Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm • Hacker News Board

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#101

Post by toasterlovin » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 12:41 AM UTC

bscphil wrote: post #100

toasterlovin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us have no interest whatsoever in raising other people’s children. Infidelity is a separate, though sometimes related, issue.

A child that you know doesn't possess your genes but you still accept, is your child. Adoption doesn't count less. If you knew the child wasn't "yours" before the test, why would the test make a difference? If you didn't know the child wasn't yours before the test, surely the most significant part of the result for you is that there is some reason that you didn't know before. That is, that you had been lied to, and w…

You’re putting the cart before the horse. The reason people care about the falsehood is because it results in a child which isn’t the father’s. The reason I decided to settle down with my wife was to have children. My children. I didn’t get married to her so I could raise someone else’s children. I am a biological being, whose existence is the result of 3 billion years of reproduction. I exist to perpetuate the genes which built me.

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#102

Post by haihaibye » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 2:32 PM UTC

aluren wrote: post #92

opportune wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed; it should be obvious that e.g. aboriginal Australians and native Americans will not have a common ancestor that close by For example suppose you have two containers filled with elastically colliding particles. Over an arbitrarily long time you can say that each particle has surely collided with every other particle, however if each container is closed then clea…

>That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.

If there has been widespread mixing why is there no sickle cell anaemia in South East Asia or Papua New Guinea, even though there is Malaria?

If an allele had made it there, wouldn't it have been selected for?

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#103

Post by stallmanite » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 5:56 PM UTC

geggam wrote: post #98

stallmanite wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take it you are not familiar with antinatalism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

So an entire group needs counseling ? The desire to end ones gene pool is not mentally sound but is a self correcting issue I suppose.

Yes an entire group definitely needs counseling.

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#104

Post by aluren » Tue, Aug 27, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

haihaibye wrote: post #102

aluren wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>That’s assuming that the human population is well-mixed Yes that's why I took the conservative estimate of 7000 years, otherwise with the panmixia hypothesis it only goes back 3000 years or so.

If there has been widespread mixing why is there no sickle cell anaemia in South East Asia or Papua New Guinea, even though there is Malaria? If an allele had made it there, wouldn't it have been selected for?

Genealogical mixing and genetic mixing have little to do with each other - the pool is too diluted at these scales and there can be much local variation.

By the way, the fact that all of us share the exact same set of ancestors from a few thousand years ago isn't new, shocking or controversial, only the exact date is still subject do debate. You may find this link useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#105

Post by haihaibye » Wed, Aug 28, 2019, 10:48 PM UTC

aluren wrote: post #104

haihaibye wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there has been widespread mixing why is there no sickle cell anaemia in South East Asia or Papua New Guinea, even though there is Malaria? If an allele had made it there, wouldn't it have been selected for?

Genealogical mixing and genetic mixing have little to do with each other - the pool is too diluted at these scales and there can be much local variation. By the way, the fact that all of us share the exact same set of ancestors from a few thousand years ago isn't new, shocking or controversial, only the exact date is still subject do debate. You may find this link useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ances…

You're brushing off my point, why no selection on the allele? Why did they all die out? Easiest answer is it never made it.

The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years.

DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.

Re: Fertility Fraud: Artificial insemination doctors who used their own sperm

#106

Post by aluren » Fri, Aug 30, 2019, 12:03 AM UTC

haihaibye wrote: post #105

aluren wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genealogical mixing and genetic mixing have little to do with each other - the pool is too diluted at these scales and there can be much local variation. By the way, the fact that all of us share the exact same set of ancestors from a few thousand years ago isn't new, shocking or controversial, only the exact date is still subject do debate. You may find this link useful: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ances…

You're brushing off my point, why no selection on the allele? Why did they all die out? Easiest answer is it never made it. The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years. DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.

>You're brushing off my point, why no selection on the allele? Why did they all die out? Easiest answer is it never made it.

Evolution works in more complicated ways than the toy model of sickle-cell disease/malaria you've been taught in high school. Just having an edge in a particular situation is no guarantee for your alleles being selected. But even then, there could very well have been very little mixing while still everyone shares the same set of ancestors. Even a little mixing is enough.

>The simulations are nice, and make a theoretical lower bound but a single remote tribe somewhere on earth would push it back tens of thousands of years.

The subject is well-refined and the results are old news so I'm going to go on a limp and assume that the researchers who did the simulations know how to do their jobs and accounted for that possibility you described.

>DNA Sequence an Andaman islander and every bushman and Amazonian, then we'll see.

Ignoring the fact that the various peoples in the Amazon have not been isolated at all, or that the Adamans have been settled approximately in the time range of the estimated IAP and have known a few exchanges since, that's not how genealogy works. See, if a single outsider gets into the Adamans or Australia and starts having children with locals, and assuming the line doesn't die out, there's a statistical certainty that eventually every current living person in that territory will be descended from that outsider. Just one is enough. It doesn't matter that their genetic contribution is diluted to the point of being barely detectable. I invite you to read the link about IAP in more detail and do some rudimentary math on why it has to be the case (or more accurately, why the opposite is so statistically improbable as to be pretty much impossible).