Biology, Inheritance, Genes, Children

I wanted to talk about the biology behind traits getting passed down to children, maybe kindle some Holla Forumsack interest in biology because it's pretty cool stuff. A while back I posted about some computer simulations I made of foreign genes getting introduced into a population's gene pool. There was a lot of interest so I thought I'd expand it into a full-blown thread.

Some background. DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid, is the molecule that encodes the genome–genetic information that is passed down from parent to offspring. DNA consists of two very long chains built up of a sequence of four bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine, or A, T, C, and G). The chains are wound around each other in a double helix held together by weak attraction between the bases pic related. The bases are complementary in the sense that an "A" base on one chain pairs with a "T" on the other, and only a "T". The other two letters "C" and "G" pair in this way also. This is why we consider base-pairs to be the fundamental unit of the genome. Genes are sections of the genome that code for individual proteins, and they're typically thousands of base-pairs long. Only a small fraction of the genome actually codes for proteins.

Each cell in a human's body has its DNA organised into 23 pairs of chromosomes. They are essentially a method of tightly packing the DNA into a smaller volume, preventing it from getting tangled up as it floats within the cell cytoplasm. A chromosome is hundreds of millions of base-pairs long, IIRC. The DNA doesn't exist in this state all the time, because it needs to be loose in order for proteins to be made. Anyway, within a pair of chromosomes, the DNA is very similar between the paired elements, so overall it's like having two copies of the genome. The copies aren't exact, so in some genes they can be the exact same sequence (called being homozygous for that gene) and other genes can have sequences that differ slightly (called being heterozygous for that gene), usually in one particular basepair. A small change, but in many cases it's enough to alter the functionality of a protein. Variants of a gene are called alleles.

When people have kids, half of their genomes are passed down to produce the genome of the kid. The DNA from a single parent gets passed down as one element of each pair of chromosomes, so there are 23 halves, and when sperm and egg meet these halves are united into the child's set of chromosomes. So, a person has a maternal chromosome and a paternal chromosome. The process of selecting which half (within each parent) is fairly complicated. The germ cells that become sperm or eggs undergo a type of division called meiosis, which is a two-stage process. In the first stage, the DNA is packed into chromosomes, and is duplicated, so there are four copies of the genome in the germ cell. This is the stage at which genetic recombination happens, shuffling the parent's DNA within the pairs of chromosomes. The effect of this is that a parent doesn't pass down an entire maternal chromosome or paternal chromosome, they may pass down a new chromosome which is a mix of both. The first stage concludes with a round of cell division, so the germ cell becomes two more cells with the entire genome of the parent except a little shuffled from the recombination. The second stage of meiosis just splits the DNA up again so that it's half of the genome, so there are four cells where each cell contains one of each pair of chromosomes. These are the cells that become sperm and egg.

Other urls found in this thread:

hbdchick.wordpress.com/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover
microchimerism.org/research-microchimerism.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Here are the simulations I did. The story is that there is a homogenous population where each person has a particular allele for their genes, which I labelled as "A". Then a person from that population has a child with a foreigner who comes from a population with the "B" allele for each of their genes. That child–the wife's son–breeds with another member of the homogenous population, and the offspring of that union breeds in the same way, etc., for many generations. The proportion of foreign DNA in the children of each generation goes down by roughly half, but keep in mind that it is randomly chosen and it won't be exactly half every time. This demonstrates that foreign DNA from one great-great-grandparent may stick around for quite a while.

This model makes a lot of simplifying assumptions, because the focus of it is narrow. It's only meant to give an idea of the persistence of foreign genes down the bloodline.
1) Homogenous population. In particular, the people in the population are homozygous for all of their genes. This is a very unrealistic assumption. I made it this way so that it was easy to track the presence of the foreign DNA.
2) Completely foreign DNA from the other population. In reality, there is a really high degree of conservation in DNA between humans of different races. You may have heard all the statistics that go like "96/98/99 etc. percent of DNA is shared between humans and chimpanzees/gorillas/orangutans etc." and the reason it's such a high percentage is because many genes are conserved between organisms. Genetic variation between humans of different races is even less, but still obviously present, because reality has a right wing bias. Think of genes for useful shit like insulin or hemoglobin, that's the kind of thing that's conserved. Genes that determine body plan or skull shape or whatever are only a small fraction of the genome. So, the foreigner in that example would in reality have many "A" alleles already, or if the original population had "P" or "Q" or whatever then the foreigner would have some of those.
3) Only one foreign source of DNA, injected only one time into the population.
4) Meiosis could be implemented in a more accurate way, but this technical detail doesn't detract from the results much, I think.
5) Only modelling the 22 chromosomes that don't determine sex, because the way the X and Y chromosomes undergo genetic recombination is a bit different and I didn't feel like modelling it.

