Does micro-evolution apply to humans?

[Woolygimp]

Could you selectively breed humans to achieve a desired trait in the same way dog breeders breed dogs? Through selective breeding, a dog breeder is able to manipulate DNA to an extent in the form of being able to achieve the desired effect for the litter.

New breeds, German Sheperds without the diagonal hind legs, Chihuahua's with an almost non-existent coat, the thousands of different dog breeds, all supposedly derived from the wolf.

So hypothetically selective breeding for traits such as strength should be possible within the human race. But the Nazi's were unsuccessful so is a sub-race of more intelligent or more muscular humans possible?

[Prodigy54321]

depends on the extent to which these traits are a direct result of our genes..rather than achieved through efforts during life.

you could certainly breed a grizzly man with a hairy chest, big nose, and caveman brow.

intelligence and even muscular definition are more tricky (and think this would hold true for dogs as well)

[Duke]

Yes you can.

I'm not sure what you see as the Nazi failure in this arena. They didn't have too long at all to do it, and it takes time. It's not like a cow ended up looking like it does immediately.

The Nazis did fail on their eradication of an entire race, but that was a logistical nightmare from the start. Had they created some smarter people first, they may have found a better final solution, or perhaps they would have realized that what they were attempting was pretty evil.

[KUJustin]

Yao Ming?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Yao Ming?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Bigger sample pool.

Yeah, microevolution/direct tinkering is possible.

I'm reminded of the species that engineered itself out of existence in the tour at the end of "Rama Revealed" tho. Makes me wonder if a moral repungance to this stuff by most is not just a defense mechanism.

[Jetboy2]

[ QUOTE ]

Could you selectively breed humans to achieve a desired trait in the same way dog breeders breed dogs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, why not? If you lived long enough and could oversee/control the process, you could probably do that.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you selectively breed humans to achieve a desired trait in the same way dog breeders breed dogs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. I think a contemporary example, although hyper-sensitive PC-types might not like to recognize it, is the African American population in the US. It's pretty much impossible to deny that African Americans are, on average, better athletes than any other racial group, and I don't think this is by accident. A large portion of current-day African Americans have descended from slaves, who as a population were subject to incredibly intense selection pressures for several centuries. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of slaves survived the initial trip across the ocean, and then at plantations the strongest 'bucks' were forced to mate with the females to produce children better suited for field work.

Not shocking that African Americans seem to be more innately developed physically.

[MatthewRyan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you selectively breed humans to achieve a desired trait in the same way dog breeders breed dogs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. I think a contemporary example, although hyper-sensitive PC-types might not like to recognize it, is the African American population in the US. It's pretty much impossible to deny that African Americans are, on average, better athletes than any other racial group, and I don't think this is by accident. A large portion of current-day African Americans have descended from slaves, who as a population were subject to incredibly intense selection pressures for several centuries. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of slaves survived the initial trip across the ocean, and then at plantations the strongest 'bucks' were forced to mate with the females to produce children better suited for field work.

Not shocking that African Americans seem to be more innately developed physically.

[/ QUOTE ]

anyone agree on this?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Definitely. I think a contemporary example, although hyper-sensitive PC-types might not like to recognize it, is the African American population in the US. It's pretty much impossible to deny that African Americans are, on average, better athletes than any other racial group, and I don't think this is by accident. A large portion of current-day African Americans have descended from slaves, who as a population were subject to incredibly intense selection pressures for several centuries. Only 1/3 to 1/2 of slaves survived the initial trip across the ocean, and then at plantations the strongest 'bucks' were forced to mate with the females to produce children better suited for field work.

Not shocking that African Americans seem to be more innately developed physically.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea (won't dignify it with the word "theory") is total bunk for at least 4 reasons:

1) it's not remotely clear that most slave owners actively selected mates for their slaves in this manner
2) even if they did, the time preiod involved was relatively small
3) even if the time period was enough to produce a statistically significant effect, the time period since must also be long enough to dilute it back towards "normal"
4) it doesn't explain why native Africans still exhibit the same athletic advantages today.