FAWS comments on Is Kiryas Joel an Unhappy Place? - Less Wrong

20 Post author: gwern 23 April 2011 12:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (186)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: FAWS 25 April 2011 08:08:01PM 0 points [-]

Because blue eyes are recessive and blue and brown eyed populations have mixed more than they used to? How is that an example of natural selection in progress?

Comment author: brazil84 25 April 2011 09:25:28PM 3 points [-]

Because blue eyes are found mainly in people of European descent and the percentage of world population of European descent has dropped quite a bit with the population booms in Asia and Africa.

Comment author: FAWS 25 April 2011 10:09:33PM 0 points [-]

Ok, but that's mostly because you use that particular cutoff point, European decended populations just have gone through the demographic transition earlier and their share of world population is similar to what it was in 1750. It has nothing to do with any selection against blue eyes in the usual sense.

Comment author: brazil84 25 April 2011 10:28:50PM 3 points [-]

Well that brings us back to the question of what you mean by "natural selection" which you defined earlier as

changes in the frequency of genes not planned by wise and well-intentioned humans.

It sounds like you are limiting natural selection to frequency changes which are a direct result of the effects of the genes in question. Is that right?

Comment author: FAWS 25 April 2011 11:01:57PM *  0 points [-]

That wasn't me, and I said "in the usual sense" specifically because the context was Will's (unusual) definition.

I differentiate between selection and genetic drift like usually done and the case of blue eyes would be an example of the latter. I think the difference is normally described as selection being a consistent non-random effect. Personally I'd describe it as an effect on the relative frequencies caused by the presence of the gene.

Comment author: brazil84 25 April 2011 11:12:31PM 1 point [-]

That wasn't me, and I said "in the usual sense" specifically because the context was Will's (unusual) definition.

I apologize for confusing you with him.

Personally I'd describe it as an effect caused by the presence of the gene, which genetic drift isn't.

Okay, well I would still guess that natural selection is going at a good clip these days. For example it seems pretty likely that the gene for twinning is spreading pretty fast.