Is there such a thing as "Bad Genes"?

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally posted by alf
Of course there are bad genes; but in the case of the naughty trantrum throwing toddler it is likely a case of bad parents...who are themselves throwing a tantrum for the world to see.

I wasn't connecting the two discussion Alf. The toddler thread just got me thinking about kids, my kids when they were little and the other kids I knew then.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by fastpat
Maybe not, Scotch?

What?

[azasadny]

When I worked in a hospital ER, we often had FLK (funny looking kids) with PPP (piss poor protoplasm) come in with various ailments. You see everything in an ER, especially the results of "swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool"!

[Dan in Pasadena]

Originally posted by azasadny
When I worked in a hospital ER, we often had FLK (funny looking kids) with PPP (piss poor protoplasm) come in with various ailments. You see everything in an ER, especially the results of "swimming in the shallow end of the gene pool"!

VERY politically incorrect and very right on. Haven't you ever seen truly odd looking peopkle? I'm not talking about your average les than attractive person...probably all of us fit in the category even though none of us think we do. I'm talking about people that look like they were put together out of a spare parts bin? Truly odd shaped heads, pinheads, too big or small ears. Features that are all lopsided? I'm not all that much into appearence but since we're talking of this, I am thankful I am just ordinary looking.

[azasadny]

Dan,
Yeah, I'm talking REALLY "funny looking" as in "something's really wrong here"... I'm funny looking too, so I can relate!

[Dan in Pasadena]

Yeah, that's who I am talking about too. Man, I feel sorry for those people. Of course I AM not all that funny looking!

Funny thing is, of the truly, truly odd looking people I have ever encountered? They're kind of funny minded too. They talk oddly or think oddly too. A connection? I think so. A lot of bacteria growing in the shallow end of the gene pool.

The thing is, in the olden days weak people didn't survive. I know that is cruel as hell to say, and I don't propose we do anything about it, I really don't. I am just making the observation that in days past the weakest among our species expired from disease or inability to adapt. That's not the case anymore.

[YTNUKLR]

There are a few billion DNA base-pairs (composed of the four DNA nucleotides) that make up something like 20-25,000 genes. It is true there is a lot of DNA that does not get coded into something meaningful. The Human Genome Project has "coded" most genes (90%+), and the remainder should follow within a few years..

Porsche-O-Phile raises the big problem with this project...undoubtedly, people may discover certain "bad" traits may be present in their children and it will be possible to "engineer" their children differently. Obviously genes are really determine what you are in life, what you are likely to do, accomplish, be, look like, etc. To have another human decide it for someone else really is the day I will move to Mars.

[JSDSKI]

This are my humble opinions on this subject: 95% of problem children are caused by parents with problems - not DNA.

Genetic structure is a "possible blueprint" - not an exact copy / xerox. Temporarily leaving aside the ethical arguments surrounding eugenics, we cannot predict the results of DNA, only probabilities. Examples of poor DNA rejection: Stephan Hawkings (ms), Beethoven (deaf). We run the risk of rejecting those that benefit culture as much as those that do not.

[livi]

I agree, although I would not go as far as 95%. It has clearly been shown in several adoption / twin studies that the genetic part of the variance (influence) for many personality traits is as high as 60-80% under "normal" environmental circumstances.

Highly abnormal environmental (parents for example) exposure will of course tend to override the genetic influence (if pointing in opposite direction).

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JSDSKI
This are my humble opinions on this subject: 95% of problem children are caused by parents with problems - not DNA.

Genetic structure is a "possible blueprint" - not an exact copy / xerox. Temporarily leaving aside the ethical arguments surrounding eugenics, we cannot predict the results of DNA, only probabilities. Examples of poor DNA rejection: Stephan Hawkings (ms), Beethoven (deaf). We run the risk of rejecting those that benefit culture as much as those that do not.

That's a very old argument, heredity vs. environment. The "environmental influence" school championed by people like Margaret Mead and others is slowily losing ground to genetics as we master the "code". Eventually, I think genetics will prove to be influential a great deal more than 60-80%, and environment the rest, some of which can be short circuited by adults early in life.

There's a much more sad story about a "environmental school" sex therapist who advised a couple to raise their son as a girl, including physical sexual organ removal, after he'd been injured as an infant. They eventually did that, after being assured that all they had to do was raise him as a girl, and without the proper sex organs, he'd be a girl. Eventually, the man commited suicide, and the life he led was far from satisfactory.

An episode of "Law and order" was loosely based on this real tragedy.