Genes Do Not Matter (again) - Individuality Is An Inevitable And Unpredictable Result Of Development

[Drareg]

Nice.

I'm well aware of my IQ limitations. Which is why for things I am not an expert in and cannot test for myself, I defer to experts. Keep tweaking your environment with whatever tip Ray Peat might suggest and I'm sure you'll double or triple your IQ in no time (that's nothing compared to the unbounded infinite). You're already an expert in genetics and with that increased IQ should make you smart enough to explain exactly why I should believe you instead of the experts in language that doesn't sound like it's coming from someone with a low level of knowledge like me.

How can you define what is an "expert" without being an "expert" yourself ?

A grown mans urinating techniques just like IQ don't change much over time,making coffee doesn't change much over time either,driving doesn't change much over time either(all test "g") or wait.....
We have much longer evidence of mans urinating capabilities,coffee making abilities and driving capabilities than we do IQ tests,IQ tests only 100 years old.
All tha above "g" testing capabilities have increased over times in most cases ,keep in mind we are averaging/statistics at all times with these studies(fraud) ,the exception will always still be there,a race car driver or coffee expert from earlier times will obviously have a chance at being a better driver than you are today but on average,toilet bowl designs have changed over times also,same applies for IQ.
We have then the Flynn effect relative to urinating technique(hitting the bowl),coffee making skills etc
Wait doesn't the Flynn effect show IQ increase over time.......

The problem then with above is if your hammered drunk,urinating techniques go out the window,you still think your at the bar urinals where you can hit the back of it because of the design however at home the design is different and the back of it and seat are clear not for urination support ,the floor at home doesn't have drains either.....
Hammered drunk and driving.........
Hammered drunk and making coffee,coffee with whiskey is not a "coffee".
Hammered drunk and IQ test and your results change.......so they do change,it all changes relative to the environment.
Replace hammered drunk with high estrogen or prenatal malnourishment or a severe clamp on your balls and same applies.

IQ do not test intelligence,the life outcomes your "experts" deem significant are obedience careers to authority and big business,China has high IQ according to Lynn so does North Korea according to Lynn and their life outcomes are sensational,so intelligent they are in China they don't feel the need to breath clean air,Kim Jung un is simply wonderful and his hairstyle is a sign of a massive brain designed for cooling the head.
On top of that IQ scores are regularly guessed for extremely wealthy or intelligent people,no fact of IQ test taken or available yet you gobble down the information,this person 200 years before the IQ test was created had an IQ of......etc etc apparently High IQ people created the nuclear bomb,chemical weapons,gave humanity the gift of wiping themselves out,most of the men involved with said projects were highly stressed with low attraction to females,undersexed, the bushmen have low stress,lots of sex and mother nature loves them because they are coherent with the environment,they are not exhausting the environment more looking to blow huge chunks out of it.
Humans say high IQ scores makes you special ,nature uses said scores to decide who she will be wiping out soon.....

 

[jaa]

They work similar to a paper airplane that a child can make..... A plane needs wings and thrust to fly......
Also the 747 flies,it's proven on a daily basis by observation,it's easy to listen to 90% of engineers at that point because if it crashes it's an immediate repercusssion for them,people will die and they loose their jobs immedietaly,this is skin in the game.
Your "experts" in heritability "genes" for behaviour don't fly,clearly the studies are flawed so your analogy here is deluded denial,behavioural psychologists in academia speculating don't have skin in the game on the scale of the 747 engineers,neither do "geneticists" who will make pathological claims and intentionally not try falsify their studies into "special" snp's so they can make profit for pharmaceuticals,people will get slowly killed by said pills and it will be all but impossible to pin an academic for people's deaths.

Your use of the term "expert" is based on your definitions of those people being "experts" in their "field",you acknowledge you don't fully understand what they are talking about yet blindly accept they are "experts" because the "experts" say they are "experts" ,all the while ignoring the obvious study I posted from Charney,your using the term probability theory yet ignore the ignorance of the researchers you support for stochastic processes within their palm reading techniques for snp's and "heritability astrology".

What did you post from Charney? You've posted a lot and I stopped reading after you disagreed about the airplane thing.

Your analogy to paper planes is incorrect though. Take someone from 300 years ago and they will see a ship. They will not think that thing can fly. Like you said, it's the inferences we make. We're in agreement on that.