Here, I've got a family tree generated along similar lines, another visualisation of the same process. This is more about breadth, whereas the other simulation was more about depth. What's going on here is that every son with foreign DNA gives birth to two more sons, each time with mothers belonging to the homogenous population. Notice that both sons of a particular parent will not have the same genome, they won't have the same genes with the "B" variant. However, on average, half of the "B" alleles are preserved from father to son.

You sound interesting OP, give something worse discussing and let's discuss. Twice-published coauthor on biology related papers here (one in conservation genetics and the other dealing with similarities in the genes involved in limb development in various animals).

I've written a lot of gene simulations before and what you've got here is interesting, but can quickly be reduced to a probabilistic math problem (given x genes we want to conserve as many given dominant or recessive alleles as possible in a bloodline). Not really simulation-necessary, tho interesting. You'd make actual hard stats come out of this analyzing from a mathematics chain of logic.

Also, a random fact for you: we share something absurd like 50% of our genetic makeup with bananas. Though if I had to guess, a lot of this is non-coding DNA.

Enjoy. Further reading:

The Bell Curve, by Charles Murray. This is the controversial book supposedly all about race and IQ–but in reality it's much more about class and IQ. too bad you can't upload PDFs here

hbdchick.wordpress.com/ is fascinating reading about human biological diversity.

Some good wiki articles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosomal_crossover


Breddy gud. My trajectory was mathematics, which specialised into stats, moving into bioinformatics stuff at the moment. I've got no papers though, maybe in a year…
True–it's a pretty simple model. If n is the number of foreign genes, then the number of foreign genes in the next gen will be something kind of like a binomial distribution with parameters n and p=0.5. Independence is violated because crossovers aren't too common so genes close together on the chromosome tend to sort together.

Eyyyy.

I did straight pure math in college at a good school. Math is literally god tier as a major it's just like a constant barrage of mind-blowing connections between disparate areas of study. Got really into discrete stuff (graph theory, probabilistic combinatorics, etc.) and only lightly touched on real and complex analysis. Good to hear of a fellow math person here – what areas of math did you sync up with the most?

Zebra Fish are something like 85%. I recall lobsters are also absurdly high.

i've liked math ever since i was a kid. the most fun math to play around with is algebra. i love being around a bunch of guys discussing stuff like finite geometry. in school, i ended up majoring in statistics and minoring in pure math. the pure math was basically analysis, and a bit of topology. i touched on measure theory a bit but i didn't go into measure theory's applications to probability theory. the stats stuff is pretty cool too, but i like probability theory more than applied statistics. im happy enough to do applied stats stuff in a bioinformatics job if i got to that stage, though. right now im in the middle of a masters in statistics

i agree that math is a god tier major, and im glad i did it before they inevitably make a women in mathematics fluff course mandatory lol

God damn I love this place.

"Scientific" understanding of genetics is shit-tier.
Deliberately so.
"Researchers" in the subject are led down the garden path while the truth has been known for decades and kept a closely guarded secret.

it's not that incredible once you understand why.

Most of our genes are just required for the basic biochemistry of eukaryotic life. Tons of different enzymes required just to keep a eukaryotic cell running.

It's also a pretty good way to debunk the 'we share 99%+ of our genes with monkey, and we're almost genetically identitcal to blacks !'

The statement is almost meaningless. I can change a dozen genes and make you a mouth-breathing moron with gills and frog eyes. What matters is WHICH genes are different, and it turns out, the greatest genetic variation between classically defined 'races' is actually related to early neuronal development, not 'muh skin color'.

Got into the office early today, did we, ShariaBlue?

