Aerion

Sorry to take so long to get back to you, but answering this very good question I knew it will take some time it type out my answer.

First, let me go back to my dalmation example. Remember I stated that the offspring of the original 12 breeding pairs would possess a slightly lower average number of spots than the general dalmation popluation. What I didn't say was this. If the average number of spot in the general population of dalmatins is 100 then the 12 breeding pairs might produce dalmations with say an average of 90 spots. Keep in mind this is an AVERAGE. Some of those offspring might have 110 spots while others might have 60 spots. The point is the AVERAGE is 90 now 90 rather than 100. This same point would hold for many generations until some other outside factors acted on it or even random chance changed it. (meaning the percentage could move up and down randomly over a period of several generations)

You've heard of a Bell Curve before. In our dalmation example, the number of spot on dalmations in the general population would be distributed like a Bell Curve. IF the average number is 100 then the largest percentage would be at 100. The further away from the center of 100 you move, the lower the numbers would be. In our 12 breeding pairs who are not selectively bred, the center of the bell curve would be at 90 rather than 100 but otherwise the distribution would look about the same.

Lets say for the sake of an argument that you and I both have I.Q.s of 150 and we mate and have 10 children. The average I.Q. is 100 so our children might have an average I.Q. of 110. Because of our I.Q.s, our children will be predisposed to having a higher I.Q. but some of our kids will be normal and even possibly sub normal. The point is our children would ON AVERAGE be above the normal bell curve distribution of intellect.

Now let's look at European culture 200 years ago. Back then, people were pretty well stuck in whatever class they were born into. The children of the wealthy stayed wealthy and the poor stayed poor. It was rare for someone of one class to move to another class.

Also, the traits that a wealthy 18th century European might possess may not be those traits ideal for a pioneering culture. Kissing the royal ass might be the trait that makes a wealthy land owner rather than industriousness. By the same token, those poor people who scrape for a living actually have a better work ethic and better genetic traits to build a new country.

Also, going back to my point above, regardless of the class everyone would possess various levels of industriousness and political savvy. No trait is going to be totally unique to one class. It just might be more predominant in one particular class.

Lastly what often drove people to starvation were things out of the control of the population. For example, many Irish migrated to the United States as a result of the Potato Blight.

Now in my first answer I said (Admittedly) rather cryptically that the migration to America was the cull. What I meant was that those who had the greater Industrious Gene (TM) were the ones that migrated and the other poor with the lesser Industrious Gene (TM) stayed behind. That is the same as the dalmation breeder selecting those original 12 breeding pairs for dogs with fewer spots or in the case of selective breeding, killing those dogs who have lots of spots. It's called "Culling".

At that point, when the more Industrious migrated, they produces a society where the Industrious average was slightly higher.

Now the dynamics of genetics is such that this rise would have been temporary and probably only lasted a dozen generations or so before the dynamics of the new world acted to change the balance.

Anyway, I hope this was clear. I'm not a geneticist so I only have a laymans understanding but this is the way it works as I understand it.

Ab_Normal

Aerion, I'm going to emphatically second Monkeybot's recommendation of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel.

Dale Merlin

Originally posted by Amen-Moses:

I'll have you know I consider myself neither stupid nor insular.

seanie

Well I'll tell you something about the world today. People are pretty well stuck in whatever country they're born into. The people in wealthy countries stay wealthy and the people in poor countries stay poor. And most wealthy countries aren't to keen on the free movement of people.

Since these genetically superior though poverty stricken Europeans of 200 years ago were the victims of the circumstances they found themselves in, did you ever stop to consider the poverty stricken of the third world may be genetically superior but victims of circumstance as well.

Poverty is debilitating. Wealth, amongst its other rewards,allows the opportunity to generate more wealth.

My guess is that your average person in the third world does considerably more scraping for a living than you do. Perhaps all they need is large landmass to build a new country in. If it's simply a matter genetic traits you could always offer to swap places. I'm sure you'd sort out Sierra Leone in no time.

And what? The people of the Third World do have control? They're responsible for disease, drought, famine, floods? They bring it on themselves?

Wheras the Irish were just unlucky?

Aerion

This is very true. But why the hands-on-the-hip lecture? I pretty much agree with all of these points and nothing in my previous missives even implies otherwise.



I didn't say "genetically superior". That implies a value judgement. I said they were genetically predisposed to be SLIGHTLY better at pioneering a new world. Such a disposition would be inferior at surviving in the current United States or even the United Kingdom.

Calling the poverty stricken genetically superior is again a value judgement that didn't enter into the discussion.



I absolutely agree that an average person from the third world country does more scraping than I do. And I have no idea if I would fair any better in Sierra Leone than the natives. I may do better or I may starve to death in a week. I wouldn' t know until I tried.


I didn't say any of that stuff and I agree that everything you said is true except for the indignation at me. Where is this outrage coming from? This is an emotional reaction that I wouldn't have expected from you, seanie. I didn't create the poverty in the world nor can I personally eliminate it. My commentary was concerning a small part of the world during a brief period in history.

Gurdur

Let me remind you, Aerion, of your actual words from earlier in this thread :

So you did make value judgments from the outset.
Also, you claimed "a boost in the gene pool", which would seem to indicate you think the USA has a genetic superioity.

Hey, don't try blaming us; we can only go on what you actually write here.

So yolur claim about the USA being populated by a boost in the gene pool of hard working, industrious and adventurous types, strongly implying they are more hardworking than other populations is crap then ?

And this self-pity is getting ridiculous, Aerion, considering the number of times you've made melodramatic meltdown personal attacks on me in lieu of any ability to stick to the argument.

Now how about you make your claim concise and concrete and defend it without all this side nonsense, or retract it ?

Aerion

Gurdur, I don't have the patience to continue to restate my position so you can continue to quote me out of context and ignore clarifications at your discression. I'm just not that obsessive about it.

Either go back and READ ALL what I actually wrote or take that trip to the pub I suggested.

Monkeybot

Heh heh, OK. Thanks for letting me in on the joke

Gurdur

Oh come off it.
I quoted almost your entire post. I can quote the entire post if you like. Your claim about being quoted out of context is ridiculous.
Yet more evasion and a disguised personal attack ? How typical.

Gurdur

Typically, a human generation is reckoned at 40 years. You're making a claim then of 12x40, = 480 years.
Pretty ridiculous a claim for the USA, no ?
How about we reckon a generation at 20 years ?
12 x 20 = 240.
Nope, still won't work, for all the reasons I and others gave in criticism.
That is very clear.

Oh, BTW, one reason why one can breed dogs but not humans succesfully is expressed genetic variability.
Humans are dreadfully genetically similar, especially with regards to genetically-based behavioural patterns; I recommend you read up on some human genetics some time.