You're painting entire fields who disagree with you with a nefarious brush. Any evidence for these claims?

 

[jaa]

How can you define what is an "expert" without being an "expert" yourself ?

A grown mans urinating techniques just like IQ don't change much over time,making coffee doesn't change much over time either,driving doesn't change much over time either(all test "g") or wait.....
We have much longer evidence of mans urinating capabilities,coffee making abilities and driving capabilities than we do IQ tests,IQ tests only 100 years old.
All tha above "g" testing capabilities have increased over times in most cases ,keep in mind we are averaging/statistics at all times with these studies(fraud) ,the exception will always still be there,a race car driver or coffee expert from earlier times will obviously have a chance at being a better driver than you are today but on average,toilet bowl designs have changed over times also,same applies for IQ.
We have then the Flynn effect relative to urinating technique(hitting the bowl),coffee making skills etc
Wait doesn't the Flynn effect show IQ increase over time.......

The problem then with above is if your hammered drunk,urinating techniques go out the window,you still think your at the bar urinals where you can hit the back of it because of the design however at home the design is different and the back of it and seat are clear not for urination support ,the floor at home doesn't have drains either.....
Hammered drunk and driving.........
Hammered drunk and making coffee,coffee with whiskey is not a "coffee".
Hammered drunk and IQ test and your results change.......so they do change,it all changes relative to the environment.
Replace hammered drunk with high estrogen or prenatal malnourishment or a severe clamp on your balls and same applies.

IQ do not test intelligence,the life outcomes your "experts" deem significant are obedience careers to authority and big business,China has high IQ according to Lynn so does North Korea according to Lynn and their life outcomes are sensational,so intelligent they are in China they don't feel the need to breath clean air,Kim Jung un is simply wonderful and his hairstyle is a sign of a massive brain designed for cooling the head.
On top of that IQ scores are regularly guessed for extremely wealthy or intelligent people,no fact of IQ test taken or available yet you gobble down the information,this person 200 years before the IQ test was created had an IQ of......etc etc apparently High IQ people created the nuclear bomb,chemical weapons,gave humanity the gift of wiping themselves out,most of the men involved with said projects were highly stressed with low attraction to females,undersexed, the bushmen have low stress,lots of sex and mother nature loves them because they are coherent with the environment,they are not exhausting the environment more looking to blow huge chunks out of it.
Humans say high IQ scores makes you special ,nature uses said scores to decide who she will be wiping out soon.....

Jesus dude.

I'll snip the one piece of intelligible stuff in there

Wait doesn't the Flynn effect show IQ increase over time.......

Yes it does. And everyone's aware of this. Holding it up like it sinks the heretability perspective is very telling in that you either vastly overestimate your own intelligence, or underestimate that of intelligence researchers, or both. Probably both.

 

[jaa]

New study in Nature:

Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence : Nature Genetics

 

[Drareg]

What did you post from Charney? You've posted a lot and I stopped reading after you disagreed about the airplane thing.

Your analogy to paper planes is incorrect though. Take someone from 300 years ago and they will see a ship. They will not think that thing can fly. Like you said, it's the inferences we make. We're in agreement on that.

You're painting entire fields who disagree with you with a nefarious brush. Any evidence for these claims?

Why wouldn't people from 300 years ago think it would fly? Da Vinci would have as would many more. Paper existed 300 years ago,they could have used natural probability theory or metaphor/analogy.
Your claim was ,you don't need to know the design or mechanics of a plane to get on one and fly yet now you acknowledge from an earlier period people would not think it would fly,why would they think that if they didn't know anything about the mechanics or design or need to,to get on a plane according to you?

Your call for evidence is evidence we have hit your mental anchors of delusion,you need heritability of intelligence to exist to fit your world view(meanings)as do a vast array of others.
Are you getting blinded by what Charney highlights in his article I clearly linked earlier?
Do you want more who highlight what Charney has pointed out? Keep in mind the cult your following has billions backing them.
Have you stopped using the word "expert" and now prefer "fields" ,do want to get into the semantics of "fields" and how they are defined,similar to who defines "expert",lobotomy was a "field" at one point,cancer "genes" is still a "field" etc

 

[Drareg]

Jesus dude.

