Not all of the non friendly foxes were killed and as part of the experiment they did actually breed some not so friendly foxes. To be expected those were very wary of humans and also looked very feral. Slavery in Europe was very different though than slavery in the America's. European slavery wasn't based on racism and slaves who were able to gain their freedom were able to participate fully in society. There are prominent Romans who had been slaves. That would've made it even more difficult to practice a long term eugenics program on a group of slaves.
You do know Jiggly is black and fairly militant against racism. Maybe he is trying to prove we're superior. On Jimmy the Greek he definitely wasn't on television for his intellect. He was a caricature of a street wise book maker.
No. Only the ones used for paedagogics or doing business or gladiators had the real chance to free themselves. Thats a tiny minority.The vast majority were farm slaves or miners or maids who were only freed if their owner if rich died and freed them in their will or if they fought in war. The poor and middle class didnt free their slaves because they couldnt afford it. Remember even the poorest the potters and artisans owned at least a couple of slaves. Also that was for the romans and greek. Other civilisations and later still had slaves and or serfs. And again even for the free there was no free choice in marriage. An invalid, or sick person could hardly find someone to marry. Someone resistant to malaria, someone who had greater athletic abilities making him a good warrior, someone who had greater intelligence making him richer, a more beautiful woman who was fertile with healthy teeth had more chance to marry. Of course the evolutionary pressure wouldnt be the same as in an amazon or african tribe or other hunter gatherers where the less athletic/ with "worse genes" would be already long dead and eliminated in childhood. In the end all humans are the product of millenium old eugenics because our ancestors who had the worst genes died before they had children. Evolution.
I don't have a point I am trying to learn unlike you I have problem admitting when I don't have all the info. When have I evre been militant?
I understand all of this but it still does not address the fact that tallness and athleticism can run in families and most kids born of superior athletes are usually better athletes. How does this have bearing on AA's in america?
All the tallest nations on earth are white europeans so it has nothing to do with AAs unless they had interbreeding with Slavs.
I never said AA's were taller than everybody, man there seems to be some selective reading going on. I said Tallness can run in families it was an example of traits being passed down over 1 or 2 generations. Once again I am not saying AA's are superior athletes to everybody I was asking the question did slavery help with a larger pool of different physical traits.
Maybe militant wasn't the best word choice On learning something I think what Jimmy The Greek said made a lot of people think but like the thoughts in here suggest it's a far flung theory
Well first of all since AAs arent even in the top 10 tall out there it certainly didnt have to do with tallness. There are different kind of genes. Genes that function anyway and genes that get expressed depending on circumstances : NUTRITION. Tallness is expressed by many genes some we havent even found but a LARGE part of them are the second category. Thats why all our ancestors were all midgets. Some had the potential to be tall but because of their poor diets in proteins their genes werent expressed so they couldnt reach their maximum height. After all when it comes to evolution high height isnt good. It requires more energy so a tall person will be from the first to die when there are few calories available in a famine. He has a high centre of balance so he cant be so flexible hunting wild animals either, he weights more so he isnt good in participating in horse raids. If you see almost all tall population had genes for digesting lactose and were consuming milk centuries before the rest of the world. So they had more proteins available and could potentially sexually choose for tallness. If you have the potential to be tall but because you eat only plants you are a midget then noone can know if you have tall genes so there is no way to choose for these genes to breed. I have not much knowledge of the history of the Slavs apart from the most southern, to know what potentially could push them to choose more for tall genes.
I have no idea why you are continuing to talk about height it was just an example of a trait passed on from parents to children usually.
And I just explained to you that some traits like height cant be expressed under bad conditions like the diet of a slave so they cant be chosen for breeding.
Yes you explained something that had no bearing on the discussion at hand. Why do particular traits run in families if traits can't be expressed?
Because one is phenotype and the other is genotype. Genes are passed down even if they arent expressed but you cant breed your poorly fed slaves to choose for them because you dont know they carry those genes. Therefore eugenics is impossible for these traits without sufficient nutrition.
Nobody is talking about eugenics and nobody has said they were being bred for something particular, that has nothing to do with my question. So slaves could have passed along genes that could explain some physical prowess, this is not saying every AA is superior just that the samples could be greater.
Hmm your initial paragraphs of European slaves and serfdom doesn't apply to the conclusion. Nobles and royalty were notoriously inbred yet they didn't always sprout a sixth finger or extra good looks by virtue of being a royal. Some ended up with mutations you wouldn't wish on anyone but it was still chance based than a fixed trait. General evolutionary principle is mainly fitness, having the most children. Now let's say the sun is gone for 300 days of the year and other sources of vitamin D were wiped out, it wouldn't matter if you're a slave or royal for the next few generations. Your options are to die, move out, find some way to survive despite the lack of vitamins you originally needed to develop. Like the Red Fox experiment, that's one quantitative trait that can push future results. Slavery is still an arbitrary human construct, as is richness/wealth. Some cultures made it a timed contract. Americans tried making it hereditary and condemned future generations. There isn't a consistent outward stressor that unifies being a slave. You just do work some other person demands and hope you don't die from exhaustion, someone's impatience, or bad luck. The second paragraphs deal with the concept of populations, which are more accepted than the social concept of races. It's easier to explain why Africa has bush men, long distance runners from Kenya or Manute Bol's tribe than claiming all blacks are taller. Social Darwinists like to justify social classes or socially aggregated groups will "evolve" uniquely obtained attributes that are more or less inferior depending the beholder. Heck Americans still think being richer is better, and I tend to believe our 1% want to evolve into molemen or cold blooded lizardpeople. It's still more rationalization than science. It's not mainly who you are or what you did at the end of the day but rather the physical environment you lived in, whether the people around you are fixed in their location and if you future generations live in the same conditions to pass that on.
