Hi Gal Dynamo! I always thought inbreeding brought out the recessives-- but I guess you're saying let them come out, we'll deselect them in the next generation or six...
I think a eugenics program would be similar to what you recommend. Find ten males, ten females, generate 100 zygotes each, possibly in combination-- but that's a huge program-- then select and cross-mix down through the generations... Especially with your insight of culling for recessives, which I initially thought was a barrier to a limited population pool-- that helps. But I guess my question was still geared towards how many generations is reasonable to effect what level of change-- Bio-Tech recommendations aside? Is it unreasonable to start with Steve Young attributes, or does one modify from base attributes of 10 as an example? Your comments of nature vs. nurture are noted. OTOH, at such elite levels as Steve Young (or Michael Jordan)-- it clearly is not entirely about the environment. Elsewise all their brothers and sisters would have similar success-- and clearly they don't. A eugenics program as the one I'm thinking of would likely be able to standardize the environment, and that could be optimized over the generations, as well. Therefore selection would include that variable. Thanks for your insights! -vk -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: Emily Smirle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > My inclination is to take the Bio-Tech recommendations, but use the > > attributes > of my base genetic stock (that is, the attributes of Steve Young) as the > starting point. One would sift the best offspring off the top for pairing > with > other candidates from the larger gene pool (to avoid inbreeding) and go > again. > After 10 generations, I get Steve Young plus 10cps for attributes/advantages > at > a minumum, or Steve Young plus 10 advantages at best... > I think to realistically get those kinds of results, you wouldn't want > Steve Young, you'd want Steve Young, all of his brothers and sisters, > and his parents, and perhaps some of the kids from his mom's family > (Because presumably some of the good genes are in there)... and then > you'd ruthlessly inbreed them until you got rid of all the recessive > genes, very carefully introducing outside stock perhaps to > counterbalance any flaws you found after four or five generations, but > only after you were sure you had "fixed" the traits you wanted OR after > you were sure you had a potentially destructive trait being passed around. > > Or you clone Steve Young and his ideal mate a couple of hundred times > and use them as your population starter, for similar effects. > > The question is, it runs in the family (perhaps) but is it genetic? Or > is it that the family culture has been to raise the children in just the > right way, eating the right foods, living in the right region, drinking > the right water, etc etc etc, and the genes are merely > "acceptable-to-good" in quality, rather than excellent? You don't know > that, even in an adult expressing all of the traits you want, unless > you're 100% sure the traits you want are genetic in origin, and ONLY > genetic in origin. > > -- > Emily Smirle - Gal Dynamo > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> > http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l _______________________________________________ GurpsNet-L mailing list <[email protected]> http://mail.sjgames.com/mailman/listinfo/gurpsnet-l
