Reply With Quote
I already posted the link.
link to said generational study and what exactly it states?
I already posted the link.
No - you posted the link to a news story about a study that then talks about THIS different study. I'm assuming that since you're basing your opinion on this one study you've read it and have a link available or at least some information on what is says.
Not necessarily. I'm skeptical of accounts given in this thread. But i might be open to some other presentation.
What will we be breeding slaves for, in your scheme?
link
Inheritance of Acquired Behaviour Adaptations and Brain Gene Expression in Chickens
Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.
I don't think...
...means what you seem to think it does.by means of epigenetic mechanisms including regulation of immune genes
But it is kinda interesting.
Furthermore, adult offspring of UL birds performed more food pecks in a dominance test, showed a higher preference for high energy food, survived better, and were heavier than offspring of PL parents. Using cDNA microarrays, we found that the differential brain gene expression caused by the challenge was mirrored in the offspring. In particular, several immunoglobulin genes seemed to be affected similarly in both UL parents and their offspring.
----------------------------
that's it for tonight. i am going to play a game of chess before i go to bed
your life can alter your genes, either through addition and modification, or activity and expression, and it can be passed on to your offspring. goodnight.
double post, lag
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/22061/A Comeback for Lamarckian Evolution? Two new studies show that the effects of a mother's early environment can be passed on to the next generation.
The effects of an animal's environment during adolescence can be passed down to future offspring, according to two new studies. If applicable to humans, the research, done on rodents, suggests that the impact of both childhood education and early abuse could span generations. The findings provide support for a 200-year-old theory of evolution that has been largely dismissed: Lamarckian evolution, which states that acquired characteristics can be passed on to offspring.
"The results are extremely surprising and unexpected," says Li-Huei Tsai, a neuroscientist at MIT who was not involved in the research. Indeed, one of the studies found that a boost in the brain's ability to rewire itself and a corresponding improvement in memory could be passed on. "This study is probably the first study to show there are transgenerational effects not only on behavior but on brain plasticity."
In recent years, scientists have discovered that epigenetic changes--heritable changes that do not alter the sequence of DNA itself--play a major role in development, allowing genetically identical cells to develop different characteristics; epigenetic changes also play a role in cancer and other diseases. (The definition of epigenetics is somewhat variable, with some scientists limiting the term to refer to specific molecular mechanisms that alter gene expression.) Most epigenetic studies have been limited to a cellular context or have looked at the epigenetic effects of drugs or diet in utero. These two new studies are unique in that the environmental change that triggers the effect--enrichment or early abuse--occurs before pregnancy. "Give mothers chemicals, and it can affect offspring and the next generation," says Larry Feig, a neuroscientist at Tufts University School of Medicine, in Boston, who oversaw part of the research. "In this case, [the environmental change] happened way before the mice were even fertile."
In Feig's study, mice genetically engineered to have memory problems were raised in an enriched environment--given toys, exercise, and social interaction--for two weeks during adolescence. The animals' memory improved--an unsurprising finding, given that enrichment has been previously shown to boost brain function. The mice were then returned to normal conditions, where they grew up and had offspring. This next generation of mice also had better memory, despite having the genetic defect and never having been exposed to the enriched environment.
The researchers also looked at a molecular correlate of memory called long-term potentiation, or LTP, a mechanism that strengthens connections between neurons. Environmental enrichment fixed faulty LTP in mice with the genetic defect; the fixed LTP was then passed on to their offspring. The findings held true even when pups were raised by memory-deficient mice that had never had the benefits of toys and social interaction. "When you look at offspring, they still have the defect in the protein, but they also have normal LTP," says Feig. The findings were published today in the Journal of Neuroscience.
i should tell you guys I have no idea who lamarckian is.
Charles Darwin with a bad press.
Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn't "the same as ours." "Racist, vicious and unsupported by science," said the Federation of American Scientists. "Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence," declared the U.S. government's supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied "that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on."
I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.
If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."
The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.
I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
Remember, these are averages, and all groups overlap. You can't deduce an individual's intelligence from her ethnicity. The only thing you can reasonably infer is that anyone who presumes to rate your IQ based on the color of your skin is probably dumber than you are.