I'll snip the one piece of intelligible stuff in there



Yes it does. And everyone's aware of this. Holding it up like it sinks the heretability perspective is very telling in that you either vastly overestimate your own intelligence, or underestimate that of intelligence researchers, or both. Probably both.

Time,time,time,time,time, do you get it now?

 

[Drareg]

New study in Nature:

Genome-wide association meta-analysis of 78,308 individuals identifies new loci and genes influencing human intelligence : Nature Genetics

Thanks for this link,I'm really into astrology and palm reading.
Another study with the hilarious flaws pointed out earlier,the very reason they are cult,don't forget rigid as their papers are the same repetitive techniques for decades now.
I love how they mention "g" wooooooo, it should stand for ghost and fit in nicely with "ghosts of heritability".
Are you denying your capacity to urinate tests "g" ?
Read the link I provided,also try to think about the study Haidut mentioned in this thread.

 

[jaa]

Why wouldn't people from 300 years ago think it would fly? Da Vinci would have as would many more. Paper existed 300 years ago,they could have used natural probability theory or metaphor/analogy.
Your claim was ,you don't need to know the design or mechanics of a plane to get on one and fly yet now you acknowledge from an earlier period people would not think it would fly,why would they think that if they didn't know anything about the mechanics or design or need to,to get on a plane according to you?

So if you dropped an airplane into Da Vinci's time he would have divined that it could fly? Because he kind of flew a helicopter? Please.

People had never seen a flying machine. They wouldn't have thought it possible. They aren't doing some quick mental calculations or comparisons or whatever you seem to be suggesting. They certainly wouldn't be able to come up with a good reason to choose a side between two technical experts. Though they'd probably get it right if the argument consisted of 9 experts on one side and 1 on the other.

Which was what I was pointing at all along - you, me, and other non-experts have no way to evaluate evidence better than experts. Choosing among them when don't have an advantage in the knowledge or ability to use that knowledge. So I'll ask you again. What is your advantage in knowledge? What do you know that the expert consensus you rally against does not? You can say they are a cult, or fake news, or whatever, but those arguments hold no weight.

If you want to explain in your words (you can write a summary of the study you want to link) go for it. If not, I'll just assume you're as ignorant as me (or at least the same sphere of layman) and treat your opinion accordingly.

 

[Drareg]

So if you dropped an airplane into Da Vinci's time he would have divined that it could fly? Because he kind of flew a helicopter? Please.

People had never seen a flying machine. They wouldn't have thought it possible. They aren't doing some quick mental calculations or comparisons or whatever you seem to be suggesting. They certainly wouldn't be able to come up with a good reason to choose a side between two technical experts. Though they'd probably get it right if the argument consisted of 9 experts on one side and 1 on the other.

Which was what I was pointing at all along - you, me, and other non-experts have no way to evaluate evidence better than experts. Choosing among them when don't have an advantage in the knowledge or ability to use that knowledge. So I'll ask you again. What is your advantage in knowledge? What do you know that the expert consensus you rally against does not? You can say they are a cult, or fake news, or whatever, but those arguments hold no weight.

If you want to explain in your words (you can write a summary of the study you want to link) go for it. If not, I'll just assume you're as ignorant as me (or at least the same sphere of layman) and treat your opinion accordingly.

I can't even use sarcasm because it's getting silly now, birds glide and have been for along time,people have eyes for along time to see this.Da Vinci designed a helicopter so yes.
Yet you used terms "expert" throughout this thread.
The arguments do hold weight when it's obvious they exclude information from their calculations,to do this for decades is fraud.
I already gave you a summary in my previous posts,clearly I have hit your anchors,the anchors in place that stop you from seeing why you really need the heritability argument to be true.

And never forget you should be able to communicate with corn on some level according to your "experts" .

"HUMANS POSSESS FEWER GENES THAN CORN. One of the surprising findings of the Genome Project was that the human genome contains an estimated 20,000 protein coding “genes,” less than maize (i.e., corn), which contains over 32,000 protein-coding “genes” ,and close in number to the nematode, with approximately 19,000. And many “genes” appear to be preserved across species. Surely, the distinctive properties of the human brain and human behavior are the result of something other than what we have less of than corn. Yet GCTA tells us that common SNPs, SNPs that we most likely share with corn and nematodes, account for 35% of the heritability of “intelligence.”

