WHY DO WE NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SELF CONSCIENCE-NESS AND SELECTIVELY BREED

[UnbornBuddha]

Ah! as one author stated "a glimpse into human delusions of superiority"

There is hardly never a direct 1:1 relationship between one gene and one phenotypic trait. In general, most traits are polygenic and most genes are pleiotropic (affect many different traits). It is more accurate to think of the situation as a huge, complex network of genes and gene products influencing each other. The heritability of personality traits and certain complex hereditary diseases tend to be moderate (calculated from twin and adoption studies). Using Genome-wide association studies to analyze hundreds of thousands of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), scientists have found that candidate SNPs can only account for a fraction of his heritability (“missing heritability problem”). This may be accounted for by rare gene variants that are unique for different populations, variation in copy number or genetic interactions.

While invariably the quest for the perfect race came before 18th- 20th-century scientific outgrowths, most of the arguments stem from antiquated scientific understandings of the genetic code. The modern idea of differential reproduction comes from skewed misunderstandings of anthropological research, which became a fulcrum that gave rise to bizarre Eugenic theoretical constructs.
Such misunderstandings come not only from misrepresentations of the ideas of popular figures like Darwin or Herbert Spencer. But other figures such as the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Von Linnaeus, attributed with the binomial system of taxonomy nomenclature for genus identification, including the sub speciation of hominids. Linnaeus created a the taxon "monstrosus" for "wild and monstrous humans, unknown groups and more or less abnormal people. I refer you to Willoughby work on "The Evolution of Modern Humans in Africa" for a more comprehensive outline.

But Darwin's contemporary, Herbert Spencer, used Darwinian concepts, like natural selection, and twisted them to suit his own intents with social divisions in mind. Of course, as a modern veterinarian puts it, nascent pseudoscience had a prominent play as well. Spencer followers began to increasingly reference certain classes of hominids with chauvinistic slogans such as "human weeds" that ought to be exterminated or at least allowed to selectively breed.

Now going back to my main premise. Genetic interaction between two people is a complex subject. Its not as simple as two individuals with desirable traits mating. For example, someone with a genetic predisposition toward hayfever and other allergic conditions such as dermatitis, may not actually manifest the genetic tendency until 3 or 4 generations later. The same can be said with morphological attributes such as heterochromia iridum. Now due to the advent of modern findings, we are at a juncture where manipulation of certain genes is quite possible and the bioethics of it is already a popular issue with various political and medical oppositional stances.

There is also the issue that what is viewed as desirable, in terms of morphology and physicality, is highly cultural and socially dependable. Many medical or historical anthropologists would tell you this. That said the original premise of this thread argued for some universal physical or mental prowess that if genetically manipulated through controlled reproduction will show consistency in manifesting in the human race.
Again if history has proven its point, such endeavors are not so simplistic that just by allowing those with better traits to reproduce, their offspring will possess those desirable traits. Genetic determinism has many fallacious aspects to it. I refer you to Arguments and Analysis in Bioethics by Matti Häyry for an outline of these, even just reading the preface will suffice to gain an understanding of the many issues at play.

Essentially this idea has been refuted. Lamarck evolutionism, what your arguing for, have failed to have validity in hereditary studies. As Abraham Myerson puts it "‘ … the potentialities of any person’s germ plasm in the succeeding generations may be ascertained. There are fine people springing from the most unlikely parents, and the finest parents may bring forth the wildest and most inadequate progeny". Even Darwin's own ideas of pangenesis are criticized for its Lamarckian assertions.