No they wouldn't? Genotype isn't phenotype, shit will pop up generations later.
It doesn't pop up by magic, though; it just takes many generations' work, but we have equations for how long it takes a certain degree of negative selective pressure to eliminate a genotype from the population, so we can easily calculate that it's possible. To put it in Punnett square simplification terms, if all recessive-homozygotes do not reproduce (such as by being eliminated), heterozygote carriers have only ⅓ heterozygote kids on average and ⅔ homozygous-for-the-dominant-trait, while dominant-homozygotes have 4/3 as many dominant-homozygote babies. As such, the population of heterozygotes decreases every generation and is eventually lost (since humans are discrete rather than continuous) in the limit. (It's much easier if the trait is dominant, since then everyone with the genotype will show the phenotype, so once you have removed those, they're just... gone.) Obviously, real genetics is significantly more complicated but it still works out in the limit, which is why...
Eugenics programs have never removed any trait from a population, no matter how many people they killed or sterilized.
This is 100% false: it has been done successfully
on animals many times. It doesn't work on people primarily because people get really upset about it and tend to declare war on you, leave your weird doomsday cult, or whatever applies in the given situation. No eugenics program (thankfully) has ever operated on humans for more than a couple generations at a time.
Modern genetic research says it wouldn't "work" because you can't eliminate carriers of recessive traits from the population because everyone is a carrier for at least one genetic disease.
Well, you can't do it for literally every genetic disease at once, no. I'm not sure that everyone is a carrier for at least one genetic disease except maybe in the extremely broad mutational load sense - I mean to say, I'd need to see some more data before I could conclude that everyone is a carrier of at least one
specific genetic mutation linked to a specific disease - but even still, you would obviously have to pick specific traits, yes. I thought that went without saying.
So eugenics "working" just involves forcibly euthenizing people who express the traits, forcibly sterilizing the relatives of people who express the traits.
Yes, that's what it is, yes. But that doesn't mean it "doesn't work", just that it's "a horrible idea for bad people".
Eugenics is a pseudoscientific excuse to carry out racist genocide, that is the outcome of eugenics, so unless you and Dawkins are a fan of that it's unclear why you want to fight the "impossibility" of eugenics
And see, this response is just batshit. You're saying that because something is WRONG, it should be declared impossible regardless of whether it is actually impossible. I want the facts, not what makes me happy. As it happens, eugenics on humans would be really
hard, which is a good thing, but even if it were easy I'd rather know the truth than say BUT IT'S WRONG? The fact that it's wrong is a separate issue.
For the record, Spin, people seem to be on edge due to your past statements before this convo than anything. The stuff you are referencing about racial health outcomes due to covid and latitude does seem to be a possibility based on the research I've heard. Though you should have added sources wayyyyyyyyyyy earlier in. 
I don't do sources. If people want to learn they should look at the data themselves and come to their own opinion.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4228038 times)