…and this is a 
Grrr. I was sent a link to these lying, sleazebag scammers at mygeneprofile.com, and it's the kind of thing that pisses me off. What you'll find there is a long video where the lowlife in a suit talks about how your children have in-built genetic biases ("from God", no less), and how if you want them to be truly happy and successful, you should tailor their upbringing to maximize their genetic potential. And he blathers on about how they will do a genetic test to determine whether your child has genes for science or art.
It's a complete lie. There is no such test. There can be no such test. That's not how genomes work, that they translate DNA in a comprehensible, measurable way into discrete traits for such abstract abilities as playing the piano.
They claim that "The Industry is Featured by CNN, CBS News." I wonder what that means? That there were news reports about the human genome project? That they bought commercial time?
Anyway, it's fraud. Don't fall for it.
Politics
Technology
Comments
Posted by: William Murray | November 19, 2009 2:45 PM
But..I have to believe him, I'm genetically inclined to that sort of stuff. Plus, the barker they hired looks all scholarly in that video!
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
November 19, 2009 2:48 PM
Can't we have genes for both science AND art?
There are two types of people in this world: those who divide humanity into meaningless dichotomies, and those who don't.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 19, 2009 2:49 PM
Gee, are they actually including the epigenomic effects to truly know what will be expressed?
Thought not.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 2:49 PM
What if the gene test shows your daughter has the perfect make up to be a porn star?
Posted by: Peter G | November 19, 2009 2:51 PM
Featured on CBS? My bet is 60 minutes. Mostly the coverage would consist of security guards trying to cover the camera lens with their hands.
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 19, 2009 2:55 PM
Hm, the guy in the video looks and sounds a bit like Penn Jillette. Maybe this is a parody video he's making for Bullshit.
It's a silly enough idea, right up there with telling your personality through your handwriting style.
Posted by: squareone | November 19, 2009 3:03 PM
For half the price, I can read your genetic biases by examining the bumps on your head. For less than that I can read your aura over the phone.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
November 19, 2009 3:08 PM
Is there a difference?
Posted by: Jon Anderson | November 19, 2009 3:12 PM
I offer genetic personality profiling from home, using the same electrostatic magnetic ion attraction techniques as the bomb sniffing rods in Iraq. Just send me $50 via paypal.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 19, 2009 3:18 PM
Heh.
"There's only two things I hate: Intolerance of other people's cultures... and the DUTCH"
Posted by: littlejohn | November 19, 2009 3:20 PM
Isn't a little premature to state that there never can be a test predicting aptitude in certain areas?
I'm no biologist, so I'm just asking. I know that most of the genome remains a mystery.
Musical skill, to pick an obvious example, often runs in families (consider the Bachs).
That said, those crooks currently are in no position to detect such a genetic predilection, should it exist.
Posted by: Fuchs | November 19, 2009 3:25 PM
The site looks extremely fake - maybe it's just a satire? The whois information is secured by whoisguard, a real company should reveal their ownership without fear I think...
Posted by: james T Clark | November 19, 2009 3:25 PM
I am curious, WHY wouldn´t such a test be possible?
We can test a great deal of things, can we not? Intelligence, Homosexuality and general diseases, can we not? Whats the deal with this?
Could anyone explain?
And i am short on time, just a general explanation why not with possible links to explain details would be lovely.
Posted by: LadyShea | November 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Thanks for posting and commenting, PZ. It totally pissed me off. If you go to their home page http://www.mygeneprofile.com, then their media link, you can see the news spots....oh and sign up for their affiliate marketing program so you can make commissions selling the solution to misery and failure too!
Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 19, 2009 3:31 PM
You don't need to worry about (most of) us falling for this scam. But lots of easily-deluded people will.
This is a particularly cruel scam, though. What if some gullible parent tests their child and forces him/her into activities to "optimize their genetic potential" when such potential is identified in such an arbitrary and bogus manner?
Posted by: Kagehi | November 19, 2009 3:31 PM
That some sort of tests "might" be possible, maybe.. That they exist now, hell no. That you can tell the difference between someone that can play, versus write, music, or that they would do better at that than computer programming, or mathematics... That gets **really** iffy, especially since some people, like Bach, used complex math to produce their works, and many people that wrote music also got into programming, so they could create things to better make music.
So, yeah, it might be vaguely possible (though, not, as you say, by these crooks), but there are two huge problems:
1. The result is likely to be a spectrum, not discreet categories.
2. Its a bit like looking at a bolt and predicting which car it will end up in, or even if it will. That its **commonly used** in 6 kinds of cars, 4 boats, 3 air planes and a specific class of windmill means *jack* until you start attaching the other bits to it, narrowing what it "can" produce. The same might be said for development. The brain could start out with high potential for language, but if you never learn even one properly, by the time you are a teen, you may have lost 50% of that potential. Same with the rest. The most "built on" by experience, the more distorted the original potentials would likely get. You might still be 20% better than the clown next to you at X, but 50% worse than you would have been had you learned X as a child, or worse.
