Once more the genes have the say

[sanjuro_ronin]

We all know by know that genetics is the key factor in physical prowess BUT for sometime the debate in terms of intellect was a bit off the charts because of the potential volatile nature.
Most simply wanted to assume that it was a combination of "nature and nurture" with more emphasis on nurture.
Well...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/genes-influence-academic-ability-across-all-subjects-latest-study-shows

Exert:


The researchers analysed genetic data and GCSE scores from 12,500 twins, about half of whom were identical.

Results in all subjects, including maths, science, art and humanities, were highly heritable, with genes explaining a bigger proportion of the differences between children (54-65%) than environmental factors, such as school and family combined (14-21%), which were shared by the twins.

Advertisement

Comparing the outcomes for identical twins with fraternal twins allows scientists to investigate the extent to which genetics influence a person’s life. Identical twins share 100% of their genes, whereas fraternal twins share on average only half of the genes that differ between people.

So if genetics were a significant factor governing GCSE results, the differences between fraternal twins’ performances would be expected to be consistently greater than those between identical twins – and this is what the scientists saw.

When the scientists factored in IQ scores, they found that intelligence appeared to account for slightly less than half of the genetic component, suggesting that other heritable traits – curiosity, determination and memory, perhaps – play a significant role.

Kaili Rimfeld, who led the study and is also at King’s College London, said: “There’s a general academic achievement factor. Children who do well in one subject tend to better in another subject and that is largely for genetic reasons.”

Plomin said that while talking about genetics and education was no longer the taboo that it was twenty years ago, education professionals were slow to adapt teaching methods in the face of new scientific findings. “It’s a problem with evidence,” he said. “Thirty years ago medicine wasn’t particularly evidence-based. I think education is fundamentally not based on evidence. What programme has been rolled out that has been based on evidence? We ought to hold educationalists to the same standards of evidence as medicine.”

Of course there was also a cautionary tone:


However, other scientists cautioned that it was too early to take the latest findings and apply them in schools. John Hardy, professor of neuroscience at University College London, said: “Twin studies are a mainstay of behavioural genetics, but they make a simple assumption that is unlikely to be true - that is that we treat identical twins the same as we treat non-identical twins. These results are interesting, therefore, but by no means definitive and it would be unwise to make educational decisions based on these data.”

To the caution I ask this:
What are we currently basing or "education decisions" on ?

[GeneChing]

I have the say.


:cool:

[Jimbo]

When discussing physical prowess alone, at least as it relates to MA, I've made some observations over the years. I strongly believe the mind, as well as other non-biological factors, and the body are interconnected. IMO, there are some things that cannot be accounted for chemically/genetically *alone*.

For instance, I've seen individuals who seemed to be highly gifted for MA (and for the sake of OT, this can apply to many things). They pick things up extremely quickly, grasp concepts well, progress rapidly, seem to display a keen passion and almost obsession for training for a few years. Sometimes within a couple years, outsiders mistake them for someone who's been training for over a decade...then bam. They stop showing up. Whether they burned out, lost all interest, or took on outside responsibilities doesn't matter. This does not include injury or illness. It's not that they stopped coming to class but still practiced on their own; they just quit cold turkey.

Then, maybe a couple-few years later, they drift back again. Of course, they're out of practice, but if it was all about genetics, they should be able to pick up right where they left off. But more often than not, in my observation, that isn't the case. It's as if all their natural talent for it has evaporated. They often seem unable to grasp basic concepts anymore, much less perform and apply them. Their former self-confidence in it is gone. Sometimes, they'll display an almost exaggerated awkwardness. Unlike their former selves, they'll start to melt into the background. Very shortly, they're gone forever. It wasn't like getting back on a bike again after several years. Keep in mind, the examples I'm talking about were all 25 or under.

For many people, many types of natural talents seem to have a "use by date". If they aren't developed and nurtured, they fall away. And sometimes even when developed to their highest potential early on, such talents can start to deteriorate at a relatively young age. This is often seen with child prodigies. Mental and other factors (not counting injuries) have much to do with it, and IMO there is more to the mind/body/spirit connection than only genetics, although those do play a big part, too.

[David Jamieson]

Let's not forget other factors that effect us as creatures.
For instance, there is a study that shows that children who undergo surgeries before the age of three and who are anesthetized (made unconscious) for the surgery suffer from diminished intellectual and physical ability later in life.

Foods we eat. how we are parented, our own choices in the long run etc. Many factors.

PS, of course there are no separate components to a being. Mind, body, soul if you believe you have one are all the same unit.

[GeneChing]

This is just too weird not to post somewhere here...:confused:


The Days of Lawlessness – Gene Editing comes to life, Pig Born With Human Face in China (https://freedomfightertimes.com/podcast/days-lawlessness-gene-editing-comes-life-pig-born-human-face-china/)
By Nate - 09/09/20160

A pig has been born in China with a human face. Many speculate that pollution is the cause of the deformity, but is it a deformity? Or is it genetic manipulation?

In July 2016 China was given the green light to begin human trials using the gene editing technology called CRISPR-CAS9. Scientists have all been abuzz about the “endless” possibilities of the CRISPR technology.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u3w8m8ld0xxd6gh/ad_218179705.jpg
Deformed Pig – human face
Recently; the US lifted the ban on part-human, part-animal hybrids known as chimeras. This allows scientists to create human organs inside of pigs and sheep.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8tE8sfkY4

Photos of the deformed animal have been widely shared on social media, showing the animal with its tongue lolling out as it yawns or gasps for breath.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ob0hq6x1yud2wn6/ad_218179712.jpg
Pig born with human face in China
Although the video has gone viral – where the pig came from is not clear, which is why there can be speculation that the piglet was potentially a part of experiments.

awww. the photos won't post. follow the link. there's a vid too.

