sorting the bad junk into one sub-pop, which then dies off due to disease.
Imagine soaking up puke with a sponge -- you're not increasing or decreasing the number of puke particles in your house, just transferring them into an enclosed space within your house. Then imagine tossing the sponge into a landfill to be burned -- then you're actually eliminating the puke. This is what inbreeding is like. Of course, puke has a way of returning to your house...
well...this maybe post-worthy....
So if anything, they're helping the population -- they're sorting the bad junk into one sub-pop, which then dies off due to disease.
Yeah, but there is the cost of caring for the sub-population. Anyway, it was the quickest south park riff I could come up with.
Ah, OK. A social / economic burden, rather than a genetic burden...
Schweet.
The Richard Dawkinz stole ideas from the Nazis.
Proof!!
In the same vein, here's a bizarre comment in a New Scientist article on "Are we still evolving?"
[Geoffrey] Miller also points out that people are far more likely to meet and have children with someone who is like them. "Assortative mating - for intelligence, personality traits, mental health, physical health, attractiveness - is getting ever more efficient through higher education, urbanisation, singles' ads, internet dating and speed dating," says Miller. Taken together, that is likely to mean that advantageous new mutations have a greater opportunity than ever to become fixed in the population.
It's unclear whether the last sentence is paraphrasing what Miller said in interview or is the author's interpretation, but again we have the same lack of attention to details. Even if you forgot that, though, wouldn't you think to check your idea in the real world? Just look somewhere where there is high positive assortative mating for anything -- intelligence, looks, whatever.
I rarely throw the word "Eurocentric" around because reasonble people will guess that I'm an imbecile, but here's an instance where it's warranted -- in South Asia, are beneficial mutations for brains, looks, etc. approxing fixation? Not even close. Same goes for studying the Swiss to detect signals of preference for dissimilar HLA profile due to ubiquitous pathogens: silly.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/human-evolution/mg18925…
I like how you have on the same tupe of hat as South Parks Dr. Mephisto (based on Dr. Moreu)!
"I've created things that will change the world for the better. For instance, here is a monkey with four asses!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Mephisto