It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This gene [NPTN] encodes a type I transmembrane protein belonging to the Ig superfamily. The protein is believed to be involved in cell-cell interactions or cell-substrate interactions. Alternative splicing results in multiple transcript variants. [provided by RefSeq, May 2009]
The rs7171755 polymorphism acted …to affect expression in the human brain of the synaptic cell adhesion glycoprotein-encoding gene NPTN.
The findings, …could help scientists gain more insight into the biological mechanisms underlying several psychiatric disorders, such as schizophrenia and autism, since people with these conditions often have impaired cognitive ability.
The Lost Ark of the human sciences, intelligence genes, has been found and opened, and the faces of Universalist Equalists are melting into a bloody pulp. Researchers have pinpointed a single gene which, in its high-functioning variant, directly contributes to higher intelligence.
All that's needed is the transport, like a slightly smaller version of an HIV virus that passes the blood-brain barrier and uses an RNA based molecular transport to slice out and replace the incorrect sequence ;-)
Or they could just be lobotomized, whatever works.
The argument will be for many, that intelligence can be bought and sold by the genes. And that makes it something marketable.
No matter the end result.
In other words, what people believe and what "is" matters not. Very dangerous when you think about it…
In adults over 30, intelligence is nearly entirely down to hereditary (80% or so).
Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?
...I agree, this genetics research is not worth pursuing, the variables are too many to use this information for anything worthwhile.
Oh, I see, it is how it is being interpreted incorrectly by some people that is the problem.
soficrow
reply to post by Antigod
In adults over 30, intelligence is nearly entirely down to hereditary (80% or so).
Lots of assertions: no evidence; no references. Just interpretation of the evidence, and absolute ignorance of epigenetic science.
Why do people get irate when genes that affect intelligence are found?
Because it's Bull Puckey, and totally reliant on (re)interpretation of results, NOT on actual results or real science. See OP.
The results show that the heritability of IQ reaches an asymptote at about 0.80 at 18-20 years of age and continuing at that level well into adulthood.
The results of a postal questionnaire distributed to British members of Mensa failed to confirm an association of superior intelligence with torsion dystonia, retinoblastoma, or phenylketonuria, but were consistent with real associations between high IQ and infantile autism, gout, and myopia. Further confirmation of these findings in other populations might well indicate that genes producing these disorders have more or less direct effects on cerebral development and function.
Abstract
The association between intelligence and the recessive form of torsion dystonia has been evaluated in a retrospective study. Psychometric data were available from a period before the appearance of symptoms for fourteen patients with this disease. Similar data were available for a control group matched for age, sex, ethnic back ground (Jewish), and, so far as possible, socioeconomic background. The mean I.Q. of the patients was 121 (range 104—170) and that of their controls was 111 (range 76—147). This difference is significant (P
soficrow
reply to post by Antigod
I do not deny that some rare genetic mutations affect intelligence and other systems. My point is that this observation leads to some HUGE misconceptions, largely based on a confusion equating genes with epigenetically altered gene products.
I also would never argue that our so-called system of "higher education" is not riddled with extremely biased Eugenicists.
As far as heritability goes, you need to know that it can be genetic or epigenetic - and epigenetics is far more able to explain individual variation.
Cool about your credentials though. I never talk about my own because I prefer to stay anonymous and also, prefer not to make unverifiable claims.
Dr. Segal said that while “genetics do not tell the whole story,” even if parents treat their virtual twins as biological twins or if the children show similarities early in life, her research has found that environment still has “minimal or no effect” on them in terms of behavior and intelligence. Virtual twins can seem very similar in their early years, she said, but in the long term a shared environment is not “going to have a lasting impact.”