Shocker as fathers’ bad habits hurt their future babies

Father’s bad habits directly impact child’s genetic quality
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151204135513.htm

“We did not expect to see such important changes in epigenetic information due to environmental pressure,” says Barrès. “Discovering that lifestyle and environmental factors, such as a person’s nutritional state, can shape the information in our gametes and thereby modify the eating behaviour of the next generation is, to my mind, an important find,” he adds.’

Bad lifestyle too
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130701135550.htm

These results suggest that the parents living conditions before conception may directly impact the health of their children.

“We’ve known for a very long time that preventive care among expectant mothers is critical to the health and well-being of their children,” said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. “Now, we’re learning that fathers don’t get a free pass. How they take care of themselves — even before conception — affects the genetic makeup of their children, for better or worse.”

cracking up dawn french
Sperm carries environmental information about the father’s weight
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151203135836.htm
All this information is technically under male fertility btw. Since it’s germline.
Male interest in babies hormone-mediated
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151207113900.htm

“These results suggest that even before young men make actual decisions about marriage and children, one can distinguish between individuals who are more fatherhood-oriented and those who are less fatherhood-oriented.”

Do I sense a test for r/K? Dare I dream?

I would like to see sexual history included as a poor lifestyle factor. Cue the howls against biological responsibility from the manwhores. Hey, what are you afraid of? Your germline can’t escape your biology, the way you treat your body. Can’t blame that one on women.

toasting raising glass cheers leonardo da vinci congrats well done demons

Why am I mocking them? There are still males who blame the females for any issue with a baby (including miscarriage) as if it’s all on us. It’s a Henry VIII Complex. They refuse to believe it could be them.

Common sense connectome findings vs lifestyle

There is a myth in circulation that creative or intelligent people do more drugs. Usually the false connection is made on the personality trait of openness (which isn’t predictive, since drug use is a choice). It’s a medium correlation more likely from middle class boredom and rebellion.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/human-brain-connectome-results-2015-9

The researchers found that people with more traits the researchers classified as “positive,” like high IQ, tended to have a greater number of brain connections than people with more traits the researchers classified as “negative,” like high drug use.

Direct observation, and they’re loathe to offend anyone.
Like, the scans are right there. You can point to it.

But some say we should be cautious in how we interpret the findings.

I wonder if those people use…..

Read the damn data if you're so bloody educated

It’s like disputing the Type II diabetes and insulin connection.

The more “positive” traits people had, the more brain connections they found, and vice versa.

Eugenic epigenetics confirmed.

But the brain-wiring patterns linked to general intelligence were not the same as those for other kinds of intelligence, such as hand-eye coordination, some researchers noted. [DS: cerebellum, dude] This suggests maybe we should reconsider what IQ tests actually measure, especially since many scientists think it’s not the most useful measure of intelligence. [DS: those many scientists work in another, useless field]

*facepalming in the distance*
IQ is only relevant to an academic context. So very relevant (to practical application).
Gardner’s theories (multiple intelligences) have grounds, yes. Moving on.

Interestingly, people who had recently used marijuana tended to be on the more negative end of the brain connectivity spectrum, the researchers said.

NO SHIT award of the year.
First prize is a Sherlock pipe.

But the jury’s still out on how marijuana affects the brain.

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got
No.

…Scientists still debate exactly what this brain circuitry does, but previous research has linked it to several higher-level brain functions…..

And this is only the beginning of human connectome studies……

Hahaha the HBD people will be pleased.

The Human Connectome Project is now looking at genetic data from people in the study, including many pairs of identical and fraternal twins, to see how genetic and environmental influences are related to brain connectivity.

crying laughter lmao

We’re copying Asia and doing a eugenics study, but we aren’t calling it that? As if it makes a difference?

Meanwhile, other groups are studying the brain connections of aging adults and developing babies.

And they’ll find evidence of all the prejudices that withstood the test of time.
All the poor lifestyle choices, all the terrible parenting and the overall genetic load (inferiority) by demo.
cracking up dawn french

I cannot wait.
Redpill study of the century. 

Let’s see them deny it and become anti-science when the harm principle is clearly violated. Vigorously. Repeatedly. Down the generations, who have no choice. 

n.b. Not to denigrate men, but while they have larger brains on average, prior studies have shown women have better connected ones. Make of that what you will.

