/sci/ - Science & Math

yeah where the gene for big dicks at thou white boi

thasrite fuck you nigga

>>10007761
back to >>>/pol/

>>10007770
>genetics isn’t /sci/
Kys.

>>10007765

>>10007770
Nigger detected

>>10007761
These studies are not reliable because the methodology is flawed and you're assuming your conclusion. You're trying to say "European superior intelligence isn't caused by epigenetic environmental factors, it's caused solely by genes" so then you conduct studies where you try to find genes that correlate with intelligence, but they're really correlating with the geographical areas that correlate to cultures which correlate with intelligence. Then you're finding statistical outliers that correlate with the genes of the people living in the culture that correlate with intelligence, and saying "see, these genes indicate intelligence"

This is flawed reasoning and these genes could be completely unrelated to intelligence despite this statistical correlation. Unless you've also performed studies regarding the actual physical affects of these genes, the proteins whose expression they cause, and the neurological affect of those proteins, this study is meaningless.

>>10007799
Nigger detected

>>10007799
>you're assuming your conclusion.
Yes, hypothesizing is how the scientific method works

>You're trying to say "European superior intelligence isn't caused by epigenetic environmental factors, it's caused solely by genes"
These genes would only account for one standard deviation and it explicitly states that it doesn’t disregard other potential factors. If anything the extremist view of ”one or nothing” is held by the convential (see:political) stance that genes have nothing to do with intelligence

>but they're really correlating with the geographical areas that correlate to cultures which correlate with intelligence.
Mind elaborating on this part? What does geographical area have to do with it except that genes cluster as a result of how offspring works

>Unless you've also performed studies regarding the actual physical affects of these genes, the proteins whose expression they cause, and the neurological affect of those proteins, this study is meaningless.
I have too little knowledge to elaborate specifically on the genes but the part of the body they effect is clearly stated

>>10007820
Let's say these are junk genes that have not much more than a no-op effect on the nervous system despite that being their targeted biological system. And let's say they only propagated throughout European societies because of geographical isolation from Africans, Asians, etc. Now let's say European societies experienced greater intelligence overall for cultural reasons i.e. the propagation of knowledge and educational techniques throughout the society. Now they would find themselves in a situation where coincidentally, these specific genes that correlate to the nervous system also correlate to Europeans, but these genes have no explanatory power with regards to European superior intellect

You're on /sci/ so you can't just say "I have too little knowledge" - if that's the case why are you talking about this topic?

>>10007832
I understand all of your first part, I’m questioning it’s relevance in the argument. As for them being junk genes, it is stated in the beginning that they are known to ”increase intelligence with genome-wide significance”. When I say I have too little knowledge of the specific genes I am talking about the nitty gritty and intricacies of what that would look like. The sources are stated in the bottom if you wish to confirm it for yourself

>>10007799
keep on shifting those goal posts all you want, intelligence, heritability and race have been pretty open and shut for a while now

>>10007854
>known to increase intelligence with genome-wide significance
This is a statement made by the paper that is supported by the paper itself, my argument is questioning the significance of the evidence that this paper and papers like this present for the statement.

>>10007859
The statement is made in the paper, yes. However, it uses the first reference to back up the claim

>>10007799
yes blah blah blah... ignore reality more faggot.

The pastebin containing the related information was removed, lmao
http://archive.is/IUDcy

Coincidence, of course

>>10007799
Reality Denial

>>10007946
Also someone else going through the data got stuff to show
>>>/pol/185936252
https://pastebin.com/h6Lr1dm4
http://archive.is/KZoPl

>>10007761
So we only know the genes that correlate intelligence in euros but nine if the ones in africans? Sane with height, the genes fir it in one population nay not be the same. in others.

Why the fuck are europeans bring used as the basis?

>>10007799
thank you for a non-retard-tier post

>>10007953
Nigger detected

>>10007957
/pol/tard detected

>>10007761
>references
>genetics as a predictor of outcomes
>still haven't defined the genes and how they translate to IQ

Let's say society was 100% undeniably racist against blacks. The gene for dark skin would now be an extremely good predictor of bad outcomes, with a very strong correlation. The race/gene connection would be very solid, no matter what the capabilities of the people actually were.

This methodology is flawed.

>>10007963
Shut up, nigger

>>10007964
>The gene for dark skin would now be an extremely good predictor of bad outcomes
would be?

>>10007967
So you admit you're making conclusion about cognition based purely on genes for skin tone. Thank you for that.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/185943879