Seether

Blair, of course, has some very interesting genes -- he's the son of a noted fighter pilot and a Pilgrim... making him, no doubt, an attractive target for the organization (even while he was still in the Academy).
 
Originally posted by icetiger
Again good argument Raptor but gaining strength through increased bulk is not the only means. Keeping the same amount of size but making the muscles tighter and strengthening them would have the same results with no size increase.

To stregthen muscles, you need to increase the amount of muscle tissue. There's only a certain amount of physical force that any given amount of muscle fibre can exert. And tightening muscle fibre will only give a decreased range of movement in the joint, making you much less likely to be able to move freely.

Originally posted by icetiger
And again super intelligence, reflexes, speed, stamina would still be All round superior traits.

But you alway have to trade off something to achieve them, for example a higher rate of injury and stress on bones/joints/muscles for speed, and a heavier load on the nervous system for reflexes. There is no free lunch in evolutionary terms. If there was, natural selection would select every human to have those, as that would be an obviously superior genotype.

Originally posted by icetiger
* as per the intelligence argument... You merely increase the amount of electrical impulses possible so the person can use most of his brain and possibly even multitask.

And all these increased electrical impuses might not trigger off, let's say, epilepsy, delusions or hallucinations, phantom limb syndrome/pyschosomatic pain, any of the other other problems that are caused by over-active electrical centres in the brain?


*My* equal-but-different-and-don't-say-bad-things-about-them genes prevent my body from producing types of collagen properly -- thus serious vision and hearing problems. Frosty's genes produce collagen just fine (I assume...) -- in the case of this single gene, Frosty's is *good*, and mine is *bad*.

Okay, LOAF, I'll admit that there are exceptions to every rule. There are some genes that it is very hard to see a redeeming quality for, and those could well be called bad genes. An example would be the genes that cause the kind of problems you gave.

But generally speaking though, you can't classify genes as "good" or "bad", or "superior" or "inferior", because that just doesn't apply in evolutionary terms. Like the CD4 trait I was talikng about earlier, like the sickle cell disease i've talked about in other threads, even genes which cause disease can make you more likely to survive in some situations. What is favoured and what is not depends on the envoirnmental conditions at the time, and the selective pressure on the population. The kind of genetic engineering I was speaking out against when I said "there are no such things as good genes or bad genes" went far beyond weeding out (i.e murdering) anyone with "bad" genes that cause diseases, but also murdering anyone who didn't have someone's pre-determined and arbitrary definition of good genes. That *is* stupid, because it shuts off all our other evolutionary options.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by icetiger
Again good argument Raptor but gaining strength through increased bulk is not the only means. Keeping the same amount of size but making the muscles tighter and strengthening them would have the same results with no size increase. And again super intelligence, reflexes, speed, stamina would still be All round superior traits. * as per the intelligence argument... You merely increase the amount of electrical impulses possible so the person can use most of his brain and possibly even multitask.

Multitasking? Microsoft can't get it right, how can mother nature :D Just kidding, but I'd be happy to have enough coordination to pat my head and rub my stomach for sustained periods of time with getting the two mixed up and begin patting my stomach and rubbing my head. Multitasking (part coordination part mental) would be cool. Imagine doing your math homework with your right arm and right eye (ie. left brain lobe) and english with your left arm and left eye (ie. right brain lobe). Then again, if we were smart enough to do that, we'd probably have technology like they do in The Matrix and wouldn't need homework, or schools for that matter.;)
 
Originally posted by Raptor

But you alway have to trade off something to achieve them, for example a higher rate of injury and stress on bones/joints/muscles for speed, and a heavier load on the nervous system for reflexes. There is no free lunch in evolutionary terms. If there was, natural selection would select every human to have those, as that would be an obviously superior genotype.

My personal belief is that we'll eventually (if we as a race survive long enough) evolve to those charastics, as long as we dont' get fat and lazy like I have...