Link: The decline and Neanderthal DNA

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/anyone-who-appears-to-be-able-to-reason.html

Thus far, the genetic studies have vindicated this position, to my knowledge.

http://www.livescience.com/7153-scientist-humans-strange-neanderthals-normal.html
There are a race of human: http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

But excavations and anatomical studies have shown Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelery, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal’s humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

Manosphere /fake MGTOW claim: Women can’t do science or Women can’t invent

TLDR:

wrong dr house urgh shut up idiots

I think this claim in particular is ruining the manosphere. This post will be logic and science-heavy. For satirical reasons, and because I’m a little troll at heart with the other chanfags, I’m largely going to use resources written by men. Deny that, bitches!

Fake MGTOW still reading this:

The plight of stupid neolibs everywhere

I’m seeing this picked up increasingly by the sort of insecure moron who couldn’t invent a new form of toaster with a gun to his head. I would own them at robot wars. You can tell they don’t have a job in science (no, IT doesn’t count, tons of Indian women work in it ffs) and have never been to a single conference with their bitchy attitude. Example;

MGTOWERscienceclaimwrong

You know they’re desperate to prove how edgy they are when virginTOW is in their screen-name, Tyler Durden would be more original, or Mr Robot now I guess. MGTOW is being beset by the same sort of loser that drowned Reddit and Atheistkult, with the equivalent male virulence of SJWs to anything exposed to their entryism, and it’s no wonder the movement is now drowning under their dead weight. What’s the rule here from Greene’s Power book you need to heed?
http://48laws-of-power.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/law-10-infection-avoid-unhappy-and.html

It was written by a man so you should pay attention.

Aaron Clarey, another man, was right about these types (for those who don’t know to whom I refer);


They’re beta-omega bitches who feel the need to put women down to feel like men. That’s weak, it’s the reverse of what the feminists do. You shouldn’t need women for your ego as a real MGTOW at all, this is simply an inversion of the pedestal idea. You’re no less needy and I don’t like bullies full stop, feminist or virginTOW. Your sex, like your race, sexuality, whatever, is never a Free Pass. #meritocracyftw

Disclaimer for the whiners: yes, I know the feminist programmes are annoying. Insulting. Patronising. Unfair. They also don’t work, even in Norway. So it hardly matters, realistically. Remember, most women aren’t feminists (by self-report). We won’t do something we don’t want to (like take up extra maths classes). Don’t accept the feminist frame that what they want is what most women want. They don’t speak for us. That’s their Big Lie. Don’t hand them authority by treating them like one (vague TLP reference).

On the other hand, don’t excuse them. Don’t blame phrenology (you’re so scientific) for their dispute of agency, they have a choice to be bitches. They want that excuse, you’re handing them a victim card to play against you. And if you were up on your neuroscience, you’d see that while women have fewer brain cells, thanks to our smaller overall body size btw the ratio balances out, we have more connections. Guess what corresponds better to intelligence?

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/30/16/5519.full

Synaptic plasticity of connections. So pipe the fuck down on that front.
It would be just as specious as claiming women are superior because we have more absolute DNA material. (We do, the Y chromosome has decidedly less and is smaller than X). We have this for the evolutionary purpose of carrying children of both sexes. Group differences don’t make you better as an individual. This is basic statistics. You might have an average male IQ, but that doesn’t mean you’re smarter than every woman you’ll ever meet. Statistically, that would be implausible. Individual differences conflict more than group level because the variance is higher. Since a man invented IQ (Binet) I assume you’d take the prospect seriously.

keep being cocky, see where it gets you

While on the topic of scientist misogyny, most of STEM isn’t. Modern STEM. You aren’t being cool by claiming something as the common opinion (women>suck) that anyone in the industry knows is a MSM lie, it’s as bad as fake gamer girls. Feminazis have finally turned on the Valley, all those Asian and Jewish boys, to try and score some of that sweet sweet VC money. They’ve failed, on the whole. Laughably failed.
Historical scientists usually had a single bad experience they allowed to colour their lives (e.g. Kant Kant Kant Kant Kant and KANT  – talk to women). They were high on a personality trait called Psychoticism, good for their work but awful for their personal life, so it didn’t go well for them and they never tried again (source on genius written by two men, doubleplusgood).