So, what should we make of the difference in averages?
We don't like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we've all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn't conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.
How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it's been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.
According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.
I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and "g," a measure of the test's emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can't debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head cir ference is zero.
Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.
Critics think IQ tests are relative—i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. "In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table," argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. "In a warrior society … physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive." It's a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn't stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.
In fact, there's a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on cir stances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.
How this happened isn't clear. Everyone agrees that the three populations separated 40,000 to 100,000 years ago. Even critics of racial IQ genetics accept the idea that through natural selection, environmental differences may have caused abilities such as distance running to become more common in some populations than in others. Possibly, genes for cognitive complexity became so crucial in some places that nature favored them over genes for developmental speed and vision. If so, fitness for today's world is mostly dumb luck. If we lived in a savannah, kids programmed to mature slowly and grow big brains would be toast. Instead, we live in a world of zoos, supermarkets, pediatricians, pharmaceuticals, and information technology. Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.
http://www.slate.com/id/2178122/entry/2178123/
There are dozens of scientists doing research on this field.
Sure, why wouldn't I rely? Not all psychologists are created equal; we aren't talking about Freudian psychoanalysts here. Most of the research on this field is paid by psychology departments, but there are geneticists and biologists working on the field as well. They peer-review each others works very often and they're published in the same scientific journals. The frontiers are more fluid that you make them sound.
Arthur Jensen, the most notable and well-known supporter of these views, is a post-doctorate of the Ins ute of Psychiatry from the London University. Why is he a liberal arts bull producer or a pseudo-scientist and not a scientist? A guy who's good enough to the Kistler Prize jury is good enough for me.
http://www.futurefoundation.org/awar...003_jensen.htm
Would you be more comfortable if we call them socio-biologists or psychiatrists?
Jack should be banned for making this thread
Obama wants us to discuss race. Grow up.
One of the funniest mother ers I know!!!Manny does have a point your lifestyle over the years can cause you to developed certain genes over time.If you think about how physically developmental running while carrying a large watermelon in your arms might be....
Lazy as , but goddamm funny as always!
Just look at your own families or those of your friends. They generally look the same and generally are about as smart(or dumb) or maybe a little smarter(dumber) than the previous generation.
Slaves were bred to work like mother ers from dusk til dawn. They didn't breed them for brains or to run 50 miles a day. If you don't think their breeding had anything to do with it then you probably don't believe in the holocaust either.
Not really. I'd be more comfortable if you called them witch doctors. I don't think of psychology as really being a science, though no doubt it dabbles in science.
Exactly! That's why these three NEVER got any pussy! No breeding for these!If Slavery had an effect on Black poeple WTF happened to these three?
No, because the strong doesn't always mean physically strong. Strong minded beats physicality as well. Otherwise we'd all be ing lions and tigers and bears!
Frankly, I'd be shocked if heritable traits for intelligence -- whatever those are -- were distributed in an equalitarian way. And I have little problem with the idea science could someday produce credible generalizations showing this.
I'm skeptical of the people who are so keen to know the results right now,and a bit mystified about why the research is so important.
After all, differences of intelligence within racial groups is going to be much greater then the mean differences between them.
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-06-2009 at 09:01 AM.
Obama wants to discuss race intellectually. Not by encouraging more bull stereotypes.
Obama wants us to discuss race. Grow up.
Then weigh in ass . Do you think blacks are better athletes? I don't. I think America is racist especially in sports. Starts at a young age. The coaches,leagues and schools have a color chart in their head to which position these kids can play. I certainly don't think whites are smarter and better leaders then blacks thus is why we have MUCH more white qbs in the league as some would say. It's all part of the color chart.
Look at basketball. White players are growing in the NBA. It's not white Americans though. In America "whites can't jump" How fair is that? The NFL has to interveiw a black man for the head coach. It's the league rules. Why doesn't the league mandate a white running back on every team?
You say I am encouraging bull sterotypes. That is BULL . I should be able to ask this question. It does not make me a racist. The numbers are crazy in American sports.
So blacks are racist for being the majority in regards to certain skill positions... but there is no racism the other way in regards to whites holding the majority of leadership positions? (QB's, coaches)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
