Yes, but is also one of the most heritable traits overall. The son of a judge has a 500X more likely chance to be qualified to be a judge. Read books prior to 1950, they use empericaldata
I have some questions on increasing IQ and regression to the mean
Hudson Bell
Christopher Mitchell
Bump because you're clearly a nigger.
Luis Morales
You are correct.
Samuel Collins
""Are you Ryan Faulk? Cause you seem to know your stuff""
One thing I'm still not understanding is where do new additive genes come from? Since intelligence is additive where did the gene A which says +10 IQ come from? I understand now that they all interact with one another but where does the new additive gene A +10 IQ which interacts with gene B +50 IQ come from? To simplify what I'm saying is, Genome already has Gene B and C together making up 50+20 = 70 IQ, but where does the new additive gene A +10 IQ come from for the IQ to go up to 80?
Also is there something we do IRL with this information? I've heard of Epigenetics, and have seen those videos in which the diet supposedly allows for turning the genes on/off ""see hooktube embed"". Is this of any practical use to us? Some people are born with blonde hair and it gets darker as they age, is this due to epigenetics? If I were to get jacked, live a healthy lifestyle, I assume my kids would have great healthy bodies, but what can I do in a similar vein for intelligence? Keep learning things?
Can you please suggest a few books? Also any books/sites you recommend for a layman to get more knowledge on this stuff? Alternative Hypothesis is the only one I know of.
Adrian Hall
No.
All new genes come from mutations.
It started as a mutation, and since it was an adaptive mutation, it was selected for.
Same thing: mutations. DNA somehow gets fucked up, usually through copying errors, and a new gene is formed!
longevityreporter.org
(When they say "gene duplication" they mean copying errors, as copying errors come from genes being duplicated [reproduced].)
What do you have in mind? I mean, we can use this info to know how much immigrants kids will regress back to the mean, so we have an idea of what the next generation will be like.
Yes, because then we can tell what effect that environment has on genes and gene expression.
Yes, this is a form of epigenetic. Epigenetics doesn't mean "environment changing gene expression" like most people think. Epigenetic is the study of heritable changes in gene function that do not involve changes in the DNA sequence itself. So basically it's the study of genes changing expression (on/off) and why. The why can be either genetics or environment. Just because something is epigenetic, does not mean that is it due to environment, though. To give you an example, hair color changing when you're older is due (mainly) to the genes themselves changing their expression, but this is a heritable trait and not environmental entirely.
Another example is puberty: when you enter puberty is both heritable and environmental. Your genes for puberty are coded genetically to flip on at a certain age, you go through puberty, and those genes for puberty growth stop expressing themselves after awhile. This is a genetic (and environmental since environment can affect puberty) example of epigenetics: genes changing expression, due to heritable causes.
Another example of heritable epigenetics is facial hair: the genes for facial hair change their expression to be turned on later in life so you can grow facial hair when you're old enough.
So when people talk about epogenetics, don't jump the gun and think "oh, this means that the environment must be doing the gene changing!" No, the gene changing expression can be genetic too. Hence why it's the study of' heritable changes to gene expression.
No, they wouldn't. All parental epigenetics that are environmentally induced get reprogrammed and washed out in the mother's womb, as it could fuck up new cells being made due to genes being programmed in a way they're not meant to be programmed to work in womb. The epigentics that are heritable of course stay with your kids because, well, they're heritable. So no, you working out will not make your kids healthier via process of epigenetics. Read these:
learn.genetics.utah.edu
genomebiology.biomedcentral.com
westhunt.wordpress.com
westhunt.wordpress.com
harvardmagazine.com
No, because as explained epigenetics via environment get washed out. Really just give your kids a good diet, send them to school, make sure they don't get hit on the head, and spend time with them and they'll be fine.
Leo Cook
The way I learned this stuff was not classes or text books, but just reading papers and looking up stuff I didn't know.. So I suggest just reading research papers, stuff on race or behavioural genetics. The stuff you don't know you can Google. Learn it on your own can be hard, but it can be done.
I suggest reading Rushton's papers; Henry Harpending's papers; read Frank Salter's papers on kinship and ethnic genetic interest; Michael A. Woodley's; I suggest too Nikolay's Genetics Lessons.
Some papers to read (just titles because I have these as PDFs):
Ernst Mayr The biology of race and the concept of equality
GENE-CULTURE COEVOLUTION AND GENETIC SIMILARITY THEORY: IMPLICATIONS FOR IDEOLOGY, ETHNIC NEPOTISM, AND GEOPOLITICS by Rushton
Misunderstandings of Kin Selection and the Delay in Quantifying Ethnic Kinship Frank Salter*
Two complementary perspectives on inter-individual genetic distance Omri Tal∗
Confusions about race: A new installment Neven Sesardic
Kinship and Population Subdivision Henry Harpending
Mate Choice and Friendship in Twins Evidence for Genetic Similarity J. Philippe Rushton and Trudy Ann Bons
Inclusive fitness in human relationships J. PHILIPPE RUSHTON*
Genetic and environmental contributions to population group differences on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices estimated from twins reared together and apart J. Philippe Rushton1,*, Trudy Ann Bons1, Philip A. Vernon1 and Jelena C vorovic´
2
civic nationalism, evolutionary psychology and Genetic Similarity Theory by Rushton
Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications Michael A. Woodley
Race: a social destruction of a biological concept Neven Sesardic
I suggest starting with Rushton's works on genetic similarity theory and inclusive fitness; then move to Salter's work on Kinship and it will build you up to understanding Henry Harpending's work on subdivision population kinships.
Noah Baker
Then why do women go for men who are fit? Is it just due to hunter-gatherer time protection against the wild? Shouldn't the genes that were helping people thrive in hunter-gatherer lifestyles, i.e. fit body, strong lower jaw, fast running, all reduced in their expression after the advent of modern civilization? I've always believed that we prefer fit partners as we would like to have fit off-springs.
This got me thinking, could you pass down any "enhancements" you'd get from nootropics? Epigenetic changes to intelligence through the drugs and the bettered intelligence being inherited?
Logan Scott
Thank you for these
sage since I should've done this in my previous post
Bentley Gray
Lots of reasons: health in general as you want your offspring to survive, fitness allows for better work to gather resources, health allows for better childcare, and sexual dysmorphia.
This and the reasons above.
Yes and no. Fit body should stay for the most part because that helps with work and childcare; fast running can go unless you have a job that requires fast movements; strong jaw will and in all honesty probably everything here will stay due to sexual selection and women liking menly men because it's easier to tell who is a man and woman, and who and who not to mate with.
Yes, and this is one reason for it most likely staying around.
If the drugs can actually change the structures of you DNA for it to be inherented, then I don't see why not.
Logan Brooks
Regression to the mean is a joke spread by anti-eugenicists. If two really smart people have a baby, yes it probably won't be as smart as them, but it will probably be smarter than average still. Not guaranteed of course, but likely, which means there's no reason to think a large-scale program would fail. There's other concerns with eugenics of course, like shrinking the gene pool making it more vulnerable to disease and such. But regression to the mean does NOT mean what they say it does.