Do you believe eugenics is a valid philosophy and practice?

[Varabently]

I don't think we can have a discussion about eugenics if you actually think genetics is 100% responsible for who you are.

Did you never go to school with identical twins? I don't know how common they are statistically but there were 3 pairs in my year at 2ndary school. If what you are saying is true they would have been identical personalities/ability; and that wasn't the case. One, for example, was in my maths class and was genuinely pretty good at maths; his brother could barely count to 100 (exageration). Counter to that the one who was a bit shit at Maths was captain of the hockey team and played in the football and rugby teams as well.

TL: DR - you're wrong.

Your ignorance about identical twins would be immediately dispelled with a quick google search. Identical twins do not have identical genes, so not surprisingly they are often different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identic...gotic.29_twins

More specifically: Despite being genetically very similar, monozygotic twins are not genetically exactly the same. A study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November 2012,[27] provided evidence that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences very early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred very early in fetal development. These genetic differences that occur very early in fetal development will be present in nearly every cell in the body. Genetic differences due to mutations can also occur later in life, but those that occur at a later stage will be present in a much smaller proportion of body cells.

So, sorry you're the wrong one here sir. Thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -

Conveniently rubbishes claims that genetics are 100% repsonsible for your "you"

- - - Updated - - -



Then quote the people who are.

Are you referring to yourself? I quoted and debunked your theory about twins with a minuscule effort.

[Chain Chungus]

It is a completely silly idea.

Creatures are stronger with more genetic diversity not less. This pseudoscience is nothing more than inbreeding on steroids.

[Varabently]

By the way, i found that interesting, that very often, two brothers (around same age) will take different "routes", one will be in sports, another in science. THat's what i've got from my observation

Edit: I think I misquoted. this idea that brothers somehow prove that environment plays a factor makes no sense to me. Maybe it's over my head? I take this to mean that brothers (who have different genes of course) are brought up in the same environment, yet have different outcomes. Seems like genes are at least the majority of the determining factor.

[Sunseeker]

The idea of good breeding in order to have healthy babies is a good one. But good breeding comes from using a diverse pool of genetics to pull from. Unfortunately our understanding of genes and their interactions is somewhat limited, which makes attempting to analyze all possible outcomes difficult, but that doesn't mean we're compeltely blind either.

The idea of attempting to "cleanse" or "preserve" a race though essentially inbreeding is dangerously stupid.

[Kaleredar]

Your ignorance about identical twins would be immediately dispelled with a quick google search. Identical twins do not have identical genes, so not surprisingly they are often different. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identic...gotic.29_twins

More specifically: Despite being genetically very similar, monozygotic twins are not genetically exactly the same. A study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November 2012,[27] provided evidence that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences very early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred very early in fetal development. These genetic differences that occur very early in fetal development will be present in nearly every cell in the body. Genetic differences due to mutations can also occur later in life, but those that occur at a later stage will be present in a much smaller proportion of body cells.

So, sorry you're the wrong one here sir. Thanks for playing.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you referring to yourself? I quoted and debunked your theory about twins with a minuscule effort.

Believing that the genes one is born with are responsible for 100% of your behavior and beliefs is laughable. And even if such a notion wasn't immediately dismissible, you'd be utterly bereft of any way to prove they were 100% responsible anyway.

[Charge me Doctor]

What on earth does that have to do with this argument? If anything that SUPPORTS the notion of genes being the determinate. The brothers had the same environment, yet took different routes. It's almost a science experiment. Two people with different genes and the same environment take different routes. Shocking. I'm not sure why you think that supports nurture.

Nothing? I told that it was my observation of how two brothers around the same age often have different "hobby".
I'm not sure why you think that supports genetic predisposition. I have genetic predisposition to alcoholism, do i have to start drinking until i won't be able to control it? Or what? It's never 100% genetics or 100% nurture. That's the point.

[AeneasBK]

Are you referring to yourself? I quoted and debunked your theory about twins with a minuscule effort.

Woah up to 360 differences out of over 3 billion. Thats, like, a massive massive difference.

