Re: Just as all the hard work is over.....

OK seriously now John, hold the name calling and see if you can back up your
position, I'm a scientist, you claim some background see if you can address
my points below...

On 12/6/05 12:31 AM, in article k6hap1l9mf94tt28iahj3iv1s1kjgm9hkj@xxxxxxx,
"JRH" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 17:52:15 -0800, Cameron McDonald
> <cammcd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/05 4:21 PM, in article p5m9p1pjv9lrnbkm2tbs0225dj0v9ocihj@xxxxxxx,
>> "JRH" <john@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 12:48:38 -0800, Cameron McDonald
>>> <cammcd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A specious question which helps only to illustrate your ignorance of
>>>>> any direct link between hereditary environmental circumstances and
>>>>> genetic predispositions.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not too difficult to observe that most people from the social
>>>>> under-classes do perpetuate themselves, thus a causal link between
>>>>> their self-perpetuating social standing and their genes is a
>>>>> compelling argument.
>>>>
>>>> Oh god, eugen fischer eat your heart out
>>>
>>> The naive college boy's simplistic association between all things
>>> socially hierarchical and racial intolerance.
>>>
>>> You are a sad little fellow Cammie.
>>
>> And you're not very bright. The association was between your theory that
>> social class is inherited or genetically controlled
>
> That is not what I said and is just yet another example of tedious
> RSRU sophistry. What I actually said was:
>
> "direct link between hereditary environmental circumstances and
> genetic predispositions.
>
> It is not too difficult to observe that most people from the social
> under-classes do perpetuate themselves, thus a causal link between
> their self-perpetuating social standing and their genes is a
> compelling argument."

You said "most people from the social under-classes do perpetuate
themselves, thus a causal link between their self-perpetuating social
standing and their genes is a compelling argument."

Then you said to Andy "A human's genes are his/her genes. There is no way
that environmental circumstances can change a persons genotype. However, it
is clear that persons of a perpetual underclass possess genes that are
similar, and it is that passing on of those genes to successive generations,
that predisposes and condemns them to a similar way of life as they
predictably and habitually congregate among similar genotypes."

These statements (specifically "..a causal link between self perpetuating
social standing and their genes is a compelling argument." and "... it is
clear that persons of a perpetual underclass possess genes that are similar,
and it is that passing on of those genes to successive generations, that
predisposes and condemns them to a similar way of life as they predictably
and habitually congregate among similar genotypes.") clearly constitute a
theory social class is inherited or controlled genetically which is what I
said. The only sophistry was that I attributed the theory to you when as you
say it has been around since Darwins cousin came up with the psuedoscience
of eugenics. My assertion is that the influence of genes on perpetuating of
social standing or class is negligible compared to environmental factors and
I provided a reference to back it up.

>> and Fischer's similar
>> work in eugenics that inspired Hitler...
>>
>> As it happens you are wrong again see:
>
> There are too many studies and esoteric papers to support the
> "argument" and thus effectively negate the assertions made in the
> following abbreviated treatise.

I ask you to provide me one, just one reference that supports the argument
"it is clear that persons of a perpetual underclass possess genes that are
similar, and it is that passing on of those genes to successive generations,
that predisposes and condemns them to a similar way of life as they
predictably and habitually congregate among similar genotypes." If you
can...(if there are so many it shouldn't be too hard)

This is not an abbreviated treatise it is a summary (by the author) of the
key points from a published, peer-reviewed scientific paper that directly
refutes John Hudsons assertions on the perpetuating of social standing.