Eventually the body will have to keep pace with technology, and eventually, at the rate it going, relatively soon, technology will catch up with the human body. Cybernetics and Biotechnology today are amazing fields, as is the fast paced world of computers. We can thank AMD for our 2Ghz + Processors, because without them, Intel had no competition worth a mention and would have stayed at their snail paced crawl. :) But enough about that arguement. I hope I don't start another. :)
 
Well, cybernetics and bio-tech might be be the wave of the future, but I tend to see it coming in the medical field for severely ill people first, i.e artificial hearts, kidneys, lungs, livers, limbs, either mechanical ones ore directly cloned from your own tissue to minimise the chances of rejection. I don't really see us developing augemntation for its own sake, though. If anything, as technology becomes more powerfull, and we gain more and more control over the envoirnment, there is less incentive to dapt ourselves that way.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Knight


Multitasking? Microsoft can't get it right, how can mother nature :D Just kidding, but I'd be happy to have enough coordination to pat my head and rub my stomach for sustained periods of time with getting the two mixed up...
Try this on for size: I used to sit down on a late fall afternoon and read the Sunday paper, listen to a Syracuse University game on the radio (thru earphones), and watch an NFL football game on TV all at the same time, keeping track of all three activities at once. (Then I got married --fill in your own joke *here*)... :D
 
Originally posted by Raptor
There is no free lunch in evolutionary terms. If there was, natural selection would select every human to have those, as that would be an obviously superior genotype.
Not necessarily so. Natural selection, if it is to be believed in the first place, applies to "closed systems" (i.e., the "natural world"), not to human systems. The very things that set us apart from the animals are the things that doom this comparison. We have morals (well, some of us anyway...), intellect, reasoning, intelligence, free will, consciences, etc., and the animals do not. Therefore, we make free choices about with whom to mate and produce offspring, etc. This alters the equation considerably, and largely renders the comparison null & void. I guess what I'm saying is, because we base our actions on our free will choices,
and are not tethered solely to instinct (as are the animals), the exercise of that free will works against any "natural selection" that might otherwise kick in

And all these increased electrical impuses might not trigger off, let's say, epilepsy, delusions or hallucinations, phantom limb syndrome/pyschosomatic pain, any of the other other problems that are caused by over-active electrical centres in the brain?
No. Remember, we humans use but a small fraction of our brain's functional capacity (some obviously less than others... :D), so there would likely be plenty of "cushion" to accomodate the increased avtivity you speak of. Medically speaking, epilepsy is caused by *massive simultaneous and uncoordinated* electrical discharge in the brain. Such would not be the case in a genetically enhanced human. Delusions/hallucinations/etc. can be caused by a host of triggers, but all of them relate to *other* mechanisms & pathways than simply increased *level* of electrical activity in the brain.

Okay, LOAF, I'll admit that there are exceptions to every rule. There are some genes that it is very hard to see a redeeming quality for, and those could well be called bad genes. An example would be the genes that cause the kind of problems you gave.
This is oft referred to as "junk DNA", and science is just beginning to study it these last few years. More'n likely, many if not most of these anomalies are simply genes we don't yet know enough *about* yet to be able to say whether they be "good" or "bad".

But generally speaking though, you can't classify genes as "good" or "bad", or "superior" or "inferior", because that just doesn't apply in evolutionary terms.
Actually, it does apply. No one would argue that the genes that code for high intelligence are "good", while genes that code for, say, leukemia are "bad". Maybe a clearer way to say it is to state that we can't yet (and probably never will be able to) make a definitive statement as to whether each and EVERY gene is "good" or "bad". That ain't to say I'm nec'ly in favor of human genetic engineering; I'm just trying to clarify the discussion here.