No.
10 years ago 85% of our genes were "junk". People saying they were "junk" - and by that they meant it had no function so don't believe their retconning - won Nobel prizes. Now we know just about all of it has vital purpose.
5 years ago claiming life experiences could be passed down to children would get you called a Lamarckian - now you're an "epigeneticist".
Last month claiming cells would preferentially use genes from one parent of the other would be laughed at - this week it's peer-reviewed science.
Obvious facts have been suppressed for a long fucking time, m80.

Now that's more like it, but what you're saying doesn't mean that shit is being "suppressed." Back in the day, the Lamarckian view was criticized based on the experimental evidence available at the time, not because there was some effort to suppress it. Also, epigenetics is a far cry from full blown Lamarckian theory. Natural selection working on mutations is still the primary way of understanding evolution, and epigenetics is a just a second-order phenomenon that doesn't contradict Darwin anymore than relativity contradicts Newton. It's a refinement of the theory, not some 180-degree theoretical about face.

Demonstrating that epigenetics exists is trivial.
2 mice, a 9-volt battery, a mean streak and a couple of months is plenty.
Convincing "science" that it didn't exist for generations takes a lot of effort.
I wasn't the one saying it was Lamarckian.

probably the main reason why epigenetics today is accepted in contrast to lamarcks days is the unraveling of a biochem pathway for it
lamarck noted some non genetic traits but had no way to explain why, given the overwhelming evidence of dna at the time obviously his theory would be dismissed
but now with advances in chemical characterisation techniques we can look ever deeper in biochem reactions and we noted dna methylation so a clear falsifiable pathway and with such it is accepted

and if we are talking about surpressed knowledge
a year or so ago my mind was blown when chimerism as proven correct, for anons who do'nt know women hold part of the dna of everybody they had unprotected sex with and this dna can colonize parts of a developing foetus

This is a great thread. I think we anons on Holla Forums need to go into more research on genetics, maybe make some basic infographics that describe a lot of the concepts in the field for the average person.

I'm in the middle of reading a book about the history of mankind's work with the gene by Siddhartha Mukherjee. It's a pretty decent read so far, it's obviously biased against natsoc/eugeneticist ideals, but it's doing an admirable job so far from what I'm seeing.

I'd like to see an infographic that talks about these terms and this statement.

Genotype+environment+triggers+chance=phenotype

It should also talk about how phenotypes (height, intelligence, hair type, whatever) can be measured on a graph into a bell curve. In the book I'm reading, it said that one can't do things like breed two tall people in order to make tall children. But if that's the case, then how do we explain how we've bred different breeds of dogs for different purposes?

It also mentioned how the Germans/Americans sterilized and euthanized disabled/mentally retarded/dissident folks as if these traits will literally purify a race. I'll try to post more later today at home if the thread's not deleted.

Does any user here know if there are studies on the passing on of Epigenetic traits? For instance, suppose you have a Gene that makes you like Garlic.
In an Epigenetic scenario, you would seek Garlic and eat it when possible.
But what if, by reasons unknown, you passed your whole life without eating it? Would the "weaker expression" the Gene acquired trough your life be also passed to your offspring or your offspring would inherit "virgin" Gene?
If so, it wouldn't be best to have children at later and mature age, specially regarding the intellectual maturity that comes with age? (Not to all people, I guess). Or it would be better at an early age, for the sake of behavioural variation and a more energetic "gene settings"?
If not, well, age wouldn't be an issue, so go full 1488.


Source on the Chimerism study/studies? I thought this was still hypothetical.

It's your genes

I'm a gene believer

You're saving some wonderful webms user.

We're more similar to bananas than we are different. We are all made of cells, so we are all equal. Banana lives matter.

What are the secrets?
redpill me please

I am 90% White (Scottish, Polish, Netherlands, French) but 10% Native American and visually so. Who should I breed with? My genes would likely create a white child.

Do mismatches form valid genetic data?
I mean I know that they don't pair naturally but if they were forced to would that new pair mean anything to the cell?
In the case of Protein synthesis would it actually matter? Doesn't the RNA only read one side?
I do apologize if I am sounding retarded here.My knowledge of genetic mechanisms is currently limited at the basic level.

A mismatch would just mean the strand didn't fit together properly and got all fucked up and tangled. The proteins are only formed off one side of the strand, like you say, so the wrong nucleobase would make the wrong protein.
There's a verification and repair system - that is not well understood - that corrects mistakes that are made when copying. These mistakes happen a lot so the system that fixes them is very, very good.

