OK, I hope my question doesn’t get misunderstood, I can see how that could happen.
Just a product of overthinking.

Idea is that we can live fairly easily even with some diseases/disorders which could be-life threatening. Many of these are hereditary.
Since modern medicine increases our survival capabilities, the “weaker” individuals can also survive and have offsprings that could potentially inherit these weaknesses, and as this continues it could perhaps leave nearly all people suffering from such conditions further into future.

Does that sound like a realistic scenario? (Assuming we don’t destroy ourselves along with the environment first…)

  • The_v@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    You seem to be lost in the weeds a bit. Of course hardy-weinberg is a model that never exists in reality. It’s a good method to explain the importance of selection pressure on populations.

    Without an active selection agent on the allele, it’s frequency in the population remains the same.

    Now in reality there is no such thing as zero selection pressure on any allele. Having a deleterious or advantageous allele 49.99cM away exerts selection pressure.

    However allelic frequencies without a strong selection acting on them remain relatively stable.

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      You’re not understanding. Without selection, real populations would have changing allele frequencies. They would not stay static. That’s because random sampling exists, but only outside of the H-W model.

      • The_v@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Random sampling has a significant effect when the population size is smaller. Say less than 10,000 individuals.

        It has very little effect as the population size increases to say something a little more than 8,000,000,000 individuals.