(Frankly, I rather think that God knew what the heck He was doing in allowing for "bad" genes, even though we can't humanly understand the "why" of it, at least not while we're down *here*)

::hopes folks don't get their underwear in a bunch over last passage, since explaining it would entail deep theological discussion, which ist verboten on CZ. ::
 
Well, one can't have it both ways. If intelligence, which allows for such things as abstract thinking, logic, planning, morals, all the very things that identify us as people, is determined gentically, then isn't it also likely that much older and deeper behaviours that control survival and reproduction are also genetic, or influenced by genetics in the same way that intelligence is? After all, any argument that can be used for genetic intelligence can also be used for genetic behavior. We have identified about as evidence for genetic intelligence as for gentic behaviors, mainly in family studies. People who are related tend to exibit similar intelligence, and tend to behave in similar ways. So how do definitely say that one is genetic and the other isn't?

On the other hand, if it could be argued that the infuence of human society (morals, codes of conduct, all of which are socially determined) are powerfull enough to overwhelm the most basic survival behaviour that occurs in every other part of the natural world, how can you then claim that intelligence is somehow set apart?

Second, there is no one gene that codes for luekemia, or any other cancer, though there is a genetic link to most if not all cancers. The critical step that all cells have to go through to become cancerous though, is that is has to evade the "error check" mechanism of the tumor suppressor protiens that control replication. If the tumour suppressors detect that the replicated cell is "differant" (not good or bad, just differant in its DNA in any way from the parent cell) they trigger the cell's destruction. An underactive or inefficient tumour suppressor has been postulated as a major mechanism of cancer. The thing to keep in mind though, is a very active tumour suppressor would have removed a cell that exibited any change, even if the mutation was a beneficial one, which would stop any natural genetic change dead in its tracks. We would have no ability to adapt to anything, and we still would most likely be confined to the same African savanahs that we started out on. Or to put it another way, the same thing that causes cancer and kills you could be what made us humans the masters of this planet. Good or bad?

Third, just because surplus brain capacity exists doesn't mean that its usable for what we term intelligence (i.e reasoning, memory, higher function), just like the fact that most countries only farm a certain portion of their land doesn't mean there is a huge surplus area for growing food. The brain has a lot more to do than just what we can intelligence, such as controlling all our muscular functions, processing sensory information and co-ordinating the autonomic, endocrine and immune systems. It is very possible that much if not all of this "spare" capacity is tied into such functions.

Fourth, there is big differance between "junk" DNA and "bad" genes. Junk DNA is the large part of our genome that doesn't code for any discernable function, and doesn't have any effects that we detect. "Bad genes" on the other hand, do code for very specific effects, and people show those effects. Or to pu it another way, "bad" genes *do* something. Junk DNA doesn't.

As for not being able to determine if genes are "good" or "bad", that is surely the most telling argument against massive genetic modification. We can never tell what the effects will be later on, as we don't know if the gene we assumed was "bad" turns out to be "good". A simplistic view of sickle cell trait, weakend CD4 and underactive tumour supressors (all of which cause some pretty major diseases) as "bad" would have have resulted in the elmination of those genes if we had gotten into genetic modification before we found out about their very real survival advantages under some conditions. Once we've gone ahead and done it, it's a little late to look back and say "oh, darn."

I've always believed in what my fellow Kiwis say, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Given that the system has by and large worked extremely well for several thousand years, it seems rather dangerous to make large scale changes without knowing what the long term effects will be.

As for the theology part, I agree with you, we don't want to get into an evolution/creationism debate, which would get this thread shut down pretty fast. I'll limit myself to this comment: If our genetic structure was designed by God, rather than being the result of natural processes, then isn't it even more foolish to tamper with it?

Best, Raptor
 
Well, have you heard about the people who voted in a dyslexic as their president?