Playing Subject Monopoly is petty. “They” have that subject, “we” have this. It’s the Robber’s Cave false opposition all over again (famous study by a man involving all boys). At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean anything. We’re all working to improve society, and that helps everyone. It’s a social good, it cannot be selective. My monarch is a woman, it doesn’t mean I had anything to do with that. Tesla was a man, the men reading this had nothing to do with that. Have icons for certain, but sex isn’t like race, there isn’t enough genetic connection throughout the group as a whole to claim kinship to accomplishment (HBD reference, check out Jayman, who is yes, a man).

Role call anyway. Subject Monopoly. You feel lucky?

joker DC smile smirk evil grin lol haha

Composers. – Male. The greats were pretty much all male. You win that round, I was discussing composers on a bus once with all-female music students and everyone agreed. As you can imagine, no one present was offended nor a feminist.

Does that make you feel better? It shouldn’t. Modern music is shit (see example comment above). Relative quality isn’t the same realm as absolute greatness.

Exploration – Male. Women usually weren’t allowed out of the house without an escort when places remained for the picking but sure, I’ll let you have that one. But the Vikings got there first, by thousands of years, and half of those were women (they traveled as one unit, look it up, archaeology and history). Are you descended from Vikings? I am. Does this mean I have more claim to that success than you, likely American man? Identity politics by sex is a bust whoever is doing it. By race, with a level of genetic relatedness to claim ingroup status (male science!) it might be supportable, still a big May-Be.

Still, so what? Does that improve the life of any man reading this? Inspiration shouldn’t be used in place of your own accomplishment or ambition (see fandom crazies). That’s co-dependent bullshit. It’s an excuse to do nothing with your own life.

Research … about even. Scientists? Well, until about a century ago women couldn’t get degrees. But still, women now dominate in biology and medicine, which the manosphere complains about, although there are fewer high IQ women than men for sample availability reasons, but also because of this more low IQ men than women. Feeling especially stupid because the male sex contains more retards? 

Thought not.

The modern average researcher is Asian. By simple data, they far outnumber us crackers. The average MGTOW is a middle class spoiled white bitch. You have less in common with him (HBD, genetics) than you do the women in your country you complain about.

Men are better in physics and materials, aka the Harder Sciences instead of Life Science. This is a fair, gendered difference. Ok….

snort lol laugh haha hmph derision yeah duh really uhuh mhmm princess bride

I’m waiting to see how playing to a sex’s strengths for the common good of society is somehow a bad thing? When the manosphere claims that is the Way Things Should Be. (See the Is/Ought guillotine, by a man). Women in the more caring, nurturing roles? Men in the more technical, mathey ones? It’s almost like they’re suggesting women should be blocked from all roles of responsibility, but we already have a shortage of doctors and scientists in the West (Asia outnumbering us again) and if you’re ill, dying in A&E, would you really reject the assistance of a doctor based on her sex? Would you do the same to a black man? Or would you just want a Doctor, any Doctor, now-now-now? That’s the weird thing about positions of responsibility, they are also positions of trust. The tort of law, the duty of care, which sex do you trust to be more caring when your life is on the line?
If your argument to do this female career block is Muh Meritocracy, I’ve already told you why that’s BS. Were you smart enough to see it? If we tightened the requirements based purely on merit, men would suffer more than women. Because more men are retarded from the original population group and hence, by that logic, blocked from professions, than women.

Unintended consequences;

There would be more female scientists and more female doctors, purely based on the starting numbers from IQ.

You didn’t think this through, did you?

eric ooh aah umm uhuh play dumb smile laugh evil grin

Now I get to the meat of this argument, the crux that really pisses me off: Invention. It’s a subject most people (and the manosphere) don’t understand because they believe MSM and Hollywood. They’ve probably never met a real inventor (not Hamburger Headphones types) in their entire lives, yet still feel qualified to discuss the group. I was actually discussing inventors with Henry Dampier in private once (yes, he’s a man, cool guy) and he knows a lot of them, without quoting him without his permission, his opinion was favourable and he appreciated the variety within the occupation (realistic, not the crazy hair crazy men film trope based on Einstein, not really an inventor either). Ask yourself, redpills, how this MSM lie conflicts with the real field full of real people you’re insulting, some of which blog here or know people who blog here (hi!) in the reactosphere.

