Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewclunn | Hacker News Reader

This sort of research is incredibly dangerous, as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences. Also, if apes were created with human level intelligence then the lines of "human rights" might be tied inextricably to quantified intelligence. We must outlaw such research and brand it as "racist" immediately (on a cultural level) to prevent going down a scientifically justified social darwinian path toward distopia /s

View on HN

Without arguing on the specifics of this case, I do not think that the answer is "ban all of research that can be read as racist". This -seems to me- would be acting on symptoms and not causes of a deeper issue, and could actually end up in much worst consequences.

I think you might benefit from understanding what this means:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=%2FS

ahha terribly terribly sorry!

Why make a straw man just so you can sarcastically mock it? At least wait for someone to express a real opinion you disagree with. This isn't a good basis for discussion nor very relevant.

Considering the first comment missed that it was sarcasm, I think I hit a recurring sort of argument right on the head. As far as relevancy, I think the the practice of modifying primate genes, specifically to make them more human like in cognitive ways, and then aborting them to prevent the true impact of the development being studied (and to avoid anyone coming after them for human / animal rights violations) is very relevant with this sort of research.

> as it could lead to the (clearly false) belief that measured differences in cognitive ability between different human sub-groups is also based in genetic differences.

This is, in fact, false. Hope this helps.

If I told you a way it was true - people with phenylketonuria become "less intelligent" if their environment contains Diet Coke - you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome".

Or possibly you're getting info from people who think "heritable" means "genetic", which it doesn't.

> you wouldn't take that as a win, because by "genetic differences" you mean "science says I'm better than this other guy in a way they can never overcome"

Can I say Jakob Ingebrigsten is better than me (at middle distance running) in a way I can never overcome due to genetic differences?

I am fairly sure someone with my genetics cannot run a 4 minute mile, and the guy does that for fun. But perhaps I am wrong and given the right environment every human being is capable of running a 4 minute mile?

Doesn't seem like the most obvious explanation, considering you don't have either of your genetics on hand and have existed in different environments since you were zygotes.

All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently.

Also, you don't become a professional runner because you're the world's best at running. You become a runner because you're not even better at something else. That's called "comparative advantage".

> All the other stuff (environment, diet, mother's diet… even training) is more likely to be it because it happened more recently.

And yet, the evidence contradicts you: https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1286...

Mind you, the (many variables) in the environment certainly have an effect. And without training you just can't reach elite performance. But most humans out of the womb, can't run a 4 minute mile regardless of training regimen over their lives.

I pick that number because it's at the edge of human performance. No woman in the world, out of the many impressive athletes who have tried, ever got close - the record is 4:12 by the incredible Sifan Hassan. Only a few hundred men in the US have been able to achieve it. Was it the environment, their mother's diet or the patriarchy that allowed these men - but not the many thousands, (millions?) of other men and women who tried- to run under 4 minutes in the mile?

I'm sure you agree physical ability depends on genetics in certain cases. No human being can reach the top speed of the average lion, and that's purely due to genes.

The idea that genetic differences cease to matter for peak potential performance when we talk about individuals of the same species, flies in the face of all the sports science evidence.

Occam's razor makes genetics the obvious explanation for things everyone who ever did sports in school has observed: certain kids can dunk with minimal training (height, fast-twitch muscle fibers) and others can't touch the rim, certain kids can lap others before they ever do any sort of endurance training, and once they do, even very talented kids run out of breath trying to keep up with the best given equal training, etc.

Most environment effects can be extremely detrimental in rare cases (mother's diet impacting embryo/fetus development, poor early childhood nutrition), but once we're out of the womb and healthy, there are massive differences and nothing indicates running a 4 minute mile is about whose mum ate the best breakfast.

P.S.: Most of this "genes, evolution theory, speciation, yes all true, but humans are all the same, basically" ideology stems from a good place - don't want to repeat the eugenics and similar bullshit of the last century. You can do both. Defend humans rights and equal treatment for all humans, with the understanding that individuals are different and many of those differences are determined by their genes.

It's a mystery to me why this paper is claiming that environment is "nurture" or that twin studies prove things are caused by genetics; neither of these are true because your mother's womb is all of environment, diet, not (your) genetics, and not controlled by a twin study.

You're welcome to invent some kind of intervention study where you edit one twin's genes and not the other though. Short of that, genetics studies are interesting but not good at finding reliable evidence for much. Imagine using GWAS to analyze a computer program - it'd tell you one version of it has a new feature because it has a letter 'p' in one position of the source code.

The other issue is that genetics don't typically make you better/worse in general, they make you more adapted to an environment. So the main reason to know them is to find interventions where you improve that environment.

There isn't much need for that for sprinting, which I guess makes it better as a sport. For long distance running there's, well, owning a car. Though I remember hearing about this tribe of long-distance runners, who adapted to their lifestyle not through genetic traits but cultural ones:

https://www.runnersworld.com/gear/a20783981/study-running-fo...

The best examples of genetic traits that do differ in humans are ones we got from elsewhere; humans really are extremely closely related for a species and haven't had much time to invent a lot of them. We got the Tibetan adaption to mountains and the European/Asian straight hair and cold adaption by hooking up with other hominins.

I myself am carrying a rare genetic disease (LHON) which I have no symptoms of, so even having a copy of my whole genome tells you a lot less than just meeting me.

> neither of these are true because your mother's womb is all of environment, diet, not (your) genetics, and not controlled by a twin study.

> you're welcome to invent some kind of intervention study where you edit one twin's genes and not the other though.

And yet all of these criticisms are just saying we don't have a way to perfectly isolate the genetic effect. These studies still provide evidence for the impact of genes on whatever they are studying, even if the conditions in the mother's womb are also factor. The position that "everything but genes explains the observed differences" is the irrational one given the evidence.

> The other issue is that genetics don't typically make you better/worse in general, they make you more adapted to an environment.

I'm not sure why you are bringing this up? I didn't say anything about being better/worse in general (whatever that means)? I am talking about being able to run a 4 minute mile on Earth's surface (1 atm, 15-30 celsius, etc.)

> Though I remember hearing about this tribe of long-distance runners, who adapted to their lifestyle not through genetic traits but cultural ones

And yet, it's trivial to find papers mentioning how more genetic analysis is required, but there is evidence for genetic adaptation:

"The only genetic analysis carried out specifically in Tarahumara runners showed a striking enrichment in genes related to the production of the extracellular matrix of tendons and muscles in a gene ontology analysis (41). This genetic profile could provide the mechanical advantages for the foot strike that we mentioned above."

"Remarkably, it has been found that physical training in hypoxia can upregulate NKC activating molecules (52). And indeed, the activator gene, KIR2SD5, has a differential expression among the Tarahumara (19)."

https://www.germanjournalsportsmedicine.com/archiv/archive-2...

> The best examples of genetic traits that do differ in humans are ones we got from elsewhere; humans really are extremely closely related for a species and haven't had much time to invent a lot of them.

You are talking about traits such as Tibetan adaptation to high elevation - something which requires genetic variability and selection pressure - whereas I am simply talking about the fact that there is genetic variability at the individual level that impacts performance.

Absence of a large number conserved genetic traits in specific populations, does not imply "human genetic differences are irrelevant at the individual level".

I am not claiming Norwegians as a whole have developed the "superhuman middle-distance running trait". There likely has been no (or little) selection pressure to do so, so the "trait" does not exist as something that is conserved in a specific population.

What exists is a lot of genetic variation that allows for some individuals (such as Jakob Ingebrigtsen) to be significant outliers when it comes to running a mile race. Because. of. his. genes.

You're the only person who brought race into this and that says way more about you than anyone else.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com