 

[Drareg]

I can't even use sarcasm because it's getting silly now, birds glide and have been for along time,people have eyes for along time to see this. Da Vinci designed a helicopter so yes.
Yet you used terms "expert" throughout this thread.
The arguments do hold weight when it's obvious they exclude information from their calculations,to do this for decades is fraud.
I already gave you a summary in my previous posts,clearly I have hit your anchors,the anchors in place that stop you from seeing why you really need the heritability argument to be true.

And never forget you should be able to communicate with corn on some level according to your "experts" .

"HUMANS POSSESS FEWER GENES THAN CORN. One of the surprising findings of the Genome Project was that the human genome contains an estimated 20,000 protein coding “genes,” less than maize (i.e., corn), which contains over 32,000 protein-coding “genes” ,and close in number to the nematode, with approximately 19,000. And many “genes” appear to be preserved across species. Surely, the distinctive properties of the human brain and human behavior are the result of something other than what we have less of than corn. Yet GCTA tells us that common SNPs, SNPs that we most likely share with corn and nematodes, account for 35% of the heritability of “intelligence.”

 

[jaa]

I can't even use sarcasm because it's getting silly now, birds glide and have been for along time,people have eyes for along time to see this.Da Vinci designed a helicopter so yes.
Yet you used terms "expert" throughout this thread.
The arguments do hold weight when it's obvious they exclude information from their calculations,to do this for decades is fraud.
I already gave you a summary in my previous posts,clearly I have hit your anchors,the anchors in place that stop you from seeing why you really need the heritability argument to be true.

And never forget you should be able to communicate with corn on some level according to your "experts" .

"HUMANS POSSESS FEWER GENES THAN CORN. One of the surprising findings of the Genome Project was that the human genome contains an estimated 20,000 protein coding “genes,” less than maize (i.e., corn), which contains over 32,000 protein-coding “genes” ,and close in number to the nematode, with approximately 19,000. And many “genes” appear to be preserved across species. Surely, the distinctive properties of the human brain and human behavior are the result of something other than what we have less of than corn. Yet GCTA tells us that common SNPs, SNPs that we most likely share with corn and nematodes, account for 35% of the heritability of “intelligence.”

That last part is common knowledge. And it offers snark without the argument as to why it's deserved. The tone is a lot like young earth creationists debating what the "scientists' will tell you (yet look at this obvious thing we've pointed out that they missed because they are not as smart as us).

Anyway, this has devolved. I don't think you're going to offer me any information that would be of use for me and I don't think I can say anything that will be of use to you. Good effort to us both I guess.

 

[nikolabeacon]

You do not need experts and scientist and their "studies" to convince you at what extent "genes are important" or not.


Their only argument can be that we currently in this process of learning how body and nature really functions and evolves in an ever changing dynamic environment are not yet complete and definite. And because of those dynamics and gradients we can never be 100 in definite knowledge. That will eventually over timea be the only real thing that we should never definitely grasp . But still even than when we come to that state of knowledge genetics will be almost completely anihilated. But They will always use it as their "argument" which is actually a not at all.

Current prevailing science does not understand how natural biological processes are happening and their understanding of an organism is basically so weak and based on wrong closed system assumptions ,that are incompatible with open system of nature, to the point that only option that they are left with is that we are helpless victims of genetics.

THEY ARE TOTALLY IN THE LIMBO.

Whole story is presented in a wrong way. It should be a question what we know about the organism , biology and evolution and what is needed for evolution to procede. And what are organizing factors needed for resilence from genetics and development of us as an organisms. Of course we can never know every single factor because of dynamic environment so we are always going to be under some unwanted and unpredictable mechanisms and changes from past that that we are unaware of until we do not learn more about them through exploration of organism and environment



Everything that is complicated as Schauberger stated is often false and unripe. And genetic theory fits very well in both complicated and unripe with a lot of assumptions and empty theoretizing without any understanding of process. We are actually presented as always partially helpless beings to some extent .

THEY ENDED AND REFUSED POTENTIAL OF THE EXPLORATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF AN ORGANISM BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN IT

It is also a question about origins of energy .Or about understanding wheather we are in an open or closed systems. Proponents of genetics are thinking in closed system and are ecouriging randomness and entropy.