When did you ever see a film about a female inventor? How many have you seen about male inventors? Compared to the fair hypothetical assumptions prior to evidence of a 50/50 split, or a biased one of 25/75, there’s something odd going on here (and we all know Hollywood is run by Jewish men, they admit it). We certainly know there are high IQ women in existence, it is possible and they must exist. Yet they aren’t in the media, it doesn’t fit Narrative (Einstein was a Jew, remember, his position in Hollywood tropes is no accident). Since the MGTOWER commentator wanted ancient examples, Hypatia is the best, estimated (by men) to have an IQ over 200, a true polymath. She was raised that way deliberately – by her father. This suggests the sexes are highly plastic in their epigenetic potential. Isn’t the manosphere begging for more geniuses? Would they reject the World’s Greatest Genius if they turned out to have a cracking pair of tits too? How would that not constitute actual, real misogyny? Does that polymathy of Hypatia make a random feminist smarter, or you, individual male readers, dumber? Of course fucking not. Cut it out. That’s magical thinking. I won’t tolerate that in a discussion on science.

that's enough stop please karen will and grace

Opposite example for fairness: Ada Lovelace was a smart cookie. No doubt. High IQ. But most of ‘her’ accomplishments were actually those of Babbage, she was the PR for his ideas, that’s why he hired her, yet the feminists are doing the exact same thing with the sexes inverted: rejecting the Great Computer Genius – because penis envy. Don’t be like the feminists, please. You don’t need to put anyone down for something they couldn’t help e.g. sex, which is determined exclusively by the fathers btw. Lovelace frequently discussed Babbage’s work with credit for example, don’t turn on her either, one of the people trying to contribute to the world we all have to live in. Focus on the correct enemy, the people who lie, the talentless, the professional whiners.

The same people in the manosphere who shout down Edison (a man) will demand all male invention is sublime and perfect in the next breath, if it means they can put down a whole sex in the breath afterward (women, actual misogyny). I don’t use the word lightly, it’s the whole 100% group without factual basis (in fact opposed to it) yet they think they’re being subtle! It’s that obvious, it’s becoming common and it reeks of keyboard alpha weakness and confirmation bias. It’s 100%, completely obvious to neutral outsiders what they’re doing, and that’s why normal people (including men who smell BS) are being turned off the manosphere recently. IMHO.

I could list Male Inventors versus Female, but that’s a red herring. It doesn’t account for qualification, expense, historical prominence, legend, scale, lives changed, just general quality. It’s a similar problem in the patent system at the moment and the world law (inc EU) is gearing toward changes intended to assess objective quality. Superficial comparisons like that go for the fame whores instead, like Edison. Who also hired women and wrote his name on their inventions too, since we’re so useless…

American Psycho is the best satire of the 20th century

I could take the easy ironic potshot and remind you that without Hedy Lamarr the porn star (cracking pair of tits) you wouldn’t have this WiFi to bitch about how women are incapable of invention.
And the Allies might have lost WW2 because the Nazis were ahead on signal science prior. 
These are facts.

You know what I think bugs them, the fake MGTOWs? In the realm of speculation here, admittedly.

– Equality of opportunity. 
They honestly believed that women were inferior on all flanks thanks to MSM erasure, so when the outcomes began to even out from proof, they felt personally insecure. Like the men returning from war and seeing their replacements in the munitions factories, the world didn’t end. They were replaceable. After the Hell of war, they realized their work was disposable as their lives. Women already have the innate capacity to create life so womb envy might factor in their desperation to the claim of machine-creation ownership, as if innate to their sex, as well (hey, I mentioned penis envy above, it logically follows if one exists, so must the other).

IN CONCLUSION.

I’ll leave you by one crucial example to refute this fallacious claim. Really, it’s irrefutable without being logically incoherent aka lying.
Who is the Greatest Modern Inventor?

….

Say it aloud.

….

….

….

….
A lot of you said Tesla. Correct.
I assume you mean Nikola?

what wut robot stop eh hold presses a moment

It’s rumoured that Albert Einstein was once asked, “How does it feel to be the smartest man alive?”, he responded, “I don’t know, you’ll have to ask Nikola Tesla.”

This is a fair assumption and I believe it myself.

After all, Hedy’s work required electricity.

But what the manosphere and MGTOW overlap never asks, to cover this truth, is what Nikola Tesla himself thought.

