future in genetics discussion
monthly read
>
Monthly reading for june
date
newest »
newest »
Hello! I'm new to the group.
Will we have a selection for August? I can offer recommendations as well!
Mod
No worries! Yes, I'd love to. What do you think about The Genetic Lottery: Why DNA Matters for Social Equality by Kathryn Paige Harden?
Mod
Mod
From the suggested above "The agile Gene how nature turns on nurture. By Matt Ridley" looks cool!
Mod
No I do not have a copy yet. If the book had a kindle version I could get it quickly but it does not :(. I do have The Book of Humans: A Brief History of Culture, Sex, War and the Evolution of by Adam Rutherford on kindle already if you don't mind reading that one.
Mod
Mod
A bit slow, but I don't mind hearing your thoughts ahead of time at all. How would we typically discuss? Zoom?
Mod
Okay! No not yet, but there were some things earlier I found interesting. I'll start compiling :)
Sorry it took so long. So, some points so far that I find very interesting:1. The 40,000/45,000 years ago "change" that happened in homo sapiens that led to us making art and having culture--apparently there is no genetic basis for this but I am wondering if there was some environmental change that helped us formulate culture or if it involved finally having a spoken language or something of the sort.
2. This line: "...though Neanderthal DNA is slowly being purged from our genomes for reasons that are not fully understood," is extremely perplexing (in general I'm a bit obsessed with Neanderthals, so...) I want the citation for this little fact. Point #1, about Homo sapiens speaking, my running hypothesis is that Neanderthals were later to the verbal communication game, or fewer in numbers and that's why they were "easily" integrated into the Homo sapiens' population.
3. "Our bodies became modern long before our minds did, which is a puzzle worth examining." I actually just went to a lecture and have citations for this fact, and will read and share if you're interested!
4. "The earliest Homo sapiens are found in Morocco and are around 300,000 years old, but these are sometimes referred to as archaic, rather than anatomically modern, humans, the oldest of which are more like 200,000 years old." Something that I try to keep in mind whilst reading is that archeology is not an exact science... everything depends on what can be found, so most dates are in fact not fact, but more approximations.
5. "...we are beginning to think that some women are tetrachromats, meaning that they have photoreceptors that are optimised to detect four primary colours, rather than the standard trichromatic three. The new primary colour will be in the green range..." I never knew this!! What's interesting is also the common colorblindness is red-green for men, so this increase in range, while also having this genetic mutation, maybe they are somehow correlated in when they both arose. I don't know too much about the genetics or hypotheses around the plausible origin of the colorblindness mutation.
6. Imagine if birds or whales had hands...
7. "Some behaviours are encoded in DNA and others are acquired, yet still built on top of a genetic and physiological frame that allows the development of that trait." The whole thing about the "Sponging Eve" and dolphins was absolutely magnificent... I wonder how many behaviors humans have that are similar and unexplainable.
Mod
my response
#1and #3. little genetic change has occurred in homo sapiens(at least in the last 10,000 years) to allow us much to provide intellectual advancement.
at some point, man decided there was more advantage to being like one another. i believe due to the social environment. so much so that our scull shapes became remarkably similar where as they varried greatly in the past.
I believe our minds have evolved to be malleable and plastic(see book The Plastic Mind) thus allowing for a human being to adapt to any environment. though, of course, such plasticity decreases when we grow older. modern western culture, i believe, began with the greeks. each country then copied this culture and adapted it to their own purposes, intermingling the greek influence with their own individual influences.
the evolution of our tongues is a date you might be interested in looking up. this point in time is a point in which we became able to pronounce our modern languages and is a very recent evolution. so advantageous is this trait that it became ubiquitous within homo sapien.
#2 i dont believe neanderthals were able to speak whatsoever. they were more solitary as well which is why they were conquered by wave after wave of humans.
even today you can see how mans ability to communicate will allow even the weakens of people to take control of or destroy a much stronger opponent.
i believe neanderthals ability to make spear heads predates man's, so they were perhaps more intelligent than humans. thought they were stronger than human beings they also had limited mobility due to their smaller legs so genetic drift in which their descendants spread far and wide was limited.
#5 i believe the book stated that trichromatic sight evolved out of our species at two different point within our evolution, which is where color blindness stems from.
i must have skimmed over the word tetrachromats. I'm familiar with the idea that some females have enhanced color perception. do they view all colors with greater perception, or just the green spectrum?
