http://infoproc.blogspot.com.ar/201 7/08/ninety-nine-genetic

>>9135196
>>Intelligence is going to be deciphered at the molecular level, in the near future, by genomic studies with very large sample size
RACIST RESEARCH I DEMAND THIS DEFUNDED RIGHT NOW DELET THIS

15 years

China will probably be the first. they will have a couple rounds of accidental downies, but eventually they will get it right

>>9135196
I know this is just a blog post, but the quality of the writing leaves a lot to be desired. As for the question of the hereditary aspect of intelligence being deciphered soon, it's all speculation and no one can say for sure when the next big genetic discovery will be made.

i doubt it

intelligence is an immensely polygenic trait. we've picked out some of the big hitters and still have only explained about 5% of variance. the individual effects of genes we find will only get smaller from here on out, and that's only considering an additive model. it's far more likely that some genes will end up having synergistic effects that are very difficult to parse even with enormous sample sizes

>>9135279
>intelligence is an immensely polygenic trait.

I would challenge this assumption.

There can't be that many differences between an average IQ person and a super genius.

>>9135284
>There can't be that many differences between an average IQ person and a super genius.
if there weren't, then we would have turned them up in GWAS studies fifteen years ago. as it is, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel and can barely explain a bare minimum of differences in IQ.

it's not an assumption to say that intelligence is polygenic. it's a common-sense conclusion based on the data

>>9135292
Its obviously polygenic, but you specifically used the phrasing "immensely polygenic" implying that there is a great number of genes which all must coincidence to achieve great intelligence.

I really don't think this is the case. Just going by basic combinatorics, a relatively small number of genes could produce an exponential number of phenotypes.

Once you identify the correct genes, its just a matter of flipping them all to the right bit so to speak.

>talk about "deciphering" intelligence
>continues to use a broad ambiguous term like "intelligence" instead of talking about specific mechanisms in the brain

>>9135301
>implying that there is a great number of genes which all must coincidence to achieve great intelligence.
a few weeks ago, a new GWAS was reported that described 52 new genes influencing intelligence, on top of maybe 74 genes from a previous study a few years back. all told, we have more than a hundred genes on the list and we're still at less than 10% of variance explained.

just by the nature of the math, any more genes we find will be of equal or lower influence than those. that's a LONG way to go before we explain most of the variance, even assuming the majority of the variance is genetic in the first place

"immensely polygenic" is, if anything, an understatement.

>>9135196
>Is he right? How close is the "near future"? Geneticsfags pls respond.
Don't think so. This comment is right on, IMO: >>9135279.
I read Hsu's blog, and there's no doubt that he's an incredibly bright guy and has a deep interest in genomics. On one hand, I think that the statistical approach will offer insight into the genetic basis of cognitive ability. But, an explanation of intelligence at the "molecular level" would mandate extensive studies in genetics, epigenetics, biochemistry, molecular biology, etc., that I don't quite see as feasible just yet given the number of genes that provide the basis of intelligence, and given the "intelligent" phenotype (for lack of better terminology).

>>9135200
http://globalnews.ca/news/3648571/transgender-gene-study/

hey look, they found genes linked to transgenderism.

>>9135200
Funded by China, how very racist.

>>9135309
>talking about breeding dogs
>continues to use broad ambiguous terms like "shapes, size, coat type" instead of talking about specific mechanism in the organism

>>9136285

apples to oranges anon.

you are comparing traits dominated by probably single genes not necesarily affected a lot by their environment and of which we have a totally clear understanding of what they are and how they should be.

>>9136313
Bullshit.

I don't think breeds of dogs only have a single gene difference. Traits such as intelligence can be selected without knowledge of every chemical pathway.

File: 1503863359769.jpg (203KB, 798x1200px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 798x1200px

>>9136062
>and given the "intelligent" phenotype (for lack of better terminology).
What so ever could that PHENOTYPE be? When we see it, will we know it?

>>9135200
Nothing about race was mentioned at all.

>>9135200
Ironically, if genetics were the cause of racial IQ differences we could find most of the genes that contribute to IQ very easily. We could just compare allele frequencies between the two populations, and they should show up easily if the frequencies were skewed that blacks mostly had "bad" alleles and whites had "good" alleles. That's not what happens though.

>>9136356
What's the origin of phenotypeposting? I really really like this meme :)

>>9136322
>>9136313
a single gene, no, but most of the traits we associate with breeds tend to be things like stature, coat color, coat pattern, and fur length, and most of those are pretty simple traits controlled by no more than two or three genes each

>>9136397

it evolved from witten posting which was a lesser meme several months ago

>we must understand every fucking aspect of biology perfectly to start genetic selection or engineering

Why do the people who post this shit never post any examples, patterns, or evidence for why this is true?

Especially when there are so many successful genetic selection programs throughout recent history on crops and animals.

>>9135196
Finally. We can put down all the bad dogs.

Assuming we select from naturally occurring combinations even a negative outcome result would be fixed by just using the dual selection filter. There is literally nothing that will stop a selection algorithm from having a positive outcome on a society. Because of the "Take the dual" option it's impossible in the long run to not benefit from genetic selection / engineering.

Randomly generated combinations will never ever be better than criteria selected combinations in a long run. It's like saying a random chess move AI vs basic chess AI is going to be even somewhat comparable.

The most basic intelligence actors out perform randomness. People are really overestimating how good current genetic selection is on Earth.

>>9136074
No, they didn't.
Just read your link.
>Researchers have extracted DNA from the blood samples of 10,000 people, 3,000 of them transgender and the rest non-transgender, or cisgender. The project is awaiting grant funding to begin the next phase: testing about 3 million markers, or variations, across the genome for all of the samples.
>The project is awaiting grant funding to begin the next phase: testing

>>9136881
Intelligence is also a trait that is bred, take for instance border collie. Temperament are also bred for in dogs.

>>9137963
>simple analogy proves my anecdote!
If you don't understand genetics just go back to /pol/

>>9137972
Why don't leave /sci/ when you have absolutely no clue about anything?

>>9137987
>Why don't leave /sci/ when you have absolutely no clue about anything?
I know English, for one thing.

>>9137992
Glad you got the message.

We don't even understand exactly how the brain or intelligence works. Biology is still so complex we barely understand it right now.

It would be so stupid to imagine we could breed certain traits or behaviors into something without understanding it. Can you imagine if humans had done some major genetic changes to something without knowing what a gene even was?

File: 1686257784-37316-157714.jpg (12KB, 241x300px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 241x300px

>>9138032
Imagine the horror when you selectively breed this phenotype during the Middle ages.

>>9136285
Is this supposed to prove me wrong somehow? If you were studying dog genetics then talking about specific mechanisms is exactly what you should do.

>>9136322
>I don't think breeds of dogs only have a single gene difference
Who said that? Here they talk about 2 genes, "nicotinic and muscarinic cholinergic receptor genes", and refer to "working memory" instead of broader "cognitive ability".

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651349/

It is one small piece of the puzzle, it is like we found a corner piece, yet we are making progress unlike OP who is still looking at the puzzle box. If OP talked about things like this more it would be more interesting and informative, just a little constructive criticism.

File: hqdefault (1).jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

This autist needs to be put down, desu.

>>9138073
Why do I need to know the mechanism if the objective is to identify the genes responsible for a trait?
https://www.nature.com/news/china-s-embrace-of-embryo-selection-raises-thorny-questions-1.22468
>>9138090
You don't even know how memory works, why don't you start from that? Honestly your critique is a joke.