The same man who thought that women, innately, without the corrupting influence of society, were superior to men?

“I had always thought of woman,” says Mr. Tesla, “as possessing those delicate qualities of mind and soul that made her in these respects far superior to man. I had put her on a lofty pedestal, figuratively speaking, and ranked her in certain important attributes considerably higher than man. I worshiped at the feet of the creature I had raised to this height, and, like every true worshiper, I felt myself unworthy of the object of my worship.”

“This struggle of the human female toward sex equality will end in a new sex order, with the female as superior…. 

His prediction is coming true. These weak manboys I’ve covered before are threatened by equality of opportunity, by more competition on the professional playing field, in the same way ugly men are threatened by the open sexual marketplace, where the women rush the best men, when previously Patriarchy would have guaranteed them sex – with a wife.
By keeping that larger, smarter (on average, see Doctor outcome) group from the meritocratic opportunity of the marketplace, they selfishly help themselves individually – at the expense of freedom (individual human/woman), self-actualization (psychological) and the common social good of the progress that competition brings otherwise (making them liars when they call for this improvement in STEM and ask whine it isn’t happening fast enough).

It is not in the shallow physical imitation of men that women will assert first their equality and later their superiority, but in the awakening of the intellect of women.

Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.

But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental acquirements and achievements of men, and as generations ensue that capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more intense and powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore precedent [DS: set by men] and startle civilization with their progress.”

what wut wtf shock surprise slow turn eh littlefinger pause got

Yeah, they don’t like to talk about that part. #bluepillpussies
Nor WHY. Why did he think this way about women, psychologically? He took no wife, no lovers. It must’ve been earlier than that. Childhood, from social learning theory. In Victorian times?! Who was this creature?!! The role model, the proof of concept (real POC, real MVP represent). Where did the genes come from, for his vital visualization skills?

The reason little Nikola went into invention in the first place? The reason we know his name now? Who encouraged him? Who raised him? Who he modelled himself after? If you read his autobiography, My Inventions, you’ll know. A fellow inventor, in his mind, the best inventor: his mother.

That’s right, a woman!

Going by his own, male account. I’ll post a few choice quotes by Tesla about Mama Tesla just to drive home the point: https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/09/17/quotes-by-nikola-tesla-on-mama-tesla/

When you hear these false excuses, claims that

  • Women can’t do science.
  • Women can’t inspire men to be men (aka mothers are useless).
  • Most of all, Women can’t invent.

Your idol says you’re wrong.
Don’t be a little bitch about it. Bitch is a verb as well as a noun.

Takehome: Read books on a niche subject before claiming to know diddly squat about it.

I’ll leave you with a quote about the woman, when it comes to claiming what you’ve no right to;

My mother understood human nature better and never chided. She knew that a man cannot be saved from his own foolishness or vice by someone else’s efforts or protests, but only by the use of his own will.

It’s alright, I won’t rub your nose in it. Then I’d be as petty as you.
Please just learn from this and quit lying.

People age at variable speeds (biological age)

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/07/01/1506264112

Antiaging interventions are needed to reduce the burden of disease and protect population productivity.

Translation: they want to work you like a dog until you die.

Young people are the most attractive targets for therapies to extend healthspan

How is that NOT eugenics? You can bet it would be enforced.
Covered here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-33409604

…The analysis showed that at the age of 38, the people’s biological ages ranged from the late-20s to those who were nearly 60.

Pretty huge variance.

“They look rough, they look lacking in vitality,” said Prof Terrie Moffitt from Duke University in the US.

The study said some people had almost stopped ageing during the period of the study, while others were gaining nearly three years of biological age for every twelve months that passed….

Wouldn’t it make more empirical sense to study the verifiable Dorian Grays of the group?
Could this be genetic load?
Epigenetics with environment?

Taken with other studies, such as caloric restriction, might the body have an optimum stressor rate, beyond which it begins to break down? What could affect this? Processed food, particulate matter (air pollution), toxins processed or physical exertions?

“Any area of life where we currently use chronological age is faulty, if we knew more about biological age we could be more fair and egalitarian.”

I don’t see how. Unless you shoot people for being too young.

She argued the retirement age may be unfair for those “working at their peak” who then had to retire.