We were created as part of the organic processes of Nature, rather than the mechanical processes that we have adopted.

It seems that in addition to the adequate chemical energy, also the necessary information must be present so that complex events that make up the biochemistry of life, are repeated over and over again.
And it is a kind of information that appears to be transmitted by the chemical energy itself, at the same time; some similar to a binary code; since the genetic information appears million years later,
complementing the primary, fundamental “chemical” information. Thereby, genetic code is also a “by product” of melanin.

 

[Marg]

The first question that we must ask is:

Are I.Q. tests valid in the first place?

---------------------------------------------

www.independent.co.uk.com

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.

IQ tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence but they are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components, the study found.

The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups.

Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve “circuits” in the brain, the scientists found.

“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.

“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron.

The research involved an on-line survey of more than 100,000 people from around the world who were asked to complete 12 mental tests for measuring different aspects of cognitive ability, such as memory, reasoning, attention and planning.

The researchers took a representative sample of 46,000 people and analysed how they performed. They found there were three distinct components to cognitive ability: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

Professor Adrian Owen of the University of Western Ontario in Canada said that the uptake for the tests was astonishing. The scientists expected a few hundred volunteers to spend the half hour it took to complete the on-line tests, but in the end they got thousands from every corner of the world, Professor Owen said.

The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.

-----------------------------------------------

I am tired of people using the term 'conspiracy theory', because this prefaces the argument with a derogatory term in an effort to derail the argument with what has become an overused and stale clichè.

The military-industrial complex; the corporate state; the powers in high factions, etc...whatever term anyone wants to ascribe to them can be one of many.

They control everything; science, media, education, religion, world economies, medicine, etc.... So the answer to the question , ' Cui Bono?' (Who BENEFITS?) is simple. The controllers do, and the minions, such as Congressional and local state, city and town politicians of who serve them get a small bit of those benefits, just as long as the play ball and keep their mouths shut. Scientists who toe the party line get benefits; 'Science' is rife with renegade scientists, past and present, getting blackballed for promoting heresies that the corporate state didn't like , and in many cases their vindication came decades later, often posthumously; sometimes not at all.

This race I.Q. fallacy has been the justification for immoral purposes, even Congressional legislative policies. Just one example would be the massive ghettoization of the inner city in the 50's and '60's, by using taxpayer funds to allow HUD to create defacto segregation by creating massive high rises, such as Cabrini Green, etc.. , with the full blessing of Congressional 'liberals' and 'conseratives'. The social engineers consciously and maliciously rammed their policy through under the guise that this would be for the "general benefit of society" , creating instead a sequestered and disenfrachised group of people who would find nothing but crime and a lack of opportunity, which haunts our country to this day. Who benefits here from this divide and conquer policy?

Taking the tenets of 'science' or anything for that matter, must not be taken as gospel truth, as pure and uncorrupted. Science isn't run by scientists as a regulatory agency to keep it pure and uncorrupted; rather science is run by a higher controlling faction(s), unseen and unknown by the vast majority of the population.

And the political, social and economic ramifications of this 'Science', in which Ray Peat has maintained that most people get information from the news media, is often biased and factually incorrect.

The controllers of the system are always the BENEFICIARIES of the system in everything that they created, and most people are ignorant of, or just can't grasp this concept.

 

[Beastmode]

A lot of my entrepreneur colleagues have been telling me about this. Health Nucleus: Explore The Story of You

For $25000 you get Whole genome sequencing, Microbiome Sequencing, Metabolome Analysis, and MRI Scans and Lab Tests.

Is the premise of this just a perpetuation of a misunderstanding of biology or possibly something useful?

I'm a novice at this. However I'm very familiar when a misunderstanding + good marketing comes to the marketplace.

 

[Drareg]

That last part is common knowledge. And it offers snark without the argument as to why it's deserved. The tone is a lot like young earth creationists debating what the "scientists' will tell you (yet look at this obvious thing we've pointed out that they missed because they are not as smart as us).

Anyway, this has devolved. I don't think you're going to offer me any information that would be of use for me and I don't think I can say anything that will be of use to you. Good effort to us both I guess.