WARNING: might be nightmare inducing.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Old news.
They have been doing this kind of "gene splicing" and playing around with DNA for sometime, regardless of authorization or not.
Science waits for no man, no government, no permission.

[boxerbilly]

Talk so old it often goes back to the beginning.

On a side relation-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolly_(sheep)

Now if we have the rudiments of the technology. Do anyone not believe we have done more with it ?Technology spreads fast. Spies after all. The only thing that could stop it is a lack of money or raw material regardless the technology. But if one has that kind of money would they be inclined to farm parts of the clone for themselves ? First problem. The clone/cloned parts deteriorate at about twice the speed. One way around that is make more clones. Of course maybe they have discovered they cause and fixed that ? Next to near perfect match so the probability of rejection is about as low as possible.

[MarathonTmatt]

Hello,

This area of research (cloning/ gene splicing/, chimeras) ties directly in with the thread mickey started "Meditator/ alchemist alert" which concerns the Egyptian Book of the Dead in the light of the new cutting edge sciences. Of course I would say that the science that these labs are using today are adulterated, and they may not as yet understand/ fully grasp consciousness.

Also there have been peer-reviewed articles in science journals since the 1970's or early 1980's stating that with the preservation of the mummification process, scientists are able in fact to clone the mummy DNA (and I would suspect they were able to do so a decade or two before those articles were published.)

[boxerbilly]

Hello Matt. I know little about that book aside from it being a book of spells. Onto the mummy conundrum. Perhaps the ancient mystics saw a time when we could bring back the dead but can we really ? We can potentially copy the physical form but how do we retrieve the soul, spirit, conscious whatever one calls it. ?

I'd guess there may be a spell in that book to do so ? Or would that also be inside the cells which raise yet another variant. We would have to recreate that life perfectly to recreate that individual perfectly. Impossible ? Maybe not. Perhaps our cells retain whole memory as well ? Most likely they believed they could summon the soul back to the body.

Stuff many movies are based on.

[Jimbo]

Perhaps the ancient mystics saw a time when we could bring back the dead but can we really ? We can potentially copy the physical form but how do we retrieve the soul, spirit, conscious whatever one calls it. ?

I'd guess there may be a spell in that book to do so ? Or would that also be inside the cells which raise yet another variant. We would have to recreate that life perfectly to recreate that individual perfectly. Impossible ? Maybe not. Perhaps our cells retain whole memory as well ? Most likely they believed they could summon the soul back to the body.

I personally feel that the idea of resurrecting a dead body is a bunch of hooey. I'm not talking about instances (and there are many) in which someone is briefly 'clinically dead' then brought back. I mean someone who is as dead as a doorknob. At that point, the connection between the soul and the body is completely and permanently gone. Besides, why would the soul even WANT to come back to it?

That's how I feel about "cryogenics". What a scam. In a corpse, the life energy is gone because the soul is gone. There is no more life left in the cellular structure to resurrect who that person was. Even if you cloned them using their own cells, at best you'd end up with a completely different soul inhabiting a very similar physical body as it grows up. That's a big problem with science; there is no consideration for soul/spirit.

I thought this might be of interest:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ted-williams-frozen-head-batting-practice-cryogenics-lab-book-article-1.381985

[boxerbilly]

Jimbo, that's the thing. You basically have a different spirit inside a exact or as close as we can come, body ! What's the point in doing that ? The only potential way to even possibly come close to recreating the spirit or at least the ego is to give him an identical life. We cant do that. At least not by anything Ive come across. Most religious scientists would say God creates the soul so gets issued a new soul ?

The potential that cells could contain full memory of that life is a possibility. If so, we could implant that memory and that could be useful but we can not create soul.

Perhaps that book as some recipe to bring them back. Why would any soul want that ? Some souls desire eternal power over man, would be my answer.

[MarathonTmatt]

Jimbo-

I agree about the soul leaving the body. Thank you for that. Also, :eek: holy mole @ the Alcor article.

Billy-

The video mickey shared in the "Meditator/ Alchemist Alert!" thread addresses many of the points we are wondering about w/ the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It is archived 4 or 5 pages back here in the Off Topic forums.

[boxerbilly]

Matt, funny. I was going to say if we do use that mummy dna we might be bringing back so ancient disease we cant identify and we have no control over. First couple of minutes. Viruses. Im hooked, LOL.

Okay have fun. I need to hear more about this from that lady.

[boxerbilly]

At a point in the film and BAM pops in my head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydbxuR_YV0Q

Flat earth alert !!!!

[boxerbilly]

I watched up to 49 of the vid Mickey placed in that thread. Drug talk and I thought its DMT. Funny, I just learned a mechanical way to potentially access/activate your bodies DMT center just yesterday. No, I have not done it. But of all the methods Ive seen/read/heard about this method seems the most achievable and time compressed but if you skip the other stuff you should do first, maybe not a good idea which could mean time wise you'll spend a few years. Now being someone that was once heart dead and got paddled. I bled out. I may have tripped on DMT once but honestly I don't recall.

I watch the rest tomorrow. Thanks TMatt. Thanks Mickey.

ps- its ashame her class seems to be just older folks. If I was young Id be front and center. But then, ive always been a nerd that sort of does not fit that cast because I was also a jock and I was also a stoner and I was...........just keep adding. Finding myself, lol.

[boxerbilly]

So a good cursory introduction into the possibility the ancients understood and potentially could use microbiology. Makes one think.