Could a founder effect occur today or in the future?

T

Torchholder

Junior Member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Y-DNA haplogroup
R1b
mtDNA haplogroup
V
In the past, founder effects happened because people were few, and any one individual could have major genetical impact. Atleast that seems to me to be what explains the possibility of founder effects.

Im no colossus when it comes to knowledge about haplogroups and how they spread and everything so take the above with a pinch of salt, and tell me what you think enabled founder-effects in history, why they have seemingly stopped occuring in the times after the bronze age and if you believe that they could happen again and if so under what conditions.

Looking forward to reading all your answers!
 
Hi, Torchholder. Well, I gather you are Swedish. I'm French. Look what happened in both our countries over the past two generations (or three, as you are probably much younger than me!).

Just as our parents (or grandparents) started using the pill to make sure they would have no more than two children, people from abroad moved into our countries. Some had several wives (registered as single mothers by the social services to cash in on family allowances). Each wife had three, four, six, eight children - or more.

That's a founder effect.
 
hrvclv said:
Hi, Torchholder. Well, I gather you are Swedish. I'm French. Look what happened in both our countries over the past two generations (or three, as you are probably much younger than me!).

Just as our parents (or grandparents) started using the pill to make sure they would have no more than two children, people from abroad moved into our countries. Some had several wives (registered as single mothers by the social services to cash in on family allowances). Each wife had three, four, six, eight children - or more.

That's a founder effect.
Click to expand...

That isn’t the founder effect! The founder effect would be when, by chance, specific allele carriers from a more varied group found a new colony and thus the next generation are disproportionately carrying this allele compared to the original colony. Founder effects are only of significance in small populations, so no, founder effects will not have major impacts today (on the scale of nations).
 
ToBeOrNotToBe said:
I get what you’re saying, but mass migration isn’t the same thing as the founder effect.
Click to expand...

I know. I was not trying to be "technical". I was just suggesting that we do have our modern-day equivalents of ancient founder effects.
 
hrvclv said:
Hi, Torchholder. Well, I gather you are Swedish. I'm French. Look what happened in both our countries over the past two generations (or three, as you are probably much younger than me!).

Just as our parents (or grandparents) started using the pill to make sure they would have no more than two children, people from abroad moved into our countries. Some had several wives (registered as single mothers by the social services to cash in on family allowances). Each wife had three, four, six, eight children - or more.

That's a founder effect.
Click to expand...

Well, unless you meant that males had six or eight children you're taking the rare exception as a rule, but founder effects won't happen in a very large population with such exceptions (and I doubt that scenario was common even for males' offspring, unless it also means that a large proportion of the non-indigenous males end up without any wife/partner, because there are more non-indigenous males than non-indigenous women, a very sex-biased migration, so if too many males have more than 1 wife then that automatically means that a large percentage of the men won't find any women and won't have children of their own) We all know from actual statistics that e.g. the most fertile population of immigrant condition or immigrant background (the Muslims) actually has now an average fertility rate around 2.5 in most of Europe. Research has been done on this topic. The real problem is not that they "breed like rabbits", but that modern European youth breeds like pandas or something like that. In many countries where their numbers are dwindling, it's actually more because they, who are the overwhelming majority, are experiencing very negative birth rates (as opposed to the death rates that keep increasing) and a very decreased cohort of the population aged 18-39 (the most fertile period), coupled with large immigration rate - and not because of some "superfertile" immigrant community. Ireland shows how a relatively "normal" fertility rate prevents or at least slows down this issue. It's not hard to see that what is happening is more the indigeous population decreasing gradually (with fertility rates often lower than 1.5, when the replacement rate is 2.1), not that it's being overwhelmed by a baby boom of the immigrants. It seems to me you're talking not only untechnically, but based on common sense alone. People look at one part of the problem and refuse to see the whole Picture to identify where the biggest problem really is.














































 
Ygorcs said:
It seems to me you're talking not only untechnically, but based on common sense alone. People look at one part of the problem and refuse to see the whole Picture to identify where the biggest problem really is.
Click to expand...

You are right. My previous posts upthread were both "untechnical" and unscientific. But I will adamantly continue to claim the right for my countrymen to "breed like pandas" if so they choose, without having to relinquish their identity, traditions and values.

The number of immigrants plus descendants (of at least one immigrant parent) stood at 13.4 million in France in 2015 - 20.2% of the total population. The number of Muslim immigrants and descendants is officially unknown since compiling data based on religious creeds is forbidden by law in this country - I wonder why. So are genetic tests other than forensic, by the way - I also wonder why. (I tested at my own perils).

Truth is, I don't mind who comes and lives in my country, whether they are white, brown, or blue, as long as they play by our rules, and don't bully us into adhering to their options. But the pressure keeps increasing. For professional reasons, my own daughter had to live for two years in a neighborhood north of Paris. There were four butchers within walking distance when she arrived. One was halal, the other three standard traditional. When she left, the four shops were halal. The "standard" ones had been so persistently vandalized, tagged, smashed with cobblestones, or set on fire, that the owners had given up and sold to "locals". My daughter bought pork for her family from the shop in my town, when she came over on weekend visits. Needless to say, walking the streets, even in mid-afternoon, meant risking one's life.

No wonder if knee-jerk reactions sometimes prevail over science and allegedly reliable data.

Well, I guess we have now properly derailed this thread. My fault. Sorry, Torchholder.
 
hrvclv said:
You are right. My previous posts upthread were both "untechnical" and unscientific. But I will adamantly continue to claim the right for my countrymen to "breed like pandas" if so they choose, without having to relinquish their identity, traditions and values.
​
Click to expand...
​

The problem I see there is that, being very realistic, I think there are only 2 ways to avoid that while people keep breeding "like pandas" (much less than 2.1 children per women, often more like 1.2 or 1.4): 1) either the non-indigenous population converges to the average very low fertility rate; 2) or strong assimilatonist policies are enacted, first of all avoiding the existence of any ghetto-like neighborhood, those where virtually everyone is not just immigrant, but often immigrants of the same ethnic or religious background. Even if immigration is curbed, the non-indigenous populations are already so large that they will keep increasing if the native European fertility rate remains so low, so full cultural assimilation should be top priority, no matter what (it doesn't need to be forced, mixing them with the natives as much as possible should already do the trick). Or then, of course, Europeans could increase their fertility rates to a more sustainable 2.0-2.1. But that's unlikely, I believe.

I'm fully in agreement with the idea that immigrants are not a problem as long as they're really willing to immigrate and change their homeland, assimilating into the country of their choice (they chose it, so it's not like they're forced to live in that place) even if they keep some of the most cherished traditions and habits of their national/ethnic origins. I find it baffling that some immigrants want to come to the country only to transplant their own birth countries in their new home, and many of them even start complaining and trying to "shoehorn" the mainstream society they chose to live admist into different cultural ways. That should never have been tolerated.

P.S.: Okay, I promise this is my last off topic post. lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 8063 times.

Back
Top