https://x.com/eyeslasho/status/1848004187247858090
In study after study, modern genetics research is murdering blank slatism, and it's quickly becoming a bloodbath.
— i/o (@eyeslasho) October 20, 2024
Marxist biologist Stephen Jay Gould (who is still widely read and taught in academia) once said: "There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000… https://t.co/DhxRwitE3f
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.09.14.613021v1
!ifrickinglovescience !redscarepod !chuds
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's a valid point. Our genome isn't long enough to contain specific Information about how the neurons are interconnected. And since what we call intelligence is obviously something happening in our brain it can't be determined by genetics. Plus there's no reaction norm for it so that's another reason
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This doesn't follow at all
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How does it not follow? It's one of the main arguments against intelligence being genetic. The other ones being lack of reaction norm and the fact that intelligence isn't objectively quantifiable as it's not a purely biological trait but rather certain cognitive abilities that we arbitrarily defined as intelligence
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
What are you on about? Do you not understand what any of that means or what is the issue?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can create very complex systems with very little information and "lack of reaction norm" makes no sense to me
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not by those orders of magnitude though
Well then this whole discussion is pointless
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Says who?
U could expand on what u mean by that u know
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'm an ESLcel so it's kinda difficult to have a discussion this technical, but we dont have any model for human intelligence that links a specific genotype to a specific phenotype(intellect) depending on environmental circumstances, like we do for plant phenotypes etc. So no reaction norm, which would describe what genotype leads to what level of intelligence while factoring in circumstance. There's just no way to link the two, meaning there's 0 evidence for intelligence being genetic.
And the genome size argument is generally regarded as true by pretty much everyone
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Says who?
U could expand on what u mean by that u know
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This program is only 50mb, how could it possibly create files the size of gigabytes?!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not comparable but nice try buddy
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The point is that DNA doesn't encode a perfectly detailed map of all neural connections. It has parts at varying degrees of fidelity. The connections future development (mostly though pruning) is strongly influenced by the more detailed parts.
Take a more straightforward trait like time preference. It's not hard to see how tweaking it would affect intelligence, nor hard to see how different environments would select for it more or less.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context