I would think Victoria was a bit young to be responsible for the hemophilia in the Romanovs...but of course I could be wrong.
More to the point, hemophilia isn't a useful adaptation. It doesn't contribute to survival. (I know that you weren't claiming it was; you were making another, quite valid point.) All of the mutations I've ever heard of in humans are actually detriments to survival, causing conditions like cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, beta thalassemia, or Down syndrome. When was the last positive, advantageous mutation in humans? Shouldn't there have been one in recorded history?
If Asperger syndrome turns out to be due to genetic causes, and it probably will, that may be our one. Geekdom is a survival advantage. It may, however, give up in reproductive success what it gains in survival. =]
Sickle cell trait is actually a mutation that conferred a survival benefit to humans who had it, at least in a specific environment, namely an environment in which malaria is prevalent. In homozygous individuals it is harmful, but in heterozygous individuals it gives increased resistance to malaria. Remember, beneficial is not an absolute term, but rather is relative to the environment. Also remember, harmful and beneficial are relative only to reproductive success. A hypothetical trait that always caused death in humans between the ages of 40 and 50 would be considered a neutral trait in evolutionary terms, although a person affected with it would certainly not see it that way.
"I would think Victoria was a bit young to be responsible for the hemophilia in the Romanovs...but of course I could be wrong.
More to the point, hemophilia isn't a useful adaptation. It doesn't contribute to survival. (I know that you weren't claiming it was; you were making another, quite valid point.) All of the mutations I've ever heard of in humans are actually detriments to survival, causing conditions like cystic fibrosis, hemophilia, beta thalassemia, or Down syndrome. When was the last positive, advantageous mutation in humans? Shouldn't there have been one in recorded history?"
The case against Victoria is well established - she was queen for something like 70 years and had a large family. One of her daughters is responsible for passing that gene around, including to the Romanov's.
Those genetic diseases you mention are, yes, not good. BTW because we keep these people alive longer that they would have survived 1000 years ago, we not only keep those genes in our pool, but actually increase their frequencies.
Would you actually see an advantageous gene if it was in front of you? But look at some simpler things. Why are most native peoples of the tropics dark skinned? The only native blond haired, blue eyed populations are northern latitude. Is that a coincidence? Black people from Africa that are heterozygous sickle cell have increased malaria resistance. Is this going somewhere? It is well known, but not hyped, that people with higher IQ's tend to have children with higher IQ's. I think that is as good an example as one can find.
If we allowed eugenics, we might pull some of these "advantageous" genes out so they would be more visible (please do not accuse me of advocating eugenics).
What I am saying is that these "advantageous" genes are there, but not obvious. Since we so readily mix worldwide and we interfere with the natural course in our own evolution by keeping people alive that in a wild state would be quickly weeded out, it seems to me that we are doomed to be a dead end species.
Here's one discovered in the last few years: Gene mutation makes baby super strong
Alexandra Feodorovna was a granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
"If Asperger syndrome turns out to be due to genetic causes, and it probably will, that may be our one. Geekdom is a survival advantage. It may, however, give up in reproductive success what it gains in survival. =]"
I know someone with a son who has Asperger's. He would violently disagree with your assessment of it improving longevity and survival.