They're now one nation under dog. :)

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by Raptor
If intelligence, which allows for such things as abstract thinking, logic, planning, morals, all the very things that identify us as people, is determined gentically, then isn't it also likely that much older and deeper behaviours that control survival and reproduction are also genetic, or influenced by genetics in the same way that intelligence is?
Not quite: Yes, both of these are determined genetically, but they are not at all influenced, or for that matter, expressed in the same way. Whether your IQ is 165, 110, or 70, your *level* of intelligence is a genetic given. That is, whether or not one USES that intelligence (via gaining knowledge), it's still *there*. Not so with these "survival" behaviors you spoke of: Sure, they have a genetic component, but some of 'em (reproduction/survival, 4X) are more influenced by the whole "free will" thing, and thus are not purely expressed, or not expressed at all. If this were so, we'd have highways littered with dead motorists, due to massive uninhibited expression of "road rage".

After all, any argument that can be used for genetic intelligence can also be used for genetic behavior. We have identified about as evidence for genetic intelligence as for gentic behaviors, mainly in family studies. People who are related tend to exibit similar intelligence, and tend to behave in similar ways. So how do definitely say that one is genetic and the other isn't?
Again, that's where free will comes into the mix. I agree about familial intelligence, but there can be wide variation in a familial setting as to behavior, because of the influence of environment. Wife beaters, for example, usually come from backgrounds of having *seen* their dads abuse their moms at home while growing up. Take that kid outta that household at an early age (say, <2 yrs old), and place him with a loving, healthy adoptive family, and you've just drastically reduced the chances that he will perpetrate the same behavior himself as a husband.

On the other hand, if it could be argued that the infuence of human society (morals, codes of conduct, all of which are socially determined) are powerfull enough to overwhelm the most basic survival behaviour that occurs in every other part of the natural world, how can you then claim that intelligence is somehow set apart?
You've hit it on the head: "Behavior". Human intelligence is an inherited ("hardwired") physiological/biological trait, whereas behavior is completely an adaptive, learned thing--there's no "hard-wired" component to it. Even if we "learn" to lie/cheat/steal, you or I can *choose* to ignore these influences, and live an upright life. You can't "choose", however, to have a 150 IQ. (Be nice if we *could*, though, wouldn't it?...). Granted, "what you *do* with what you got" is a choice: A guy with a 150 IQ can certainly "act" as if he's an imbecile, and there are cases where a person with marginal intellect can "make the most" of their capacity, and be the best educated 70 IQ guy around. But still, their physiological capacity to learn/utilize knowledge remains static.

Third, just because surplus brain capacity exists doesn't mean that its usable for what we term intelligence (i.e reasoning, memory, higher function... The brain has a lot more to do than just what we can intelligence, such as controlling all our muscular functions, processing sensory information and co-ordinating the autonomic, endocrine and immune systems. It is very possible that much if not all of this "spare" capacity is tied into such functions. ?
I didn't say it was usable for intelligence; my reference was to the fact that it could be used to accomodate the extra load of increased physiological functioning. Stroke patients are known to undergo "brain remodeling" during their recovery, which allows them to recover, in some cases, much or even all of the capacity they lost from their stroke. This is possible because brain cells are, we're finding out, vastly adaptable. So, yes, the extra unused "intellectual" capacity I spoke of could quite concievably adapt itself to handle extra physiological activity.


...there is big differance between "junk" DNA and "bad" genes. Junk DNA is the large part of our genome that doesn't code for any discernable function, and doesn't have any effects that we detect. "Bad genes" on the other hand, do code for very specific effects
Good point. (Sorry, my bad.)

...I'll limit myself to this comment: If our genetic structure was designed by God, rather than being the result of natural processes, then isn't it even more foolish to tamper with it?
I'm with ya on that, for the most part. It's just that I ain't made up my mind how strongly I feel about that point. In other words, I feel that *some* tinkering is theologically allowable, but a "Tolwyn-type" deal is totally wrong. Question is, where do you draw the line?... That's the part I have a hard time with. Oh well.
 