6. i like that idea of what if birds had hands. the fact that they are so intelligent in spite of having smaller brains (more densely packed neurons). means that if they walked on land that their body mass and brain mass would both increase. with hands they would be able to manipulate tools as well as human beings. it would be the same as in an anime where animals are humanized, and they might be a competing species if that were the case
7. this question delves into psychology. the question of nurture versos nature. education, for example, has focused on a read/write ability for thousands of year. it is not really part of our nature to have this ability, so how does this play out in the measurement of an individuals intelligence?
also, many traits, such as being able to sit still in a classroom, and docility, prove to be more beneficial in our school environments. such selection for traits allows such a great advantage for those who possess them
I'll post later once i thumb through the book again about anything i have found interesting
Mod
#1 and #3About the skull types--that's quite interested. But did skull types of populations globally just converge to a similar phenotype or is it possible that some human populations just dominated others? "man decided there was more advantage to being like one another" -- this could just be through warfare, integration, etc. But yes, since size does not necessarily equal intelligence, there would be something else, potentially and also, at work here. The Stoned Ape theory, perhaps? lol. Cool information about tongues!
#2
Ah, interesting! I will have to look-into it more. "...smaller legs so genetic drift in which their descendants spread far and wide was limited." ohh this is very cool, didn't know about this!
#5
Aha, so there is some kind-of link... I think women "recognize" more colors then men do generally, but as for green may have enhanced perception, based on what this book said.
#6
Yes this is extremely fascinating... also if they had hands and still wings... Maybe wings actually use too much energy and therefore this is why they didn't develop larger brains? Aside from having hollow bones that may not support the weight of a larger brain.
#7
"it is not really part of our nature to have this ability, so how does this play out in the measurement of an individuals intelligence? also, many traits, such as being able to sit still in a classroom, and docility, prove to be more beneficial in our school environments. such selection for traits allows such a great advantage for those who possess them" Oh yes... this is another whole discussion we could have haha, and there are some books on the topic so maybe that could be our next one :)
Mod
pretty soon all of mankind will look and think alike. this is most likely why the genetics for our tongues spread so rapidly as well. one would ve superficially judged as being stupid just because they could not pronounce the words properly. being selected against for breeding.
in order to carry a larger brain a bird needs to have a larger wing span such as the albatross.
a funny story-. the cockatoos of sydney australia have learned to open dumpsters and the behavior has spread amongst them.
I would recommend the Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould if you want to read about the subject of how we are judged by our IQ
ill post what i found interesting in the book next
Mod
the part about our species evolving duplicate genes to enhance to improve our radial glia as well as our dendrites is fascinating. I wonder how many of us possess genes which further augment the brain and provided a greater advantage. such traits would be difficult to assess.
finally... what if mankind had gone down a similar social evolution as the bonobos? with sexual stimulation being the primary occupier of our free time. would we live in a more peaceful world? have we had several chances to pursue such a path only to have the more aggressive homo sapiens wipe out the more peaceful ones?
war is supposed to provide the necessity for invention. would our society have experienced such technological developments without such conflicts?
I think Neanderthal is breeding-out because firstly there really is not much of it left, and secondly I would also speculate that globalization has allowed Europeans to not bear children with strictly other Europeans, so therefore it's not as concentrated. Thank you for the book recommendation!
Regarding giraffes, the author did note that they separate into male and female groups, and female giraffes really don't reproduce that much overall (I think he said their fertility window is extremely small). What's interesting to me is that male-on-male was observed, but not female-on-female... Maybe it's just.... anatomy that make one more common over the other. If the giraffes had the equipment like elephants, where they can actually self-stimulate effectively, I wonder if the homosexual acts would be less common... It's interesting--maybe this is just giraffe culture?
"the part about our species evolving duplicate genes" -- don't think I've gotten here yet?
Maybe sexual stimulation IS the primary occupier of our time, we're just not aware of it? The neurochemical underpinnings of sexual stimulation... dopamine, oxytocin, adrenaline, vasopressin, etc. we have that by doing various tasks hahaha just look at men in football stadiums...
Human brains are weird enough that those pathways are actively engaged in other aspects of our lives... What do you think?
War might not be a requirement for innovation, but the human condition of wanting power over others is. In the same way laziness is. This is a complex idea... War may have propelled advancement, in certain directions I would say. Nuclear warfare and nuclear energy require the same materials, it's just what we decide to do with them. So maybe context matters for innovation. Really anything can be used to kill people.
cast-iron theory - had you ever heard of it? I tried to find it online but couldn't
How about this cool fact: "It suggests that a genetic basis that predisposes men towards homosexuality may also be the same code that facilitates increased fertility in their female relatives." Now I need to do a survey of my friends! haha
Another thing I found interesting was the fact about Chimps eating their new babies? That mother chimps actually hid to give birth (apparently, Chimps aren't the only animals that do this) but then I happened to read this article: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/20...
Given that we share a common ancestor with Chimps, this is so so interesting! So human women, when they smell the baby probably have an aggressive urge to protect them, while it makes males chill-out. I wonder if this was because of this issue in our earlier evolution!
