Ask Lemmy

26707 readers

1518 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics.

Rules: (interactive)

1) Be nice and; have fun

Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them

2) All posts must end with a '?'

This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?

3) No spam

Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.

4) NSFW is okay, within reason

Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected]. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].

5) This is not a support community.

It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.

Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

154

A bit of a weird question: Can modern medicine be a threat to humanity long-term by greatly reducing effects of natural selection? (lemmy.sdf.org)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

OK, I hope my question doesn't get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.

Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the "weaker" individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.

Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don't destroy ourselves along with the environment first...)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You seem to be lost in the weeds a bit. Of course hardy-weinberg is a model that never exists in reality. It's a good method to explain the importance of selection pressure on populations.

Without an active selection agent on the allele, it's frequency in the population remains the same.

Now in reality there is no such thing as zero selection pressure on any allele. Having a deleterious or advantageous allele 49.99cM away exerts selection pressure.

However allelic frequencies without a strong selection acting on them remain relatively stable.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

You're not understanding. Without selection, real populations would have changing allele frequencies. They would not stay static. That's because random sampling exists, but only outside of the H-W model.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Random sampling has a significant effect when the population size is smaller. Say less than 10,000 individuals.

It has very little effect as the population size increases to say something a little more than 8,000,000,000 individuals.