Yes, it is possible to inherit epigenetic traits. Epigenetics in essence means genetic traits that are due to factors other than the SEQUENCE of your DNA. Methylation is one example of an epigenetic modification, in which methyl groups are added onto certain bases (C/A). This process can change the level of expression of the gene.

Usually methylation patterns are wiped out during the formation of the zygote, but some might still remain. To answer your question, usually you want children earlier to reduce the chance of them having genetic disorders. You can't really guarentee which trait your offspring might inherit (think of it as a biological lottery), and the best way to pass on behaviourial traits and ideas is through guidance. This is one good reason why a strong family unit is important for a child's upbringing. Genes set the baseline, but the environment can swing it around.

I made a copy-paste response for debating normies and leftists when they claim that "Closing the borders or nationalism they think it means complete isolationalism will create inbreeding and thus stagnant and inferior offspring and genetics"

I dont really know much about this and would apreciate some apports so I can change it to be more scientifically correct and able to use it better, so please give me your opinions:

Its really easy and found even in Wikipedia.

Usually the argument against Inbreeding is about how in a nation with its borders closed, Inbreeding can occur creating people with negative genetic traits due to Inbreeding depression.
“when related parents have children with traits that negatively influence their fitness largely due to homozygosity. In such instances, outcrossing should result in heterosis.”

This person usually uses the fact that Hybrid vigor / Heterosis causes stronger individuals and thus “better”.

First of all this is debunked in the same article, in the controversy section. “Not all hybrids exhibit heterosis (see outbreeding depression)”.
“Not all outcrosses result in heterosis. For example, when a hybrid inherits traits from its parents that are not fully compatible, fitness can be reduced. This is a form of outbreeding depression.”

And within that article it states that the offpring of hybrids tend to be less fit for their enviroment “Outcrossing between individuals with differently adapted gene complexes can result in disruption of this selective advantage, resulting in a loss of fitness.”
It also states that the Hybrid vigor creates genetic variation on the offpring to such extents that there is no longer “superiority” or that the individuals are fit to the enviroment: “An example of this is that plant breeders will make F1 hybrids from purebred strains, which will improve the uniformity and vigor of the offspring, however the F1 generation are not used for further breeding because of unpredictable phenotypes in their offspring.”

The closing argument would be that Genetic changes occur on slow pace and the best mate for reproduction would be someone with close genetic traits, but distant enough for change to occur, while having enviromental pressure to eliminate the unwanted traits. “Unless there is strong selective pressure, outbreeding depression can increase in further generations as co-adapted gene complexes are broken apart without the forging of new co-adapted gene complexes to take their place.”

————

I just searched about it in Wikipedia and with a quick 15min study about it could make all this, to be able to demonstrate normies how "Hybrid Vigor" is USELESS when speaking about distant human races and even more when applying social help to those with genetic disseases AKA "Universal Healthcare"
I once had that argument with a dude I met and now if I ever see him again, I will be prepared

That's why the scientific method is one of the, if not the most reliable way to reach the truth with regards to natural phenomena. There's a saying in scientific circles that goes "Science progresses one gravestone at a time". New hypotheses are constantly being built and tested, leading to this never-ending cycle of self-correction. Sure sometimes the process may lose its way, but it always moves back towards the truth.

also I made it in word so people could take the links and shit
Im planning to make a pdf with Library of Hate, Pastebins with archive links about jews, and lots of other "hatefacts", just to unite all of them in only one place for easy search. And I want to apport something worth so its not all copy and paste

all the sources about that post were from kikepedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis#Controversy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

I just want to help the cause so if I can have any feedback on the mentioned project above pls tell although I want to keep it simple as I dont get paid for this :^)

also

I can not ignore my own double DOUBLES!
I think that work will be blessed by KEK, Once I have free time I should ask for more help and get to work to get it done and spread it to my fellow anons.

