eyesOpened

Mod, the record shows your accusations are baseless, and that you're uneven in your application of the rules. You're not being patient, you're being a tool.

So I was wrong to assume that anything you've said in this thread was relevant to the thread's first post.

Who said anything against homosexuality, or even against homosexuals who stalk guys from website to website, thread to thread? Stop responding to internal stimuli, and re-read what I actually typed?

To start with, the proposition quoted in the first post in this thread: "Most of the odd things tied to recessive genes in humans are defects."

Socrates might have done some gay stuff, but nothing as gay as following me from website to website, thread to thread, to lavish attention on me.

Unsupported opinions are a dime a dozen.

Now we have to go back and correct all the claims that inbreeding "causes defects", since it doesn't 100% of the time.

Outbreeding causes infertility: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/story?id=4258128&page=1

I can't speak for them, but some of the proponents of forced-outbreeding (i.e., eugenics) may have a hidden agenda of trying to garner mainstream acceptance of their animal-f-cking ways. You know, "hey the reason I like f-cking animals (all animals, not just mammals) is to maximize the population's gene variability, uber-population, so we can avoid extinction." It used to be said that the idea of a beneficial recessive trait was a joke, but sometimes people just talk instead of thinking. Sometimes, and sometimes narrowing the gene pool leaves the population more able to deal with "disasters". Touting a university degree and calling your opponents Hitler is what it is, but it's not the same as supporting your assertions with evidence, and around here, people are said to be required to support their assertions with evidence.

I am listening to your answers and learning, but if he came and asked a direct question, and he insisted he was being earnest, what procedure could we use to determine whether he was in fact being earnest, or whether he really "had no intention of" "listening to the answers" and "learning anything from them"? How do you know what he was really trying to do?

So much is clear to you, just like the guys who got angry at Socrates. I won't respond to your statements about me, since they are off topic, and on this "General Philosophy" forum I do not care about the discussion on the "Genetics" forum. Why don't you forget about the discussion on that other forum altogether? Any mention of it will be seen as off-topic in this thread. Any mention of me personally will also be seen as off topic in this thread. If you wish to discuss me, why not do so in another thread? This thread is not a place to finish a fight from somewhere else. But my question is not about "a standard discussion area".... it's about the "Homework Help" forum. That's clear (despite your "inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving").

I see your point: "its an argument from the point of population genetics, not focused on individuals or specific traits". From your explanation, does it follows that a population lacking variability would have "a very high chance" of universal immunity from "an event", while a population with variability would have a lower chance of universal immunity? That's consistent with my current understanding. Thanks.

So if Socrates travelled through time to the present to ask a question on the "Homework Help" (http://www.sciencefo...-homework-help/) forum, and he "failed to provide evidence" (expectable since he's just asking a question on a Homework-Help forum), would he be a troll.

If "failing to provide evidence" is trolling, then anyone practicing the Socratic method is a troll. Moreover, if "failing to provide evidence" is trolling, then anyone who comes to this forum to ask a question is a troll, since asking questions doesn't entail providing evidence. In cases where a person puts forth no "inflammatory and provocative hand-waiving", what procedure do you use to determine whether he's "avoiding the evidence that supports the position of another"?

Insofar as he practiced the Socratic method purely, I believe he: didn't reject any arguments (he only asked questions); didn't put forth any evidence or arguments. We can only guess at his intentions, but so is the case in any troll-trial.

Socrates asked "outrageous" questions to "bait people to answer". He "delighted in sowing discord". He "inspired flaming rhetoric" and "purposely provoked and pulled people into flaming discussion." He "tried to make us believe that he was a genuine skeptic with no hidden agenda," and he was "divisive and argumentative… searching for the truth". He "provoked people to insult him," and he was "an expert in reusing the same words of his opponents and in turning [their words] against them." He may have "had an agenda." Was he a troll? ----------- All quotations are from http://curezone.com/forums/troll.asp.

Suit yourself.

The terminology in jp255's post in particular, and in the article he cites, is is new to me, so my understanding will be delayed until I research. Suppose that we start with a gene pool where half the recessive genes carry defects, and the other half carry enhancements. Suppose also that there are no mutations. The evolution of that system would lead to a state where recessive enhancements would outnumber the recessive defects. Now if we consider a system that's similar but also has mutations, it matters whether mutations tend to create enhancements or whether they tend to create defects. Do real-world mutations have either tendency?

symbolic, non-literal, poetic promotion of parent/child power-abuse.

The only people who care about pagans are pagans. This forum is about genetics.

The Pagans have a grotesque fetish with worshipping gods who are incestuous. The only cause unifying their perverted "religion" seems to be the promotion of parent/child power-abuse. Through a program aimed at manipulating the population's genetic composition -- i.e., "eugenics" -- they seek to create a "master-race" characterized by cystic-fibrosis, nearsightedness, extra-digits, fused-digits, missing-joints, limb-dwarfing, and clubbed-thumbs. I'm trying to digest the information posted in this thread. I will need to research a little to understand all the language. If I understand correctly, inbreeding would slow or stop the proliferation of recessive defects. I'm trying to formulate mathematical models of the dynamics in issue here, but I have nothing worth posting yet.

That's about 50% accurate and 100% irrelevant.

I complicated my question unnecessarily by introducing the notion of "ethics" into the mix. My concern, for the sake of this thread, is with the assertion: "Most of the odd things tied to recessive genes in humans are defects." That seems to be a popular assumption, but I know of no science supporting it. I understand that inbreeding would increase the probability of certain "autosomal recessive" disorders; but might it not just as well increase the probability of certain "autosomal recessive" enhancements (e.g., an autosomal recessive immunity to some disease)? I don't see where recessive traits got a bad rap.

What did I miss?

I have arrived.