Oh, the government wants another excuse not to pay your pension. Fantastic.
It’s also ironic I was writing today about how men have a Wall too. Deny this. We’ve all seen people from school who were late bloomers, as well as people who peaked at age 15.

Sex differences in the nervous system

http://www.neuroscientistnews.com/neuroinsights/neural-fundamentals-sex-differences-nervous-system

It’s a worthwhile article.


I see your feelings but science doesn’t care! 

It ends;

When Rhodes and Rubin examined sexual dimorphism in the CNS in the late 1990s, they had to create a whole new term. They defined diergism as functional or physiological differences, which is oftentimes a byproduct of sexual dimorphism. Rhodes and Rubin realized that the genetics underlying sexual differences in the CNS is more complex than just steroid-dependent mechanisms and the environment plays a role in sexual differentiation as well.  Current studies of dimorphism and diergism focus on furthering our understanding of the neurochemical basis of sexually dimorphic behavior and the mechanisms of disease.

Eugenic history: Russian domestication of foxes

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/

Belyaev hypothesized that the anatomical and physiological changes seen in domesticated animals could have been the result of selection on the basis of behavioral traits. More specifically, he believed that tameness was the critical factor. How amenable was an animal to interacting with humans?

Belyaev wondered if selecting for tameness and against aggression would result in hormonal and neurochemical changes, since behavior ultimately emerged from biology. Those hormonal and chemical changes could then be implicated in anatomy and physiology. It could be that the anatomical differences in domesticated dogs were related to the genetic changes underlying the behavioral temperament for which they selected (tameness and low aggression). He believed that he could investigate these questions about domestication by attempting to domesticate wild foxes. Belyaev and his colleagues took wild silver foxes (a variant of the red fox) and bred them, with a strong selection criteria for inherent tameness.

…The domesticated foxes were more eager to hang out with humans, whimpered to attract attention, and sniffed and licked their caretakers. They wagged their tails when they were happy or excited. (Does that sound at all like your pet dog?) Further, their fear response to new people or objects was reduced, and they were more eager to explore new situations. Many of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears, short or curly tails, extended reproductive seasons, changes in fur coloration, and changes in the shape of their skulls, jaws, and teeth. They also lost their “musky fox smell.”

Essentially, you can’t isolate one “trait” in breeding from its pairs, the behaviour emerges from certain genetic clusters. Even eye-colour is heavily complicated (Mendelian genetic squares are outmoded beyond genetic diseases).  Same applies to people – the appearance seems to betray the character.

e.g. off the top of my head, testosterone manjaw and interpersonal aggression – the connection is real and cannot be broken, they are mutual outcomes of the same genetic material cluster, you cannot have one without the other

The people worrying about eugenics “deleting” “undesirables”  aka The Hitler Problem least understand it. The undesirable quantities, if ethically selected, would be universal human preferences. How practical is this?

Easiest of the changes is to reduce dysgenics (less disease, mental illness, ugliness, premature death and suffering) et cetera and I have never met anybody against THAT. This would raise the genetic quality, eugenic by default.

FI FYI: anti-racism “consensus” http://www.unz.com/pfrost/sometimes-the-consensus-is-phony/

The science of stupidity (bonus epigenetics)

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2012/07/genetics-of-stupidity.html

So maybe we’re thinking about the genetics of g from the wrong perspective – maybe we should be looking for mutations that decrease intelligence from some Platonic ideal of a “wild-type” human.  Thinking in this way – about “mutations that affect” a trait, rather than “genes for” the trait – changes our expectations about the type of variation that could be contributing to the heritability of the trait.

wow omg likey

Mutations that lower intelligence could be quite non-specific, diverse and far more idiosyncratic.  [so, random] The idea of a finite, stable and discrete set of variants that specifically contribute to intelligence levels and that simply get shuffled around in human populations may be a fallacy.  That view is supported by the fact that genome-wide association studies for common variants affecting intelligence have so far come up empty.

Genetic load?

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Genetic_load.asp

Genetic load is a number between 0 and 1 and it measures the extent to which the average individual in a population is inferior to the best possible kind of individual.

Essentially, yeah, eugenic. Like Superman or Thor.

If you think of the brain as a machine (wait before trying to kill me for that) it would be easier to imagine things which clog the machine’s efficiency than speed it up. Except with genes instead of the other code.

http://www.wiringthebrain.com/2013/01/the-trouble-with-epigenetics-part-1.html

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”. The insightful Inigo Montoya.