I thought it would be proper to speak at this point... Humans seem to be the exception. "Why are we here?" has been replaced by "Why the hell did our brains evolve as they did, giving us limited(oh yes, it is limited) consiousness?"
To be honest, Humans are so diversified that evolution will be severely, and I mean SEVERELY, hampered in the future. A small population could develop certain traits much more quickly than a larger gene pool.... and we seem to think we are part of nature. We were, but we surpassed it by not only ceasing to evolve(well, some evolution has taken place. Most humans are taller than four hundred years ago), but by ceasing to be a part of the ecosystem. Now, the we don't adapt to the environment, we adapt the environment to satisfy us.
 
Just because you haven't seen humans evolve much for the past 10,000 years, doesn't mean we've stopped evolving. It's not a fast process, and takes a LONG time with any creature.

Just because crocs look the same as they did thousands of years ago doesn't mean they've stopped evolving.
 
No, but the process is definitely slowed by having so MUCH population to modify, which you would have seen me mention if you hadn't simply skimmed the post. :p
 
I read your post. However, I have to disagree, I believe a higher population has a better statistical chance of a genetic mutation. In any case, I do not think our evolution has slowed at all due to population as you seem to think.
I think (and you can correct me) that if anything is slowing our evolution, it is our growing reliance on technology.
 
Originally posted by Preacher
Not quite: Yes, both of these are determined genetically, but they are not at all influenced, or for that matter, expressed in the same way. Whether your IQ is 165, 110, or 70, your *level* of intelligence is a genetic given. That is, whether or not one USES that intelligence (via gaining knowledge), it's still *there*. Not so with these "survival" behaviors you spoke of: Sure, they have a genetic component, but some of 'em (reproduction/survival, 4X) are more influenced by the whole "free will" thing, and thus are not purely expressed, or not expressed at all. If this were so, we'd have highways littered with dead motorists, due to massive uninhibited expression of "road rage".

"Road rage" is hardly a survival behavior. If anything, it's anti-survival, because it tends to land you in jail, where your chances of survival are rather decreased. While I do agree with you you that behavior does have cultural influences, I don't agree that intelligence or IQ is a genetic given. Quite apart from the biases and limitations of the IQ test, the simple fact is that despite much research by scientists, no-one has been able to show any genes that code for a superior intelligence. Similarly, if intelligence were genetic, you would expect that it would breed true in familes, and marrying close relatives tends to produce people of superior intelligence. I think we can safely assume that last one hasn't been a huge success. :)

As for reproduction/survival being influenced by this whole "free will thing", and hence natural selection not being a factor in human genetics, this might work in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. We see the effects of natural selection with relation to skin pigmentation, for example. People in the regions of the world that recieve massive levels of sunlight (eg Africans and Pacific Islanders) have genes that code for a high amount of melanin in the skin, eyes, and hair. Melanin, of course, has a strong survival benefit against melanoma and catarcts. OTH, people who are adapted to climates with low sunlight (e.g Caucasians) have genes that code for very little melanin, because of its linkage with vitamin D deficiency and rickets in low sunlight areas. Those genes code for survival advantages in differant areas, and are a definite (although very small) genetic differance between African and Caucasian poupulations. Since the use of mictochondrial DNA has pretty much conclusively established that all humans living now are descended from a small group of females living in Africa, this is a pretty clear cut example of adapation to differant envoirnments by means of natural selection.

Again, that's where free will comes into the mix. I agree about familial intelligence, but there can be wide variation in a familial setting as to behavior, because of the influence of environment. Wife beaters, for example, usually come from backgrounds of having *seen* their dads abuse their moms at home while growing up. Take that kid outta that household at an early age (say, <2 yrs old), and place him with a loving, healthy adoptive family, and you've just drastically reduced the chances that he will perpetrate the same behavior himself as a husband.

