Bias In Media

[gourimoko]

There is no foxp206

There is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

Could be a semantic / syntactical difference.

 

[TyGuy]

The hell it isn't.

Many papers written.

Are they approved by the RCF source committee?

 

[David.]

There is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOXP2

Could be a semantic / syntactical difference.

Looks like it's important to have.

Forkhead box protein P2 (FOXP2) is a proteinthat, in humans, is encoded by the FOXP2gene, also known as CAGH44, SPCH1 or TNRC10, and is required for proper development of speech and language.[3]Initially identified as the genetic factor of speech disorder

 

[MediumBaller]

There is no foxp206

Yeah, I did my googles and nothing came up.

 

[David.]

Yeah, I did my googles and nothing came up.

Scholar too.

 

[gourimoko]

Looks like it's important to have.

Forkhead box protein P2 (FOXP2) is a proteinthat, in humans, is encoded by the FOXP2gene, also known as CAGH44, SPCH1 or TNRC10, and is required for proper development of speech and language.[3]Initially identified as the genetic factor of speech disorder

Oh indeed, I'm saying there's possibly a difference in the naming? Could be a related gene, etc.

 

[MediumBaller]

Scholar too.

We've been trolled boys.

 

[Sebastian]

We've been trolled boys.

Why should Huber have all the fun.

 

[David.]

We've been trolled boys.

Disgenics and eugenics are debatable issues though. At a point it becomes inhumane not to consider it. Mental illness, vaccinations, blindness and deafness, psy/sociopathy.

It's always gonna be a slippery slope though.

 

[gourimoko]

Disgenics and eugenics are debatable issues though.

No they're not, that's ... the point. Eugenics is a completely discredited "science," and hasn't really anything to offer modern discourse as it's based on numerous false premises.

 

[gourimoko]

We've been trolled boys.

What gave it away?

 

[David.]

No they're not, that's ... the point. Eugenics is a completely discredited science, and hasn't really anything to offer modern discourse as it's based on numerous false premises.

So everyone is the same genetically? Or do you take issue with the concept of improving society by way of genetics?

 

[gourimoko]

So everyone is the same genetically?

No, of course not; but I don't see how that has anything to do with "eugenics."

Or do you take issue with the concept of improving society by way of genetics?

I don't take issue with anything, just speaking scientifically for a moment. Eugenics is a belief system, it's not a science; it's an idea that humanity or race can be elevated through selective breeding and we know enough today to discredit the entire notion as completely unfounded.

The breadth of the gene pool is what allows for high adaptability, and a greater degree to change over time. Narrowing that pool has the opposite of the intended effect.

 

[MediumBaller]

What gave it away?

The Google search lol. @King Stannis' posts seemed pretty out there which was unusual, so I felt like there might be some trolling going on. Then no results came up and that solidified it.

 

[Pioneer10]

So everyone is the same genetically? Or do you take issue with the concept of improving society by way of genetics?

The problem of Eugenics is proponents typically use phenotype instead of genotype. I.e. in the earlier 20th century if you were poor that was due to your genes and thus should be culled. Very different then saying I have a single gene mutation that say causes cystic fibrosis and you use CRISPR to gene edit it out via in vitro. Genetics simply is not as easy as haha I have different genes: a lot of brilliant people clearly have psych disorders as an example. Much of intelligence, mental illness are due polygenetic factors along with environmental influences. Eventually the polygenetic angles will likely be worked out but it will be a tricky process