Take some time and digest what Charney is pointing at,there is more out there like this.
Human behaviour is far beyond "genes" at this point based on the evidence we have mounted it's incredible to see people getting away with what they are spouting,they are like a church,it's far easier for behaviorial psychologists to crunch data and play with statistics than try comprehend "genetics" or cell physiology.
Developmental biology is also worth looking at.

 

[Drareg]

You do not need experts and scientist and their "studies" to convince you at what extent "genes are important" or not.


Their only argument can be that we currently in this process of learning how body and nature really functions and evolves in an ever changing dynamic environment are not yet complete and definite. And because of those dynamics and gradients we can never be 100 in definite knowledge. That will eventually over timea be the only real thing that we should never definitely grasp . But still even than when we come to that state of knowledge genetics will be almost completely anihilated. But They will always use it as their "argument" which is actually a not at all.

Current prevailing science does not understand how natural biological processes are happening and their understanding of an organism is basically so weak and based on wrong closed system assumptions ,that are incompatible with open system of nature, to the point that only option that they are left with is that we are helpless victims of genetics.

THEY ARE TOTALLY IN THE LIMBO.

Whole story is presented in a wrong way. It should be a question what we know about the organism , biology and evolution and what is needed for evolution to procede. And what are organizing factors needed for resilence from genetics and development of us as an organisms. Of course we can never know every single factor because of dynamic environment so we are always going to be under some unwanted and unpredictable mechanisms and changes from past that that we are unaware of until we do not learn more about them through exploration of organism and environment



Everything that is complicated as Schauberger stated is often false and unripe. And genetic theory fits very well in both complicated and unripe with a lot of assumptions and empty theoretizing without any understanding of process. We are actually presented as always partially helpless beings to some extent .

THEY ENDED AND REFUSED POTENTIAL OF THE EXPLORATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF AN ORGANISM BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED TO GET MORE INVOLVED IN IT

It is also a question about origins of energy .Or about understanding wheather we are in an open or closed systems. Proponents of genetics are thinking in closed system and are ecouriging randomness and entropy.


We were created as part of the organic processes of Nature, rather than the mechanical processes that we have adopted.

It seems that in addition to the adequate chemical energy, also the necessary information must be present so that complex events that make up the biochemistry of life, are repeated over and over again.
And it is a kind of information that appears to be transmitted by the chemical energy itself, at the same time; some similar to a binary code; since the genetic information appears million years later,
complementing the primary, fundamental “chemical” information. Thereby, genetic code is also a “by product” of melanin.

As you say ,claims of it was their argument all along will be the case,the Darwinists are clearly changing semantics as new research comes out,they have a monopoly on this within academia yet still play the victims.

This melanin angle is proving very interesting indeed,you should start a thread on it.

 

[Drareg]

A lot of my entrepreneur colleagues have been telling me about this. Health Nucleus: Explore The Story of You

For $25000 you get Whole genome sequencing, Microbiome Sequencing, Metabolome Analysis, and MRI Scans and Lab Tests.

Is the premise of this just a perpetuation of a misunderstanding of biology or possibly something useful?

I'm a novice at this. However I'm very familiar when a misunderstanding + good marketing comes to the marketplace.

Don't spend 25 k on this,way too much,it's recreational genetics for the public,it's a massive industry and growing,23 and me as an example,they will make all sorts of claims to get you to part with 25k.
Take the 25k and go live somewhere where it can last for 4 years without a full time job,buy Peats books and many other books and eat good food. Sunny of course.
Whatever they may have claimed to have found in the 25k test will have cured in 4 years of said lifestyle.

 

[Drareg]

The first question that we must ask is:

Are I.Q. tests valid in the first place?

---------------------------------------------

www.independent.co.uk.com

The idea that intelligence can be measured by IQ tests alone is a fallacy according to the largest single study into human cognition which found that it comprises of at least three distinct mental traits.

IQ tests have been used for decades to assess intelligence but they are fundamentally flawed because they do not take into account the complex nature of the human intellect and its different components, the study found.

The results question the validity of controversial studies of intelligence based on IQ tests which have drawn links between intellectual ability race, gender and social class and led to highly contentious claims that some groups of people are inherently less intelligent that other groups.