Conversely though, there have been pretty startling cases of twins who, despite being raised in widely differant envoirnments, turned out to have similar jobs, similar interests, relations with similar people, and so on. Have you ever read Richard Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene"? It provides a very convincing (not to mention disturbing) argument for how any behavior, even those who seem to gain no advantage to the person involved, can be explained in terms of the advantage it actually does give that person to survive and perpetuate their genes. Helping someone at no reward to yourself, for example, leaves him indebted to you, and gives you someone you can count in a future time when you will yourself need assitance. While it's an argument that I don't like very much, it's one that simply can't be brushed aside with a simple statement that humans are special and not bound by the rules that apply to the rest of the natural world.

You've hit it on the head: "Behavior". Human intelligence is an inherited ("hardwired") physiological/biological trait, whereas behavior is completely an adaptive, learned thing--there's no "hard-wired" component to it. Even if we "learn" to lie/cheat/steal, you or I can *choose* to ignore these influences, and live an upright life. You can't "choose", however, to have a 150 IQ. (Be nice if we *could*, though, wouldn't it?...). Granted, "what you *do* with what you got" is a choice: A guy with a 150 IQ can certainly "act" as if he's an imbecile, and there are cases where a person with marginal intellect can "make the most" of their capacity, and be the best educated 70 IQ guy around. But still, their physiological capacity to learn/utilize knowledge remains static.

I quite agree, a person with IQ of 150 will, all other things being equal, outperform a person with an IQ of 75, or that you can choose it. You IQ level is pre-determined, but the question is, what determines it? I don't see where it's established that the base level of IQ is genetic. By the time children get to the age where IQ can be tested for, they have already undergone massive development in every aspect of learning and skill from the level they were at birth. Do you get that IQ of 150 because you were born that way, or your development cycle and envoirnment fostered it in you? And if the last is true, why doesnt genius breed true (even in lines such as royalty that are heavily in inter-marriage) and why aren't the children of imbeciles themselves imbeciles?

I'm with ya on that, for the most part. It's just that I ain't made up my mind how strongly I feel about that point. In other words, I feel that *some* tinkering is theologically allowable, but a "Tolwyn-type" deal is totally wrong. Question is, where do you draw the line?... That's the part I have a hard time with. Oh well.

To be honest, I think that until we learn to see into the future, and know just what will be usefull the challenges we face then, trying to draw that line is beyond human wisdom. Most likely we'll blunder along, making our fair share of mistakes along the way, and hopefully (hopefully being the operative word) not doing any terminal damage to our gene pool.

Best, Raptor
 
Originally posted by FrostyCOS1
I read your post. However, I have to disagree, I believe a higher population has a better statistical chance of a genetic mutation. In any case, I do not think our evolution has slowed at all due to population as you seem to think.
I think (and you can correct me) that if anything is slowing our evolution, it is our growing reliance on technology.

I agree with you mostly... but I don't so much think that about technology. It's just when we reach a point where we lose interest in the rest of the world that we're in trouble.
 
Originally posted by Raptor

"Road rage" is hardly a survival behavior... I don't agree that intelligence or IQ is a genetic given...despite much research by scientists, no-one has been able to show any genes that code for a superior intelligence. Similarly, if intelligence were genetic, you would expect that it would breed true in familes, and marrying close relatives tends to produce people of superior intelligence. I think we can safely assume that last one hasn't been a huge success. :)
1) Road rage *stems* from a survival behavior: the old "fight or flight" adrenaline response to provocation or percieved danger. As to intelligence (and thus IQ) being genetically determined, yer probably right that we haven't yet *identified* specific genes that code for this trait. However, it is *inferred* to be genetically determined, because of its link to various genetic anomalies (such as Down's syndrome), where low intelligence is a result of said anomaly. On your last point, it won't necessarily "breed true" in families because of how the mechanisms of dominant/ recessive traits, cross-linking, sex-linking, etc., flesh out regarding this particular trait. Basically, until we *do* identify the gene(s) responsible for the trait, we won't be able to understand the inheritance pattern of it. Also, as you point out, humans (unlike animals) are not too successful at inbreeding, whereas such happens all the time in the animal kingdom, with no prob's. Seems yet another genetic distinction from the beasts we've been given by the Creator.

