Natural Selection clearly misunderstood in USA.

SobieskiSavedEurope

Gold Member
Apr 13, 2017
25,611
1,199
290
Putnam Lake, NY raised, Pawling, NY resident.
My guess is nearly 33% in the USA are Religious & quite to very anti- Evolution.

My guess is nearly 33% are undecided, or don't care.

My guess is nearly 33% are Liberals who think there's Evolution but hardly understand it, especially not natural selection.

Then theres the 1 percent, those who understand & are terrified of the implications of certain undesirables having more kids.
The Eugenicists like myself.

My ideals maybe uncommon here, but I've seen & suspect many Eastern Europeans & also Asians do in fact follow mild to extreme grasps of natural selection & it's implications.
 
It's very likely you don't actually understand the implications of what you deem "undesirables having more kids". So, for example, from the 2017 book The Genome Factor:

"There is one last genotocratic-related question to address and this one is more about where we are going as an entire society than who gets ahead within a given generation. Namely, are we becoming less cognitively endowed over time thanks to differential fertility by genotype? While this is not a central Bell Curve hypothesis, Herrnstein and Murray do raise this possibility and others have more forcefully suggested that differential fertility by social position can have huge effects on the population distribution in subsequent generations-- and even on the economic fortunes of an entire society....

Are we, in fact, breeding ourselves into a low-education population? And how does this jive with the well-noted Flynn effect, according to which measured IQs have been rising during the past century?

While it is true today that the higher up the education ladder one climbs, the fewer children that person is likely to have, this relationship appears to be mainly related to the social roots of schooling and not the genetic ones (at least as proxied by the education genetic score.) More critically, the small negative correlation between education genotype and the number of children is not increasing even as the corresponding relationship between measured education and the number of children is getting stronger and stronger. In other words, there is a lack of evience to support the notion that differential fertility by education level is leading to a situation of negative genetic selection on education.

We are left with a puzzle of sorts: How can spouses be so similar (phenotypically) and yet so dissimilar (genotypically) at the same time? And as spousal phenotypic similarity increases over time, why do we find no subsequent genetic similarity increase? The logic motivating these questions is easy to follow: (1) spouses are very similar on many measures, like educational attainment (2) these measures show moderate heritabilities, and thus, (1) + (2) -> (3) spouses should be genetically similar. While spouses are indeed somewhat similar genetically, there is no trend of increasing similarity....

The substantial differences in genetics between spouses suggests a large role for genetic mobility across generations. While meritocratic environments may be a powerful force toward aligning successful parents, their children are faced with a genetic shuffling that helps to level the playing field in the next generation -- somewhat mitigating a march towards a solidified genotocracy across generations. The Bell Curve argued that we have achieved the societal situation in which the result of meritocracy and assortative mating is a system of class stratification based on innate (i.e., genetic) endowment. If this were true, social policy to promote equal opportunity would be counterproductive -- at least the grounds of efficiency -- because each individual would have already reached the level of social status best suited to his or her innate abilities.

Herrnstein and Murray made their assertions in 1994, before the human molecular genetics revolution took place. Whatever one believed about their assertions or the politics thereof, they were largely untestable at the time. They based their claims on an analysis of cognitive ability, which is problematic because IQ has both environmental and genetic bases, so any trend in its effects could be attributable to the environmentally influenced portion or the genetically determined one.... We tested their hypotheses using molecular data across a much winder (and frankly, more appropriate) birth-cohort distribution. Though we are mere decade and a half away from the 2033 date on which Young predicted the final "revolt" against an entrenched meritocratic system (in the U.K.) would occur, it seems -- if the present results are to be believed -- that we are still considerably removed from the dystopian nightmare he imagined more than a half century ago." (pp. 76-83)​
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
It's very likely you don't actually understand the implications of what you deem "undesirables having more kids". So, for example, from the 2017 book The Genome Factor:

"There is one last genotocratic-related question to address and this one is more about where we are going as an entire society than who gets ahead within a given generation. Namely, are we becoming less cognitively endowed over time thanks to differential fertility by genotype? While this is not a central Bell Curve hypothesis, Herrnstein and Murray do raise this possibility and others have more forcefully suggested that differential fertility by social position can have huge effects on the population distribution in subsequent generations-- and even on the economic fortunes of an entire society....

Are we, in fact, breeding ourselves into a low-education population? And how does this jive with the well-noted Flynn effect, according to which measured IQs have been rising during the past century?

While it is true today that the higher up the education ladder one climbs, the fewer children that person is likely to have, this relationship appears to be mainly related to the social roots of schooling and not the genetic ones (at least as proxied by the education genetic score.) More critically, the small negative correlation between education genotype and the number of children is not increasing even as the corresponding relationship between measured education and the number of children is getting stronger and stronger. In other words, there is a lack of evience to support the notion that differential fertility by education level is leading to a situation of negative genetic selection on education.

We are left with a puzzle of sorts: How can spouses be so similar (phenotypically) and yet so dissimilar (genotypically) at the same time? And as spousal phenotypic similarity increases over time, why do we find no subsequent genetic similarity increase? The logic motivating these questions is easy to follow: (1) spouses are very similar on many measures, like educational attainment (2) these measures show moderate heritabilities, and thus, (1) + (2) -> (3) spouses should be genetically similar. While spouses are indeed somewhat similar genetically, there is no trend of increasing similarity....

The substantial differences in genetics between spouses suggests a large role for genetic mobility across generations. While meritocratic environments may be a powerful force toward aligning successful parents, their children are faced with a genetic shuffling that helps to level the playing field in the next generation -- somewhat mitigating a march towards a solidified genotocracy across generations. The Bell Curve argued that we have achieved the societal situation in which the result of meritocracy and assortative mating is a system of class stratification based on innate (i.e., genetic) endowment. If this were true, social policy to promote equal opportunity would be counterproductive -- at least the grounds of efficiency -- because each individual would have already reached the level of social status best suited to his or her innate abilities.

Herrnstein and Murray made their assertions in 1994, before the human molecular genetics revolution took place. Whatever one believed about their assertions or the politics thereof, they were largely untestable at the time. They based their claims on an analysis of cognitive ability, which is problematic because IQ has both environmental and genetic bases, so any trend in its effects could be attributable to the environmentally influenced portion or the genetically determined one.... We tested their hypotheses using molecular data across a much winder (and frankly, more appropriate) birth-cohort distribution. Though we are mere decade and a half away from the 2033 date on which Young predicted the final "revolt" against an entrenched meritocratic system (in the U.K.) would occur, it seems -- if the present results are to be believed -- that we are still considerably removed from the dystopian nightmare he imagined more than a half century ago." (pp. 76-83)​

IQ scores are falling and have been for decades - CNN
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top