Epigenetics is a word that seems to have caught the public imagination. This is especially true among those, both in science and without, who decry what they see as genetic determinism or at least an overly “genocentric” point of view. Our genes are not our fate, because epigenetics! Such-and-such disorder is not really genetic, because epigenetics! Acquired characteristics can be inherited, because epigenetics!….

The death knell of egalitarianism was the discovery of DNA. It’s long dead.
Hey look, people are so different in ways we can measure on a microscopic level! And still these people are trying to expand the Nurture category to spite the data because of ideology and money, and probably both.

Neanderthals’ DNA legacy linked to modern ailments

Full from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/neanderthals-dna-legacy-linked-to-modern-ailments/ ;

Remnants of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans are associated with genes affecting type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis, and smoking behavior. They also concentrate in genes that influence skin and hair characteristics. At the same time, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and testes-specific genes.

The research, led by Harvard Medical School (HMS) geneticists and published Jan. 29 in Nature, suggests ways in which genetic material inherited from Neanderthals has proven both adaptive and maladaptive for modern humans. (A related paper by a separate team was published concurrently in Science.)

“Now that we can estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals, we can begin to understand how that inherited DNA affects us,” said David Reich, professor of genetics at HMS and senior author of the paper.

In the past few years, studies by groups including Reich’s have revealed that present-day people of non-African ancestry trace an average of about 2 percent of their genomes to Neanderthals — a legacy of interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals that the team previously showed occurred between 40,000 to 80,000 years ago. (Indigenous Africans have little or no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not breed with Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia.)

Several teams have since been able to flag Neanderthal DNA at certain locations in the non-African human genome, but until now, there was no survey of Neanderthal ancestry across the genome and little understanding of the biological significance of that genetic heritage.

“The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome,” said Irene A. Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research. “Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors’ genetic contributions to modern human health and disease.”

Deserts and oases

Reich and his colleagues — including Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany — analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal whose high-quality genome sequence the team published in 2013.

The most powerful information the researchers used to determine whether a gene variant came from a Neanderthal was if it appeared in some non-Africans and the Neanderthal, but not in the sub-Saharan Africans.

Using this and other types of information, the team found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like “deserts” with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average.

The barren areas were the “most exciting” finding, said first author Sriram Sankararaman of HMS and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection.”

The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline (the testes) and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.

“This suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility,” said Reich, who is also a senior associate member of the Broad Institute and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years (such as West Africans and Europeans), are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.

“It is fascinating that these types of problems could arise over that short a time scale,” Reich said.

A lasting heritage

The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk.

Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair, and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation, said Reich. “It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,” he speculated.

The researchers also showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect diseases related to immune function and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins.

The team has already begun trying to improve their human genome ancestry results by analyzing multiple Neanderthals instead of one. Together with colleagues in Britain, they have developed a test that can detect most of the approximately 100,000 mutations of Neanderthal origin they discovered in people of European ancestry; they are conducting an analysis in a biobank containing genetic data from half a million Britons.

I VOLUNTEER.

“I expect that this study will result in a better and more systematic understanding of how Neanderthal ancestry affects variation in human traits today,” said Sankararaman.

As another next step, the team is studying genome sequences from people from Papua New Guinea to build a database of genetic variants that can be compared to those of Denisovans, a third population of ancient humans that left most of its genetic traces in Oceania but little in mainland Eurasia.

How did I find this story? Funny story.
A moron on tumblr who doesn’t understand evolution. For lolz;

SJWsdon'tdoDarwinwtfhowfacepalmingsrsly
No one told them Neanderthals had high IQs and ginger hair. Hush. Don’t spoil it for them.
Let them drone on about discredited Afrocentrist ‘racial purity’ pipedreams. And evolution is a constant process for the record. “We are changing the main narrative. Neanderthals were just as adaptable and in many ways, simply victims of their own success.” How’s Africa doing on the global scale compared to every other country? Still rape and murder capital of the world? Hmm.

Cancer is mostly down to luck and the genetic lottery

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/cancer-causes-bad-luck–not-lifestyle-or-genes–to-blame-9953337.html

Those lifestyle gurus are full of it.

No word on pathogens, so I guess they’re still in the running: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_diseases_associated_with_infectious_pathogens