As for reproduction/survival being influenced by this whole "free will thing", and hence natural selection not being a factor in human genetics, this might work in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice. We see the effects of natural selection with relation to skin pigmentation...this is a pretty clear cut example of adapation to differant envoirnments by means of natural selection.
2) You took a wrong turn there, and are driving up the wrong street: What I said was that *behavioral factors* (and thus the "free will" deal) influence what we express of our genetic heritage, as it relates to these areas. Thus, your whole argument about skin color may be correct, but it's irrelevant to the issue (since we can't "choose" our skin tone, etc.). My statement "works" not ONLY in theory, but also in FACT, as I've illustrated elsewhere.

...Have you ever read Richard Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene"? It provides a very convincing (not to mention disturbing) argument for how any behavior, even those who seem to gain no advantage to the person involved, can be explained in terms of the advantage it actually does give that person to survive and perpetuate their genes. Helping someone at no reward to yourself, for example, leaves him indebted to you, and gives you someone you can count in a future time when you will yourself need assitance. While it's an argument that I don't like very much, it's one that simply can't be brushed aside with a simple statement that humans are special and not bound by the rules that apply to the rest of the natural world.
3) It's not being brushed aside. My statement was quite specific, and we humans indeed are NOT bound by the rules that apply to the rest of nature, as it relates to the examples I gave. Case in point, the example you give above: Animals, after all, don't operate on altruism, thus that mechanism wouldn't occur in the natural world, "only" with us humans. That's the diff 'twixt being driven solely by instinct, and being driven primarily by intelligence/conscience. That's what sets us apart from the beasties, both genetically and morally. So, yes, we ARE "special".

::watches as Raptor's self-esteem grows exponentially::

Most likely we'll blunder along, making our fair share of mistakes along the way, and hopefully (hopefully being the operative word) not doing any terminal damage to our gene pool.

4) I know: that's what scares me...
 
Originally posted by Preacher

1) Road rage *stems* from a survival behavior: the old "fight or flight" adrenaline response to provocation or percieved danger. As to intelligence (and thus IQ) being genetically determined, yer probably right that we haven't yet *identified* specific genes that code for this trait. However, it is *inferred* to be genetically determined, because of its link to various genetic anomalies (such as Down's syndrome), where low intelligence is a result of said anomaly.


Well, Down's Syndrome is a *chromosomal* abnormality, not a genetic one. There is an extra copy of chromosome 13, IIRC, usually from the mother. The addition of such a huge amount of extra genetic material (over 2% of our normal chromosome number, very significant when you consider that there is only about 2% genetic differance between humans and chimpanzees) and the effect it has on the cells would retard all forms of mental and physical development, but it's a leap to extrapolate that to intelligence in normal people. Severe foetal alchol syndrome also retards mental development in the womb and produces people of sub-normal intellignce in a similar way to those who suffer from Down's Syndrome, but I have yet to see anyone suggest that intelligence is alcoholic. :)

On your last point, it won't necessarily "breed true" in families because of how the mechanisms of dominant/ recessive traits, cross-linking, sex-linking, etc., flesh out regarding this particular trait. Basically, until we *do* identify the gene(s) responsible for the trait, we won't be able to understand the inheritance pattern of it.


This is on the assumption that there is such a gene, of course. That is the point I always keep coming back to. There are three ways that a trait can be shown to be gentically linked. The first is the identification of a gene that codes for that trait. The second is the identification of specific bio-chemical (protiens, hormones, blood constituents) that always correlate to that trait. The third is to show that the trait breeds true. If none of those conditions can be satisfied, then
scientifically speaking, that trait can't be said to be genetic.

