Poverty leaves a mark on our genes

Post by mehrdadn » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #48

mehrdadn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? So like, say, Campbell Biology? That's what I've seen used in high school and colleges, and I don't recall any mention of epigenetics in it. (At least in the 7th edition one, published 2004... not sure how much it's changed since.)

So I don’t have a copy of Campbell’s underhand, but a quick google search for its table of contents brought up the ToC for 7e. Chapter 9, pg 161 covers epigenetics, p 162 gene linkages, Ch11 covers gene methylation. I’d find additional specific examples, but that’s all that’s laid out explicitly in the table of contents.

Post by johnchristopher » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 10:38 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #33

johnchristopher wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Makes you wonder what the purpose of high school was in the first place. Oh, I have an opinion about that: Well. First and above all the first purpose of school and high school is to learn to follow authority (edit: authority in every other meanings. Tthe first authority to submit oneself to is the school). This is the first brick and if it's not assimilated in a way that suits the school the student will get throw…

This would also explain why we don't teach fundamentals of epistemology or critical thinking, even though we constantly read in the news how crucially important these skills are, because of fake news and Russian election hackers.

Post by aluren » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 10:46 PM UTC

educationdata wrote: post #47

aluren wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature vs. nurture hasn't been a thing since the 2000's when second generation sequencing dramatically expanded the breadth of information we had about species' genomes and (along with other discoveries made at the time) made us realize there was indeed a lot more to it than this dichotomy. It's about as relevant in our modern understanding of genomics as the debate between GOTOs vs. structured programming is to our…

No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very possible the new knowledge can be 100 times more complicated, but it only adds 1% more explanation power to everyday phenomena. Take physics as an example, quantum physics has "a lot" more than classical physics, but no physicists will discard classical physic…

Post by mehrdadn » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 11:36 PM UTC

arkades wrote: post #56

mehrdadn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah you're looking at the wrong book. That's copyrighted 2019, not 2004. And not sure what "7e" means (doesn't seem to be the same as "7th edition") but it's Campbell Essential Biology, not Campbell Biology.

So, the edition you’re linking, you’ll likely find epigenetics in ch21, genetic basis of development. That’s usually where the older books discussed methylation and acetylation.

Post by educationdata » Mon, Jun 17, 2019, 3:02 AM UTC

aluren wrote: post #55

educationdata wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very possible the new knowledge can be 100 times more complicated, but it only adds 1% more explanation power to everyday phenomena. Take physics as an example, quantum physics has "a lot" more than classical physics, but no physicists will discard classical physic…

Explaining common social phenomena with modern human genomics isn't a thing period. If you'd attempted to introduce some sociobiology talking points in a typical genomics conference you'd be laughed out of the room. (That's assuming the organizers would even consider your abstract for a talk in the first place.) No one really discusses 'nature vs nurture' anymore outside of a few circles that somehow still haven't go…