Not.

[Varabently]

Believing that the genes one is born with are responsible for 100% of your behavior and beliefs is laughable. And even if such a notion wasn't immediately dismissible, you'd be utterly bereft of any way to prove they were 100% responsible anyway.

Just because you can't prove something doesn't immediately make it false. The only reason we can't prove this is true (or false of course) is because it's ethically (and legally I assume) reprehensible to do the kind of testing required. Just because we aren't ALLOWED to do this testing (with good reason, I'm not suggesting we should), doesn't mean we COULDN'T. My argument is that anything you can attribute to "nurture" or environment can be reasoned to be actually determined by genes if you follow them back to their root causes.

- - - Updated - - -

Woah up to 360 differences out of over 3 billion. Thats, like, a massive massive difference.

Not.

A 3% difference in DNA makes us humans vs chimpanzees.

The next paragraph goes on further...

Another cause of difference between monozygotic twins is epigenetic modification, caused by differing environmental influences throughout their lives. Epigenetics refers to the level of activity of any particular gene. A gene may become switched on, switched off, or could become partially switched on or off in an individual. This epigenetic modification is triggered by environmental events. Monozygotic twins can have markedly different epigenetic profiles. A study of 80 pairs of monozygotic twins ranging in age from three to 74 showed that the youngest twins have relatively few epigenetic differences. The number of epigenetic differences increases with age. Fifty-year-old twins had over three times the epigenetic difference of three-year-old twins. Twins who had spent their lives apart (such as those adopted by two different sets of parents at birth) had the greatest difference.[28] However, certain characteristics become more alike as twins age, such as IQ and personality. This phenomenon illustrates the influence of genetics in many aspects of human characteristics and behavior.[29][30][31]

- - - Updated - - -

Apparently your idea of a legitimate argument is "No, really. I promise there are no racist scientists." While I can't point to any specific racist scientists (though I'd be incredibly surprised if there weren't any), I can point to scientists who are idiots in their own fields and choose to believe in things completely not supported by the data, such as Behe or the people from the Creation Museum. There's nothing about becoming a scientist that means you're never going to believe in anything stupid.

I'm pretty sure (and If I didn't I apologize) indicated that there are of course exceptions to any rule we can come up with. Of course there are racist scientists. I don't think I ever said there weren't. My "legitimate" argument is just as I've described. The opposing argument seems to be "nuh uh." I've described why I think genes are so important and how we can logically determine how some things that appear to be nurture are actually genetic or at least derived from genetics. The environment you create for your child is the way it is because of who you are, i.e. your genetics.

- - - Updated - - -

Woah up to 360 differences out of over 3 billion. Thats, like, a massive massive difference.

Not.

Don't we share something like 50% of our DNA with bananas? I read that somewhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation Humans in general are apparently 99.9% the same. You're also comparing two values with dissimilar measurements. There's 3 billion nucleotides, not 3 billion genetic differences. I doubt the study quoted 360 actually measured the nucleotide differences. If they did, it wasn't mentioned. Here's a quote from the article:

This study only looked at estimated mutation rates based on blood cells. Other cells in the body divide much more often and therefore may rack up even more differences between identical twins.

[obdigore]

Just because you can't prove something doesn't immediately make it false. The only reason we can't prove this is true is because it's ethically (and legally I assume) reprehensible to do the kind of testing required. Just because we aren't ALLOWED to do this testing (with good reason, I'm not suggesting we should), doesn't mean we COULDN'T. My argument is that anything you can attribute to "nurture" or environment can be reasoned to be actually determined by genes if you follow them back to their root causes.

So you claim extraordinary things and then claim you can't back up your extraordinary claims because it would require extraordinary testing?

You win all the things, if all the things involve you being ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

For instance; Language isn't an inheritable trait. It is completely dependent on you being exposed to it as a child. You don't pop out of your mothers womb knowing all (or any) language she knows.

[AeneasBK]

A 3% difference in DNA makes us humans vs chimpanzees.