As far as intelligence goes, none of those *have* been satisfied. All you have presented so far is possibilities and speculations, and that doesn't satisfy the burden of scientific proof. Not only that, in science, if someone postulates the existence of something (i.e a gene that codes for higher intelligence) then the burden of proving that falls on that person, rather than on others to disprove it. It's a little ludicrous to say "This exists, and the reason that we haven't found any proof for it such and such, and we *will* eventually find the proof that supports my viewpoint." That relies on taking things on faith, which just doesn't fit the scientific methord. You always go with the evidence that you *have*, not the evidence that *might* exist.

Now, you're certainly entitled to say that it's your *belief* that intelligence is genetic, and I have no problem with that. However, without the evidence to support that belief, it remains just that, a belief or a hypothesis, and not a scientific fact. Similarly, you can say that the scietific methord isn't the only way of looking at things (or even the best way) and again, I would have absolutely no problem with that. However, you can't simultaneously claim that trying to select for traits such as intelligence is scientifically sound, and then try to prove the existence of genes that code for intelligence in a way that goes against the scientific methord.

Also, as you point out, humans (unlike animals) are not too successful at inbreeding, whereas such happens all the time in the animal kingdom, with no prob's. Seems yet another genetic distinction from the beasts we've been given by the Creator.


I think I'll just leave the Creator out of it, if it's all the same to you. Debating theology definitely isn't the way I want to go. The differances could just as easily be explained by natural means (i.e the small starting population of African women that I talked about earlier) as by divine ones. As I said though, that's an area of debate that I have no intent of getting into.

2) You took a wrong turn there, and are driving up the wrong street: What I said was that *behavioral factors* (and thus the "free will" deal) influence what we express of our genetic heritage, as it relates to these areas. Thus, your whole argument about skin color may be correct, but it's irrelevant to the issue (since we can't "choose" our skin tone, etc.). My statement "works" not ONLY in theory, but also in FACT, as I've illustrated elsewhere.


Actually, it would be more correct to say that after having taken a few side-roads in our debate, I was returning to the original topic of our discussion. I was replying to a point that you raised in the first post you made, which admitedly was a while back. To be specific:

"Natural selection, if it is to be believed in the first place, applies to "closed systems" (i.e., the "natural world"), not to human systems. The very things that set us apart from the animals are the things that doom this comparison. We have morals (well, some of us anyway...), intellect, reasoning, intelligence, free will, consciences, etc., and the animals do not. Therefore, we make free choices about with whom to mate and produce offspring, etc. This alters the equation considerably, and largely renders the comparison null & void."

The example of skin pigmentation (the differant adapation to hot and cold climatess) shows that natural selection does in fact apply to human systems as well as natural ones. If our free choice about who to mate with and so on could in fact render natural selection null and void, then these adpations could not have taken place. The fact that they have shows that free choice doesn't over-ride the basic proccesses of nature.

3) It's not being brushed aside. My statement was quite specific, and we humans indeed are NOT bound by the rules that apply to the rest of nature, as it relates to the examples I gave. Case in point, the example you give above: Animals, after all, don't operate on altruism, thus that mechanism wouldn't occur in the natural world, "only" with us humans. That's the diff 'twixt being driven solely by instinct, and being driven primarily by intelligence/conscience. That's what sets us apart from the beasties, both genetically and morally. So, yes, we ARE "special".


Again, the Dawkins theory is that "alturism" is only a disguised methord of gaining advantage for yourself. If you have help someone out, you leave him in debt to you, and give yourself a future ally. His theory is that our behaviour is driven by the "selfish" genes, which are interested only in their own perpetuation. In other words, we're no differant from any other animal in that we act in ways that will contibute to the survival of our genes, we just have a much less straight forward way of doing that. Like I said, it's not a theory that I like very much, but he supports his theory very well with examples of how even the most seemingly alturistic behaviour can be explained in terms of personal advantage. I would certainly reccomend reading it if you can get hold of a copy.

::watches as Raptor's self-esteem grows exponentially::


My self esteem is just fine, thank you. But it's nice to know that you care. :)

Best, Raptor
 
Back
Top