yall Posted January 17, 2007 Posted January 17, 2007 In our earlier discussion, some of those who disagreed with me implied that if a trait was less than 100% heritable (in the narrow sense), evolutionary forces wouldn't apply. This implication, if correct, would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Are you sure that's what they said? Can a trait even be considered to be 100% heritable?
Orton's Arm Posted January 17, 2007 Author Posted January 17, 2007 Are you sure that's what they said? Can a trait even be considered to be 100% heritable? Those who disagreed with me made a number of silly claims. The anti-Darwinistic implication was one of them. Currently, relatively unintelligent people are having more children than smart people. I feel reversing this situation would improve the quality of the gene pool; and our nation's long-term future. Others argued that changing these childbearing patterns would produce no long-term improvement in average intelligence levels. They pointed out that if people with very high I.Q.s have children, those children will, on average, be smart, but not quite so smart as their parents. Likewise, if two exceptionally stupid people have kids, the kids are also expected to be stupid, but not as stupid as their parents. Based on these two facts, those who disagreed with me concluded current childbearing patterns aren't a source of concern; nor could an altered childbearing pattern be a source of hope. Either way, the thinking went, the nation's gene pool with respect to intelligence will remain the same over the long run. If this logic is correct, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. I'm not aware of any trait that's 100% narrow-sense heritable; so all or nearly all characteristics experience the regression toward the mean I've described.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I'm still waiting for the answer on the antlers thing. Are most of them 3.5 feet long?
Nanker Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 See above post Yes. Mine was a pity post for those too lazy to click the Internet linky thingy in yours. You'd be amazed how few post linkys get clicked - unless there's a hot babe on the other end.
Wacka Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Yes. Mine was a pity post for those too lazy to click the Internet linky thingy in yours.You'd be amazed how few post linkys get clicked - unless there's a hot babe on the other end. Hot babes are definitely NOT regression to the mean!
Orton's Arm Posted January 18, 2007 Author Posted January 18, 2007 Hot babes are definitely NOT regression to the mean! Well . . . yes and no. Suppose two exceptionally attractive people were to have kids. Their kids would also expected to be very good looking, but not quite to the same extent as their parents.
Ramius Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Well . . . yes and no. Suppose two exceptionally attractive people were to have kids. Their kids would also expected to be very good looking, but not quite to the same extent as their parents. according to your retarded logic then, these people werent actually attractive. they were just "lucky" to be mistaken for being attractive. by the way, good job on american idol last night singing "unchained melody".
molson_golden2002 Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 according to your retarded logic then, these people werent actually attractive. they were just "lucky" to be mistaken for being attractive. by the way, good job on american idol last night singing "unchained melody". lol, an "American Idol" fan. I'm not surprised.
Nervous Guy Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 genes are merely a blueprint that specifies what is possible given an optimal environment...not everyone has the same environment...over the last 150 years people in industrialized nations have grown over 4 inches in average.
Bungee Jumper Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 genes are merely a blueprint that specifies what is possible given an optimal environment...not everyone has the same environment...over the last 150 years people in industrialized nations have grown over 4 inches in average. I was only kidding; you didn't actually have to indulge Holcomb's Arm's drivel. I mean, if he doesn't even know that evolutionary theory isn't about genetic variance (oooh, there's that pesky mystery word again, HA) but how the environment selects for beneficial traits, why even bother?
Nervous Guy Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I was only kidding; you didn't actually have to indulge Holcomb's Arm's drivel. I mean, if he doesn't even know that evolutionary theory isn't about genetic variance (oooh, there's that pesky mystery word again, HA) but how the environment selects for beneficial traits, why even bother? I felt an obligation to help...here's another interesting factoid...the taller you are the longer you live...hmmm...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 This thread has been up for several days and there is still no answer on the antlers item which was a critical piece of the whole argument. I think it would be neat to have antlers and if I can't have them I'm wondering if a kid of mine might. Is there a particular type of girl I should woo for instance? Also, are there non-genetic antlers available via plastic surgery?
Nervous Guy Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 This thread has been up for several days and there is still no answer on the antlers item which was a critical piece of the whole argument. I think it would be neat to have antlers and if I can't have them I'm wondering if a kid of mine might. Is there a particular type of girl I should woo for instance? Also, are there non-genetic antlers available via plastic surgery? just find a girl that would do anything for a buck.
Bungee Jumper Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 just find a girl that would do anything for a buck. Holy Christ, that was !@#$ing awful.
ieatcrayonz Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Holy Christ, that was !@#$ing awful. I think Christ is posting in a different thread. Nervous guy made the bad joke. Wait a minute.....I'm adding up two and two and getting it..... It all Fits together so neatly.
yall Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Did anyone in another thread actually state that there are traits that are 100% heritable, or did the OP just misunderstand something? (Im not going through that tedious regression thread again to find an answer...)
Nervous Guy Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 I think Christ is posting in a different thread. Nervous guy made the bad joke. Wait a minute.....I'm adding up two and two and getting it..... It all Fits together so neatly. Did you hear about the holsteins that were sent up into orbit? It was the herd shot around the world
GG Posted January 18, 2007 Posted January 18, 2007 Also, are there non-genetic antlers available via plastic surgery? Sure. This gal will take a buck or two.
Recommended Posts