>> NA Holtzmann, Genetics and social class
>> Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2002;56:529-535
>>
>> Key points
>>
>> * Seldom if ever are traits associated with social class explained by
>> genetic differences. These traits are usually the result of inequalities,
>> not the cause.
>> * When complex traits are influenced by genes, many independently
>> segregating alleles are usually involved; they will not be transmitted
>> together from one generation to the next.
>> * Even if mating were rigorously controlled (non-random) one class could
>> not propagate itself on genetic grounds.
>> * Heritability measurements exaggerate the genetic, compared with the
>> environmental, contribution and provide no information about the number of
>> genes involved or how they result in the trait.
>> * Genetics should cease to be a subterfuge for explaining social
>> differences.
>>
>> And...
>>
>> http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/Turkheimer%20psychological%20s
>> cience.pdf
>
> This paper is to do with heritability of cognitive ability or IQ in
> children. It is only remotely related to the "compelling argument" to
> which I was referring. However, it does say early in its discourse:

Heritability is central to your assertions which are basically that social
class is heritable, mine are the opposite ie no its not heritable it is
almost entirely a result of environmental factors...

> "Whereas studies that compare the mean IQs of children"
> rescued from poverty with the IQs of their parents or impoverished
> siblings often find large differences that are attributed to the
> environment"
> (Turkheimer, 1991).

Yes, this tells us that heritability of in this case IQ is a FUNCTION of
social position or environment. Ie that for the impoverished (your social
underclass) IQ is NOT heritable (this admittedly only recently available
research refutes your argument and many of the points in the bell
curve)...hence social economic status which presumably is a much less
heritable set of traits than IQ should also NOT be heritable or causally
linked to their genes.

> Thus proving that a little knowledge is dangerous, and that the
> dangerous "little knowledge" obtained from a random Google search,
> bestows as much useful knowledge of the subject matter to the would-be
> researcher, as a brain transplant from a cadaver.

The references below do not support your argument again I ask you for JUST
ONE reference that suggests social standing is linked to genes.

> Try:
>
> "1.1 Human behaviour is influenced both by the genes that we inherit
> and the environment in which we live. With the significant advances in
> our knowledge of genetics and publication of the draft sequence of the
> human genome, the focus of research has moved once again towards
> understanding the biological contribution to behaviour."
>
> http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/browseablepublications/geneticsandhb/repor
> t_357.html
>
> "We believe that equality of opportunity is a fundamental social value
> which is especially damaged where a society is divided into groups
> that are likely to perpetuate inequalities across generations. We
> recommend, therefore, that any genetic interventions to enhance traits
> in the normal range should be evaluated with this consideration in
> mind"
>
> Nuffield Council on Bioethics
>
> "A moment's reflection makes clear that everything about us - all our
> physical and behavioural traits - is the result not just of our genes,
> but of interactions between our genetic inheritance and the
> environment to which we are exposed throughout our lives."
>
> Dr Jan Witkowski, New York
>
> Try Googling the controversial 'The Bell Curve' by Richard J.
> Herrnstein and Charles Murray, and then read 'The Attack on The Bell
> Curve' By Richard Lynn, if you want some depth of knowledge and some
> well argued opposing views.
>
> There are many more and you are out of your depth Cammie, as usual.
>
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • RACE and Medicine
    ... differ in genes that impact health, they of course will be expected to ... As Jon Entine wrote in "Why Race Matters in Sports" on his website: ... unfairly stigmatize some patients and lead to inferior health care. ... Stephens, vice president for genetics. ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: An epigenetic model of loss and vestigialization of limbs in
    ... The python's CNS, in response to the evolutionary loss, changes ... (like Watson-Crick base-pairing in genetics) ... know in detail is how the genes determine the structure of the ... site, including limb development. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • A Hunt for Genes That Betrayed a Desert People
    ... A Hunt for Genes That Betrayed a Desert People ... Hundreds have been born with such diseases ... himself a Bedouin from Israel. ... genetics center with two neighboring branches, ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • Re: Just as all the hard work is over.....
    ... >> under-classes do perpetuate themselves, ... >standing and their genes is a compelling argument." ... forms the very environment that perpetuates the cycle. ... >> our knowledge of genetics and publication of the draft sequence of the ...
    (rec.sport.rugby.union)
  • Genetic breakthrough that reveals the differences between humans
    ... Scientists hail genetic discovery that will change human understanding ... The discovery has astonished scientists studying the human genome - the ... having multiple copies of some key genes that make up the human genome. ... genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, ...
    (alt.support.mult-sclerosis)