/sci/ - Science & Math

Fear.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26639-the-smart-mouse-with-the-half-human-brain/#.VHx_yTGsW4g

>>10064833
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26639-the-smart-mouse-with-the-half-human-brain/#.VHx_yTGsW4g

They should do it with a monkey.
Imagine the results

https://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1094&context=etd

>select fruit flies for passing a wind tunnel
>20 years, 520 generation later
>from 0,2 m/s to 1,7 m/s super flies

>>10064876
I'm astounded no one has ever played god on a level beyond this before.

It makes me want to start caging rats and selecting the smart ones myself as a hobby.

>>10064887
You will not get anywhere with them during your laughably short lifespan.

>>10064868
holy shit anon, we could all increase our neuroplasticity maybe

>>10064828
>>10064868
>>10064887
hard limits due to metabolic, musculoskeletal, immune, sexual and energetic constraints you fucking tards

>>10064925
Not necessarily. You can over-feed them and forcibly impregnate them.

It would eventually just be an ineffective life-form, but the intelligence would still be there.

>>10064934
>It would eventually just be an ineffective life-form, but the intelligence would still be there.

hey, just like us

>>10064934
>>10064925
But it's ultimately inhumane, cruel, and pointless. To give them such a brain just so they can be aware of how greatly they suffer would be horrible.

No. Fuck off. Stupid mice already cause enough problem when invading homes.

>>10064828
And in fiddy they would be mentally on par With niggers

>this is what evolution fags actually believe
The absolute state...

>>10064828
>If we only grab mice that are smart and make them reproduce rapidly, we could increase IQ of mice
To an extent, and this is assuming we ca even measure mouse IQ
>If we do this for 100 years, we could have mice mentally on par with human beings
no we couldnt

>>10065027
It would become more brain than mice. A yuge blob of brain mass.

>>10065036
No it wouldn't. We would reach a plateau with their intelligence and then other unintentional genetic anomalies would start to show up.

>>10064828
> increase IQ of mice

You'd only be increasing them in the specific things you are training/testing them for which won't be a proper metric for intelligence. It is the same if you train to take IQ tests, you just get good at IQ tests, but you don't get more intelligent. Only for this, you are doing it genetically in the mice, essentially training them to be intelligent only for the IQ test. Like domestication, this may make them seriously lax in other areas.

>wow that mouse is really smart at these tests
>...hook that feeding tube back up

>>10064828
Go for it, Willard

Because it means fuck all op. Dolphins have the highest eq (brain body ratio) of non-human mamals and are still intellectually shit compared to tool making Corvids and agricultural Ants.

The engineered mice would at best maybe achieve some rudimentary pack hunting similar to dolphins and dogs but there's no guarantee they will achieve anything else. And honestly the two noteworthy examples of animals above achieved their feats through alternative means that vaired differently from how human brains work.

>>10064946
if there's some species out there that lives 300 years on average and a baseline intellect around that of Einstein or Newton, they'll probably think the same of us, but here we are

>>10064828
Because it's not easy to specifically breed for one thing without having a lot of other things go wrong.

>>If we do this for 100 years, we could have mice mentally on par with human beings
It would be a lot longer than that, they''d have to evolve bigger skulls to contain the brain, bigger spine to support the skull, ect.

>>10064925
You could say the same shit about the first single celled organism, fucking dumb nigger

>>10065133
>train for IQ test
so you'll be completely missing the point of the test, bravo

>If we only grab humans that are smart and make them reproduce rapidly, we could increase IQ of humans
>If we do this for 100 years, we could drastically increase the IQ of the human race

Why doesn't anyone do this?

>>10064828
Because evolution is a sham and they'll never get smarter than the current smartest mouse, ever. Natural selection just "selects" what already exists. You can't select something that doesn't exist. Inb4 "muh random mutation creates novel traits that didn't exist before" lie. No they don't. Even if there's only 40 genes related to intelligence that's more possible combinations than mice have ever lived. Claiming mice are getting smarter is just narrowing down particular gene combinations for a specific outcome in a genealogy, not selecting something novel. The net complexity stays the same. You can do this with other traits too. We can breed the fasted dogs we've ever seen without the need for mutations if we just keep selecting what is already there. Evolution is selection + mutations, no mutations no evolution...