(and you were talking about 0.000012%)

Another cause of difference between monozygotic twins is epigenetic modification, caused by differing environmental influences throughout their lives. Epigenetics refers to the level of activity of any particular gene. A gene may become switched on, switched off, or could become partially switched on or off in an individual. This epigenetic modification is triggered by environmental events. Monozygotic twins can have markedly different epigenetic profiles. A study of 80 pairs of monozygotic twins ranging in age from three to 74 showed that the youngest twins have relatively few epigenetic differences. The number of epigenetic differences increases with age. Fifty-year-old twins had over three times the epigenetic difference of three-year-old twins. Twins who had spent their lives apart (such as those adopted by two different sets of parents at birth) had the greatest difference.[28] However, certain characteristics become more alike as twins age, such as IQ and personality. This phenomenon illustrates the influence of genetics in many aspects of human characteristics and behavior.[29][30][31]

Game, set, and match.

[LookingGlass]

The problem with eugenics is one of purpose. What are your ultimate goals? How do you quantify these goals when the paradigm of improvement is constantly evolving?

Ridding the species of disease is a noble pursuit but, for example, there are a myriad of mental illnesses that seem to be somewhat beneficial to our species' continuing progress. Many of history's greatest geniuses would today be diagnosed with some classification of mental illness. It's likely that without such "diseases" or "disorders", we would have never reaped the benefits of their brilliance. Many great authors have been severely depressed, many great artists have been schizophrenic, many geniuses have been mildly autistic or obsessively compulsed, and a good portion of the world's CEOs would classify as sociopaths.

We might be able to, through genetic engineering, eradicate these illnesses or make them at least impossibly rare. And once you relegate the entire race to a template of perfection, you begin to lose the ability to progress. It's the mistakes and the mutations that often gift us with the priceless quantum leaps in human achievement. Those same mistakes are what by pure chance turned apes into humans; what turned an animal into an Einstein.



But the real beauty in this, the real mind frack, is that even full blown eugenics would still simply be natural evolution. Evolution applies not only to biology, but to everything, including ideas. Successful ideas live on, bad ideas die off, ideas compete and ideas adapt to become more successful. Eugenics will just be another test in good old fashioned human evolution.

[Kaleredar]

Just because you can't prove something doesn't immediately make it false. The only reason we can't prove this is true (or false of course) is because it's ethically (and legally I assume) reprehensible to do the kind of testing required. Just because we aren't ALLOWED to do this testing (with good reason, I'm not suggesting we should), doesn't mean we COULDN'T. My argument is that anything you can attribute to "nurture" or environment can be reasoned to be actually determined by genes if you follow them back to their root causes.

If that were indeed true, you'd have a difficult time reconciling the fact that people that are raised in oh, say, bad surroundings, irrespective of ethnicity, have a much higher propensity to become criminals later in life.

[Varabently]

So you claim extraordinary things and then claim you can't back up your extraordinary claims because it would require extraordinary testing?

You win all the things, if all the things involve you being ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

For instance; Language isn't an inheritable trait. It is completely dependent on you being exposed to it as a child. You don't pop out of your mothers womb knowing all (or any) language she knows.

Your threshold for "extraordinary" claims seems pretty low. I've given you a logical argument for why nurture is more important with plenty of examples. I'm not claiming genes are magical, if anything my claims are in line with determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism which is not an extraordinary claim. Look I'm not claiming to be sure that genetics are 100% of the factors. I'm just saying that what people tend to attribute to the environment can easily be traced back to genetic roots. I'm clearly just giving my opinion and I feel like the opposing side is giving a pretty weak argument.

Language isn't a trait at all. That's like saying tying your shoes is a trait. Your capacity to learn multiple languages may be a trait, but the language itself clearly isn't. I don't follow your point.

[AeneasBK]

But the real beauty in this, the real mind frack, is that even full blown eugenics would still simply be natural evolution. Evolution applies not only to biology, but to everything, including ideas. Successful ideas live on, bad ideas die off, ideas compete and ideas adapt to become more successful. Eugenics will just be another test in good old fashioned human evolution.