Instead of a general measure of intelligence epitomised by the intelligence quotient (IQ), intellectual ability consists of short-term memory, reasoning and verbal agility. Although these interact with one another they are handled by three distinct nerve “circuits” in the brain, the scientists found.

“The results disprove once and for all the idea that a single measure of intelligence, such as IQ, is enough to capture all of the differences in cognitive ability that we see between people,” said Roger Highfield, director of external affairs at the Science Museum in London.

“Instead, several different circuits contribute to intelligence, each with its own unique capacity. A person may well be good in one of these areas, but they are just as likely to be bad in the other two,” said Dr Highfield, a co-author of the study published in the journal Neuron.

The research involved an on-line survey of more than 100,000 people from around the world who were asked to complete 12 mental tests for measuring different aspects of cognitive ability, such as memory, reasoning, attention and planning.

The researchers took a representative sample of 46,000 people and analysed how they performed. They found there were three distinct components to cognitive ability: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

Professor Adrian Owen of the University of Western Ontario in Canada said that the uptake for the tests was astonishing. The scientists expected a few hundred volunteers to spend the half hour it took to complete the on-line tests, but in the end they got thousands from every corner of the world, Professor Owen said.

The scientists found that no single component, or IQ, could explain all the variations revealed by the tests. The researcher then analysed the brain circuitry of 16 participants with a hospital MRI scanner and found that the three separate components corresponded to three distinct patterns of neural activity in the brain.

“It has always seemed to be odd that we like to call the human brain the most complex known object in the Universe, yet many of us are still prepared to accept that we can measure brain function by doing a few so-called IQ tests,” Dr Highfield said.

“For a century or more many people have thought that we can distinguish between people, or indeed populations, based on the idea of general intelligence which is often talked about in terms of a single number: IQ. We have shown here that’s just wrong,” he said.

Studies over the past 50 years based on IQ tests have suggested that there could be inherent differences in intelligence between racial groups, social classes and between men and women, but these conclusions are undermined by the latest findings, Dr Highfield said.

“We already know that, from a scientific point of view, the notion of race is meaningless. Genetic differences do not map on to traditional measurements of skin colour, hair type, body proportions and skull measurements. Now we have shown that IQ is meaningless too,” Dr Highfield said.

-----------------------------------------------

I am tired of people using the term 'conspiracy theory', because this prefaces the argument with a derogatory term in an effort to derail the argument with what has become an overused and stale clichè.

The military-industrial complex; the corporate state; the powers in high factions, etc...whatever term anyone wants to ascribe to them can be one of many.

They control everything; science, media, education, religion, world economies, medicine, etc.... So the answer to the question , ' Cui Bono?' (Who BENEFITS?) is simple. The controllers do, and the minions, such as Congressional and local state, city and town politicians of who serve them get a small bit of those benefits, just as long as the play ball and keep their mouths shut. Scientists who toe the party line get benefits; 'Science' is rife with renegade scientists, past and present, getting blackballed for promoting heresies that the corporate state didn't like , and in many cases their vindication came decades later, often posthumously; sometimes not at all.

This race I.Q. fallacy has been the justification for immoral purposes, even Congressional legislative policies. Just one example would be the massive ghettoization of the inner city in the 50's and '60's, by using taxpayer funds to allow HUD to create defacto segregation by creating massive high rises, such as Cabrini Green, etc.. , with the full blessing of Congressional 'liberals' and 'conseratives'. The social engineers consciously and maliciously rammed their policy through under the guise that this would be for the "general benefit of society" , creating instead a sequestered and disenfrachised group of people who would find nothing but crime and a lack of opportunity, which haunts our country to this day. Who benefits here from this divide and conquer policy?

Taking the tenets of 'science' or anything for that matter, must not be taken as gospel truth, as pure and uncorrupted. Science isn't run by scientists as a regulatory agency to keep it pure and uncorrupted; rather science is run by a higher controlling faction(s), unseen and unknown by the vast majority of the population.

And the political, social and economic ramifications of this 'Science', in which Ray Peat has maintained that most people get information from the news media, is often biased and factually incorrect.

The controllers of the system are always the BENEFICIARIES of the system in everything that they created, and most people are ignorant of, or just can't grasp this concept.

Hilarious in all this is if humans live to 200 years of age at some point what does it say about the Flynn effect and their unchanging IQ score paradigm.