THE RIVER WILL RUN RED WITH OUR REDPILLS

I like this thread

Great post op, and great posts by others. You make me proud. Keep at it, and remember especially as a scientist:
QUESTION EVERYTHING

Also, never forget that some ideas are too "dangerous" and "heretical" for $CURRENT_YEAR, but over time the truth will eventually win out. It is an evolutionary truism of the dynamics of ideas and memes (pics related). It is top kekkest that "inconvenient truth" studies related to evolutionary genetics will, someday, be vindicated due to the evolutionary laws of memetics. As long as second pic related does not somehow manage to subvert memetic flow. But I think trying to conquer memetic flow is futile - Big Brother may achieve a state of high memetic sanitation, but there will always be "memetic disease" outbreaks that will put it on the defense.

For you biologists out there, keep up the good work and start looking into how your knowledge could apply to memetic evolution, memetic pathogenesis, and memetic immunology. Memes are viruses whose hosts are minds; the minds are mere ovaries/wombs/habitats where memes (gametophyte form of thoughts) turn into thoughts, mate with other thoughts via crossover/mutation, and spread to other minds. First pic related.

For you mathematicians out there, math is not just or at all a study of weird properties of the universe. Rather, it is highly focused on developing systems that our minds can use to think logically about things both concrete and abstract. They say, "math is a social activity," and this is true - math is the acquisition of a memetic cocktail (learning others' work) but also tempering your own mind to form a suitable habitat where these mathematical memes can live, reproduce, and spread. I think math is really a meta-process where the structures we uncover are actually just structures that are amenable to (memetic) manipulation by our minds. Our mind only has one primary trick, which is to mash up two thoughts (where one of the thoughts can be a computational rule) to yield a third thought, and this theme arises everywhere (much like "adjoint functors" from category theory) once you know to look for it.

Oh, and
TOP KEK

Where's this document you speak of?

I just had the Idea the other day but basically it is as I explained earlier a copy and paste of:
archive.fo/LRe05

and many other pastebins, archives about news relating happenings and redpills, and many others…
I tell you I just started the other day so I dont have much but as time goes by I will keep adding and edditing so its easier to use.

You don't need to justify yourself to anyone, you're doing it for free and ou of goodwill.
Thank you very much, I really appreciate your efforts and will definitely read it.

Well said.


I agree, but why do you invoke Darwin? Of course he's one of the mythological fathers of the field, but today's integrated evo/genetics is very different from then. It would be like mentioning Mendel in this context.


I don't get it - what does that have to do with epigenetics?

This.


That's what they all say :^)

pop sci bullshit thread that doesn't clearly state anything. Go the fuck back to studying.

The mice stuff is one of the first Epigenetics studies. Researches made the mice's offsprings inherit the fear without ever being exposed to it before.

Regarding the 10% American Indian guy:
In 9 to 11 generations, as OP said, if breeding with Pure stock, your American Indian genes would disappear. So, if it's 10%, you're the approximately the 3rd generation.
Try to get a rejected white girl, Idk, some fatty who would end up with a nigger anyway - just kidding, I don't know the course of action you should take.

Contribute then, or lay out the steps, or indicate works/books/papers/videos.
Just don't complain while doing nothing.

I'm still searching for the study, but to be more precise, it occurs when a woman becomes pregnant as the fetal stem cells are very tenacious and have been found persisting in women's bloodstreams and brains.

The term you're looking for is "microchimerism": microchimerism.org/research-microchimerism.html

Good work user. Good thread. Dank gondola.

Here's what I got user.
1/2

2/2

This is simple, obvious stuff I'm talking about.
In the case of "junk" DNA they went out of their way to push a nonsensical claim: that every cell in every animal's body contains a full yard of useless candyfloss.
It's daft on its face and there was zero reason to think otherwise.

Checked
And saved. Niiiiice.


You'll learn, all in good time, just stick lurk moar. And learn to use your mind and a search engine.

checked

I'm personally of the opinion that through deep enough mastery of the subconscious and soul, just as one can learn to manipulate any of the otherwise autonomic systems this too can be wilt into domination.

checked
checked
checked
But, you need to go back fucking shame on you.

Know this, even if no mortal posts a check, there are are always those that still saw, even if they be just the Gods. And furthermore it is not about the number of checks but rather those who do reply to check it empowering. Learn your lessons and you may in time become a powerful magi. Furthermore it's the vortex of digits are often (though not always) alignment with divine grace, the right movement of energy upon the crest of the wave, the power is inherent in it's own action not in any sort of superficial way.