Memetics =/= Genetics

- - - Updated - - -

Everything is a genetic trait.

Look I'm not claiming to be sure that genetics are 100% of the factors.

Um.... Maybe choose different words then and people won't be so fast to tell you you're wrong.

[obdigore]

Your threshold for "extraordinary" claims seems pretty low. I've given you a logical argument for why nurture is more important with plenty of examples. I'm not claiming genes are magical, if anything my claims are in line with determinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism which is not an extraordinary claim. Look I'm not claiming to be sure that genetics are 100% of the factors. I'm just saying that what people tend to attribute to the environment can easily be traced back to genetic roots. I'm clearly just giving my opinion and I feel like the opposing side is giving a pretty weak argument.

Language isn't a trait at all. That's like saying tying your shoes is a trait. Your capacity to learn multiple languages may be a trait, but the language itself clearly isn't. I don't follow your point.

You claimed racism is genetic. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

You don't follow my point because you apparently don't remember what you wrote on the previous page.

[Varabently]

If that were indeed true, you'd have a difficult time reconciling the fact that people that are raised in oh, say, bad surroundings, irrespective of ethnicity, have a much higher propensity to become criminals later in life.

The type of person who lives in a bad surrounding AND has kids into that bad surroundings are not likely to be the most up-standing citizens. They are also probably more likely to engage in risky behaviors while pregnant, thus potentially reducing their capacity to succeed. The types of parents who choose to have kids into those circumstances also aren't likely to have the best genes. That's how the argument goes.

- - - Updated - - -

You claimed racism is genetic. Stop trying to shift goalposts.

You don't follow my point because you apparently don't remember what you wrote on the previous page.

Here's what I wrote:

Everything is a genetic trait.

Edit: Let me elaborate, every single notion everyone has isn't linked to a single gene or "trait." But rather, certain underlying notions and personality traits tend to manifest certain types of feelings. There's a reason there's not a lot of racist scientists out there. Because the type of person who is inclined to making science a huge part of their lives will realize THROUGH that sort of dialogue that judging someone based on their race makes no sense, is not supported by data, etc. Hopefully that makes sense. So it's not like the scientist has non-racist genes, but rather the genes that make up the type of person who is a scientist are also the same that lead to non-racism.

I clearly gave an explanation for why "racism" isn't genetic. Racism isn't a trait, it's just a manifestation of certain feeling and biases, which can be genetic. Every thought that goes through your mind doesn't have a 1:1 ratio with a gene. There's combinatory effects. There's no racism gene. I didn't claim "racism" was genetic. I didn't move a goalposts.

[Kaleredar]

The type of person who lives in a bad surrounding AND has kids into that bad surroundings are not likely to be the most up-standing citizens. They are also probably more likely to engage in risky behaviors while pregnant, thus potentially reducing their capacity to succeed. The types of parents who choose to have kids into those circumstances also aren't likely to have the best genes. That's how the argument goes.

How exactly would you even go about proving that? Do they have a faulty "money making" gene? You're sounding more like a phrenologist now.

[AeneasBK]

How exactly would you even go about proving that? Do they have a faulty "money making" gene? You're sounding more like a phrenologist now.

I liked the bit where he inferred more than half are not up-standing citizens

[Sunseeker]

Everything can be a genetic trait.

Fixed that for you.

The fact that something could be a genetic trait, or that a person could be inclined to behave in one way or another, is not in an of itsself, evidence that this is the case.

[obdigore]

I clearly gave an explanation for why "racism" isn't genetic. Racism isn't a trait, it's just a manifestation of certain feeling and biases, which can be genetic. Every thought that goes through your mind doesn't have a 1:1 ratio with a gene. There's combinatory effects. There's no racism gene. I didn't claim "racism" was genetic. I didn't move a goalposts.

Biases aren't genetic, they are learned behavior. There is no 'bias' gene. You give far too much importance to genetics and far too little to the environment in which the person was raised.