"Back when the roman empire was at it's peak homosexual behavior was perfectly normal between older accomplished men and younger aspiring ones." it's weird because it seems like there is always a power differential -- even in the examples given in the book about human male "homosexuality". This is just paedophilia, possibly. Is it because we record the past with omitting actual romantic homosexuality? I know this is done with women a lot. History like to paint some famous women as being "just friends" (even though they cohabitated for 20+), they were definitely gay. I think the lense with which we see homosexual behavior in the past is a bit..... inaccurate.
Mod
ooh, gross, men become aroused at a sexual level while watching football? bwahahaha, no wonder they become addicted to the sport.
it is interesting that we use the same pathways for multiple purposes.
i am now reading a textbook on cognitive psychology. it states that no two decisions are alike for a human being. it is literally impossible to activate the same exact neural pathways to form a decision even under identical circumstances. this means that we are constantly changing and adapting, and that we are only predictable to a certain degree. even our hormones change throughout life, so someone who is testosterone laden and male centric may adapt or prune certain pathways to adopt more female centric behaviors.
have not heard of the cast iron theory
here's a cooler fact: men are at an increased likelihood to be predisposed to homosexuality with each successive birth. it was thought that this was mostly due the psychology of the younger male not needing to procreate himself to pass on his genetics, but now it seems that certain women become adept at creating homosexual males. their bodies literally prune the male genome to create homosexual males. it sounds like science fiction, i know...
another one...
the male Y chromosome is actually losing it's potency within the population and becoming shorter and shorter. perhaps our species will evolve to the point where men become obsolete within our species, lol.
people who cohabitate are not necessarily homosexual. in our oversexed society it would seem unlikely that they would not be sexually intimate. i have heard of cases where women remain celibate their entire lives and adopted a life living as men.
also, i never stated that there was no such thing as such emotional intimacy occuring during the roman empire. in fact, I'm sure their relationships were founded on admiration for one another, and it's unlikely to continue the relationship without loving one another. whether the romans characterize this love as more of a brotherly love than a romantic one, I couldn't say.
the portrayal of homosexuality within a culture usually is inaccurately portrayed. right now it has become a fad within the united states. I believe that homosexuals are actually being overrepresented. things like a homosexual man marrying a straight women are often portrayed on television, and men are seen making other men uncomfortable with their sexual ambiguity- and everyone laughs. I think the idea if throwing a parade about it is ridiculous. homosexuality is almost viewed as if it's an accomplishment. I'm sure the romans took the issue far enough, but americans are way over the top, just like we are with everything countercultural.
Happy New Year!Regarding football--I have no evidence for that but I do wonder why people are so so into sports.
This cognitive psychology book sounds cool! Also, at least in women our brain changes a ton, even structurally, when we become pregnant.
"Predispose" almost sounds like you're talking about a disease. You don't become "influenced" to become homosexual in any psychological way.
"people who cohabitate are not necessarily homosexual" - yes I know. I think we need to make a distinction between being a homosexual as we see it in humans in terms of romantic and sexual attraction to people of the same sex, and homosexual "acts" in non-humans.
"homosexual man marrying a straight women are often portrayed on television" - well this was the norm when it was too risky to come-out as gay. Men in the past would hide it through heterosexual marriages.
Something can seem overrepresented when the contrast is that it was never represented in the past. Same with racial minorities in cinema, which still lacks accurate representation. With the past and current discrimination of LGBTQ+ people, I'm not really sure what to make of your statements. Being LGBTQ+ is not "counterculture," it's just part of human existence. Saying it's counterculture is kind-of ostracizing to that population, don't you think?
page 169 really blew my mind: "The genes that drive those placental cells to form are not human at all. Primates acquired them from a virus around forty-five million years ago; in the virus, the genes also encourage fusion of the host cell with the virus itself, and help suppress the immune response to this infection. But they were co-opted and integrated into our own genomes, and are now essential for successful pregnancy." The fact that normal pregnancies are dictated by viral DNA.... just wow
(a repeat from the first month since no one had joined )
whoever would like to participate in this book club please post the title you are most interested in as well as a second choice. As this is a new club I'm allowing the next three weeks to permit someone(s) to join and cast their votes and we will read the most popular title. If you are the first and only member then we will read your selection. In subsequent months I will take suggestions.
The titles are
living with our genes: the groundbreaking book about the science of personality, behavior, and genetic destiny. By Dean Gamer and Peter Copeland
The agile Gene how nature turns on nurture. By Matt Ridley
The book of humans a brief history of culture sex war and the evolution of us. By Adam Rutherford
The greatest show on Earth the evidence for evolution by Richard Dawkins
Superhuman life at the extremes of our capacity by Rowan Hooper
3 months ago