(07-18-2013, 10:08 PM)Shuck Wrote: Doesn't that assume that the individuals present have the where-with-all to spot, and actively root out recessive alleles? Because I would argue that the Miqo'te have no idea how to do that, and cannot effectively map say...congenital forms of cancer.I would argue this thread has already been about science.
Then, I mean...the long term effects of inbreeding have been documented to be largely influenced by societal factors (literacy, wealth, etc.), so a tribal society like the Miqo'te in a pre-industrial world like Eorzea would have a ton working against it in terms of successfully weeding out weak genes.
All they (the Miqo'te) have to do in this particular case is win a duel. Doesn't say how. You'd assume that the most fit individuals would get to breed, but as we can see that's not always the case, now is it?
The bit about Esuna eliminating contagious disease is kind of off as well. It's a videogame ability. If it were actually a cure-all beyond status effects, the world of Eorzea would have no sickness, poisonings, or even a need for the Alchemist's guild. Clearly, these factors continue to exist in the world, so we can assume that Esuna is either not readily available, and therefore is not a viable vector to totally discount an entire tribe being ravaged by the Miqo'te flu, or it is in fact not a cure-all, and is ineffective at eradicating naturally occurring diseases, being specifically for afflictions of the "magic" sort.
This thread is now about science.
It's actually the complete opposite of your supposition. None of what I've described needs to occur on a conscious level. The principles I've described are based on studies in a variety of organisms, including flies, mice, birds, snakes, and many other animals. It's a theoretical model in which we assume only natural selection is occurring. In many cases, these alleles are so deleterious that they lead to an abnormal development and spontaneous miscarriage. Artificial selection or eugenics are in no way required, in fact they're assumed not to be happening, in the underlying mathematics of the population genetics I've described. It gets muddier when you throw in morality and ethics, which is why it's not a perfect model for human systems, but it's a theoretical foundation to build upon.
I'm also describing just autosomal recessive disorders. This is things like hemophilia, cystic fibrosis, PKU, albinism, etc. Most cancers don't fall under this designation as they're a combination of genetic and environmental risk factors. Ultimately, it depends on the overall effect of the deleterious traits on fitness as well as their current prevalence within the population. Unfit individuals do not by definition leave no offspring. The fact that they leave less offspring or offspring that are less fit is what defines them as being unfit in the first place. Also, fitness encompasses a wide variety of traits, regardless of how they may be revered or shunned or valued by society. Even if a society executes a man for adultery, if he manages to sire six offspring when the average for a monogamous male is only three, he was a fit individual.
It's interesting you linked a paper by another student from the exact same class I took as an undergraduate in population genetics at WVU. It also doesn't prove your point as I don't see a single W value (the shorthand for fitness) anywhere in that paper indicating the value of inbreeding on the individual. He's discussing the historical societal viewpoints on in-breeding and a few studies on small populations experiencing founder effect in their first 5-10 generations, which I said is the period when in-breeding is decidedly negative, thus the overwhelming societal stigma against it. The reason this effect is so pronounced is the ethical viewpoint, not the biological.
All of my explanation is based on gene frequencies in large populations over vast amounts of time. What you're likely considering "long-term effects" in this model are actually short-term effects. I'm not talking about one or two generations, but tens to hundreds of generations over thousands of years. If you take a historically out-breeding population and institute inbreeding, the immediate effect over the next 10, 20, or more generations is negative, on the population average. Over time, however, the incidence of heterozygosity (individuals carrying only one copy of the negative allele) decreases. From a statistical standpoint, you're accelerating the selection against that allele and removing it from the population faster than it would in an out-breeding population. For a species that's been experience some level of consanguinity for a number of generations (like 50-100), those genes have already started to be weeded out, thus it's not an issue for inbreeding to continue.
As for Esuna and alchemy, Esuna doesn't negate alchemy at all. Not everyone can cast Esuna or has a close personal healer friend to take everywhere they go. Just like in the real world, you have choices. Depending on cost, necessity, personal preference, and availability, you may see a pharmacist, chiropractor, general practitioner, surgeon, psychologist, shaman, priest, psychic, etc. for what ails you. Despite all these people and all the cures we've developed, people still get sick and die. I'm not saying Esuna will prevent that (especially since it's likely there are magical diseases and curses floating around out there), but it will help offset some of the danger of reduced genetic diversity.
The point of this whole defense is that I'm describing the average or normal scenario within populations of a species in the real world that is uncomplicated by societal pressure, morality, and ethics. If the previous ethical view of the Miqo'te population as a whole has allowed in-breeding to occur, this is the likely outcome for their society as a whole after 50-100 generations.
I'm a tinker! Tinkerer? Hrm.... I'm an artificer! - Myxie Tryxle | Impressions and Memories