Learn these things naught and you will at best be fruitless and at worst destroy yourself. Though the latter path is what much of us walked to get here. Pic related, but imagine it on a cosmic existential soul level, like the trippest trip you've ever been on, but you where dead sober and totally lucid.

at least my niece and nephew still have contact with their dad

Thank you based user.

Support your sister and be a role-model male figure to your nephews, blood of your blood.
Start being more present to them and even act like a borderline father.
You can do it, save them.

What is this faggotry? Everyone knows that hair color and whether or not your ear lobes are connected comes from socio-economic circumstances. Race and genetics is a social construct, user.

Kek

thank you.
very relevant to the quantity of miscegenation that occurs when populations interact.
knowledge of this can help avoid existential crisis'.

Are there any forums/boards where this is discussed more? /sci/ crossed with Holla Forums sort of thing.
It's not my area but I like to think I understand the basics and I definitely would like to lurk in such a forum.

Got a question about rare chromosomal Disorders, like say XYY? I'm one, and everything is hard to research upon it, any other anons like me out there?

Bump for posterity

Bump. Much needed thread. I've seen a lot of people lately having no fucking clue how this shit works.

You sound like Seldon

Breeding works for dogs and not for humans, we are all equal goy!!!

jokes

People that deny human biodiversity non-ironically believe that evolution stopped in humans 50 kA ago and postulate the "races to be superficial". Of course two tall people breeding will result in taller than average children, depending on the gene expression.


It will literally purify the race by not allowing those genes to proliferate.

The very postulation that what we call an "ethnostate" would have a genepool homogenized enough to actually run into this problem is absurd.

So that's where this graph comes from.

...

The reason why you explain maths as a memetic manipulation of the mind is that once you "want" something you apply "maths" to it. It means you act rational to a certain task, that is what a meme is. Or you can call that focus, and that is why emotional manipulation works so well, and that is why i that call that cattle hording. Culture and creative works the same way, you take some thoughts and then recombine it to something new with the little extra.

Please reread what you quoted word for word before trying to use it against me.

I never said "just as tall as the parents". I said above average, which is in line with "regression to the mean".

i'm not sure what you're interest is.

you may not understand the math you're using. mathematics is a consistent universe, requiring transform modeling in, travel through mathematical rules, translation effecting out, and then sanity checking. in other words, it is just like spoken language. the vast majority fail at language protocol, just as they do in math protocol, or any protocol for that matter.

if you're trying to map code-calculated probabilistic spectrum outcomes to match the expected math model results (or the actual real observations), that's not likely. not likely because you presumed evolution was correctly defined (it isn't), that hardy-wineberg holds (it doesn't), and what your computer does is the equations you hand it (not likely, unless mathematica whereby the program knows the limitations of the calculator, and even then no guarantees).

model the expected outcome population sets via hidden markov chains, then compare your executed code sim output set lots of times, and you'll see a match to your computer sim cumulative distribution of outcome sets to the model. because that's what your code is doing. i don't know if this is what you're looking for.

separately, you still won't match real observation, however. real observation is not defined as you have been taught. teaching that requires 'seeing' what can't be seen generations later (all that died are no longer present), which is not something that most are good at. so instead they look upon inheritance as children do, thinking in gift / chosen / superior terms, presuming the best is known (it never is, nor is ever tested, that's not how this works), and require that you recite to them their toddler greatness theory to pass. so i'm not sure informing you is in your best passing interest, but nevertheless: (1) evolution is the self de-selection of the least fit; (2) locale populations are made up of sets of clones (set union constructions), not uniform distributions, thus the model should be poisson distribution at virtually all times (not gaussian n=infinity); (3) sexual resortment works better than fission because it accelerates the removal of loss, and the death of that loss via boom of higher entropy over expansion and subsequent bust of death; (4) rna is, dna is rna's evolved memory, protein is rna's evolved production, and resortment on this micro-level plays out on the macro-level, casting out entropy to die; (5) 1-4: at no point is the test ever find-the-most-fit, rather at every point the test is don't-be-the-least-fit, and at every iteration the test changes. (6) the result has been adaptive adaptation systems which have retain only a relative handful of solutions and tweak-rules, and cast out entire earth-surfaces of protean gloop as not-validly-viable / too-serially-expensive / not-iteratively-efficient.

A-at least I can bump for interest.