There is zero proof that actual random mutations can create a net novel benefit in an organism. Every time there is alleged proof it's either : 1.) a fluke situation that clearly makes the organism far worse off in a host of other ways (like sickle cell stopping malaria), 2.) the random mutations themselves represent a preexisting feature and not a novel one, which therefore cannot be correctly labeled as evolution anyway (such as the random hemagglutinin protein structures on the outside of an influenza virus act as camouflage but will never, ever, evolve into anything else because that trait exists because it is selected for its inherent randomness that acts as camouflage to an immune system: if randomness is the beneficial trait you can't really evolve into an ordered structure now can you?) 3.) Mix of above first paragraph and it's just preexisting genes in a particular combination that offers a benefit, not random mutations. This could possibly explain the 2008 e-coli study where the claim was they "randomly mutated" a novel ability to metabolize citrate or something. They never proved the feature is NOT dormant and just got turned on.

>>10065349
>Because evolution is a sham
back to >>>/pol/

>>10064934
It wouldn't because the conditions of the other organs and the immune system would be compromised, disease burden would become prohibitive. You can't infinitely enhance life unless you can manipulate the biochemical substrate and genome, building a new organism from the ground up, and that's a significantly more difficult task (though a noble one).
>>10064946
morality isn't real and they're fucking mice, I don't care at all about whether they suffer its just a stupid and unfeasible idea to begin with.
>>10065289
completely different, genetic drift, random mutation, purifying/negative selection acting as a form of hygiene to guard against the exact kind of problems that would arise in your little breeding project, freak environmental and later ecological changes and billions of years of sweet loving from entropy are not equivalent to breeding smart rodents for 100-200 years in a lab, brainlet.

>>10065295
Some group of people actually have been doing this for centuries, but keep it secret or /pol/ will go mad

>>10065040
Oh, you mean like humans whove reached a platue? It would just get bigger and bigger, if we selected out the anomalies.

>>10065349
so lol, you're saying that new combinations of amino acids WON'T produce different physiological effects? Interdasting

>thinks this one weird trick called taking vitamin supplements with the correct combination of amino acids will raise IQ, and doctors hate him!
Good one. I never said amino acids don't have any psychological effects, what an utterly ridiculous conclusion. Show me an "amino acid combination" that will raise your intelligence commensurate to 30 IQ points. You can't, duh, because different combinations and levels of amino acids in your bloodstream don't work that way. They only serve to improve the function of your brain up to your brain's maximum utility set by genetics and environment.

Your question is pretty stupid in the first place considering all living mammals on the planet contain only 20 distinct amino acids. There's no "new combinations" just varying stoichiometric ratios which only a moron would call a new combination. Is it a new combination if you use twice as much salt in pizza dough? People would think you're retarded if you said "I came up with a new combination of pizza dough ingredients: use twice as much salt!"

>>10065489
>>10065594
meant for you

>>10065364
Why do you retards thibk everything you dont like = /pol/

You're actually more annoying than the /pol/ niggers

>>10064828
I actually thought of doing the same shit, but couldn't figure out a good method of measuring their "general" intelligence.

>>10065349
>"muh random mutation creates novel traits that didn't exist before"
This is literally how it works. Spontaneus random changes in the sequence of DNA is the main driving force of macroevolution, shit like selection and epigenetics drive evolution too, but have no physical/chemical basis unlike mutations.

>>10065712
To correct myself, epigenetic changes are on a chemical basis, but don't bring new changes to the DNA sequence itself

>>10065349
This.
>>10065712
>spontaneous random changes in the sequence of DNA
Which has nothing to do with human-engineered selective breeding, unless you're willing to fuck up each zygote with ionizing radiation and perform *literally millions* of trials in order to get that one little viable mutation.

>>10065708
I think you can start with some aspects of intelligence like spatial rotation or memorisation.
>show them an image with some abstract images
>they pick from a number of flashcards
>give them a reward like food if they get it right
>breed the ones with the highest performance
At each generation you can even study the differences in the brain structures.

>>10065737
>Which has nothing to do with human-engineered selective breeding, unless you're willing to fuck up each zygote with ionizing radiation and perform *literally millions* of trials in order to get that one little viable mutation.
True, but that's just our lack of technology in doing so, not that it is impossible.There are other ways to induce mutations, like transposone-induced mutagenesis, there are ways of detecting where these mutations landed and there are ways to select for these zygotes, but it's all so expensive and time-consuming, it's not viable in this day an age. But I wouldn't go as far as saying "evolution is a sham and all we can do is select for traits that already exist". It's not a general truth that will be still true in the next few centuries.

>>10065755
>try to breed intelligent mice using a well-known test for psychic abilities
Anon, are you TRYING to bring about the end of the human race?

>>10065768
i love mice!