Yep. Got some definite scum running a scam here.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 19, 2009 3:37 PM
A general explanation why not is simply that scientific and artistic aptitude are massively contingent on cultural influences. All other things being equal, it would be unsurprising to find that there was some genetic component, but our understanding of human genetics and its vastly complex interplay with all of the other salient influences on cognitive development does not allow anything near hard conclusions about those exact genetic factors, much less any kind of rigorous test for them.
Posted by: DeanFromBC | November 19, 2009 3:44 PM
I used a fake name and a mostly unused hotmail account to sign up for their free information. I'll be interested to see what they send me.
I haven't watched any of the clips in the media section of their site, but I suspect that not a one mentions mygeneprofile.com but are simply news spots mentioning the future potential of gene therapies.
I wonder how these people, like POTUS, would feel that their implied endorsement is featured on a scam website.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 19, 2009 3:44 PM
Another reason is that these traits are bound to be influenced by large numbers of genes. The idea that there will be a gene "for" behavioral disposition X, or even a handful of such genes, is orders of magnitude too simplistic.
Posted by: jolly | November 19, 2009 3:47 PM
Well, our genes certainly weren't selected to play the piano. Somehow the genes were selected for something and as a strange perk, also allows us to play piano. I can't imagine at this time, how one could possibly figure out these complicated relationships. It would have to be such a general guess that it would be meaningless.
Posted by: tsg | November 19, 2009 3:48 PM
Astrology, phrenology, tarot cards, biorhythms, and now this.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Posted by: Katharine | November 19, 2009 3:49 PM
tsg, they're called 'moron taxes'. They bilk stupid people out of their money. I consider them a service to society insofar that they punish idiots for their idiotic beliefs.
Posted by: Michael Simpson | November 19, 2009 3:53 PM
To quote Steve Novella, "Pseudoscientific proponents, on the other hand, praise science, they just do it wrong."
This should be used as the perfect example.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
November 19, 2009 3:53 PM
Even if I could swallow that kind of ethical standard- which I can't- it's already been pointed out that this particular scam could end up injuring innocent children.
Posted by: tsg | November 19, 2009 3:54 PM
Like the lottery. I know.
Except for two things: the morons don't learn anything, and the money goes in some crook's pocket instead of actually helping society like, say, paying for education of morons.
Posted by: LadyShea | November 19, 2009 3:56 PM
Dr. Hsien-Hsien Lei did an article back in January on a similar offer of determining your kid's innate talents, from a company called DNA Dynasty
http://www.eyeondna.com/2009/01/11/parenting-children-using-genetic-tests/
I wonder if I followed some stuff around if these are different divisions of the same corporation?
Posted by: Curious | November 19, 2009 3:56 PM
In his book Dawkins says that at least in principle human beings can be bred for mathematical or musical ability. His point is that if breeding for physical attributes is so easy in animals, breeding for mental attributes should at least be possible in humans in principle.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 19, 2009 4:08 PM
I bet I'm good for art cuz I'm a girl.
Posted by: Islander | November 19, 2009 4:11 PM
My geens make me spel goode.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 4:11 PM
You're on. How much?
Posted by: Michelle R | November 19, 2009 4:15 PM
@Lose_the_woo: according to the website's tests I mean.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 19, 2009 4:23 PM
Did anyone notice that - particularly if the page loads slowly (as did mine) but at least all in green the headline reads:
Promising Future ... Breakthrough Science Technology" (emphasis mine)
JC
Posted by: Torrie | November 19, 2009 4:23 PM
I do believe genes are passed on that can make you good at something your parents or family was good at. But, it doesn't always happen. And, I agree with Dawkins that it should be possible. However, sounds like this is an unscientific approach they are using. I didn't view the site, so can't comment any further, except to say that it reminds me of the tactics used by Scientologists.
Posted by: JackC
|
November 19, 2009 4:25 PM
Oh - and I liked the last line:
"I am sure this will change your children's future."
Yep - I can see that. Futures can certainly be changed when the parent's have the money taken for future education (assuming such is planned) taken from them for what amounts to most likely a really expensive horoscope.
JC
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 4:29 PM
@ Michelle
Oh. I get it. I just thought you bein' a girl n all would make you better at cookin' n stuff.
*ducks under desk in fear of incoming high-velocity shoe*
Posted by: Prazzie | November 19, 2009 4:31 PM
Sastra: "It's a silly enough idea, right up there with telling your personality through your handwriting style."
What, you mean the curly loops on my y's don't indicate that I'm surprisingly fit? I admit I've been suspicious about that one, considering that I get out of breath going through the KFC drive-through.
Posted by: llewelly | November 19, 2009 4:31 PM
Katharine | November 19, 2009 3:49 PM:
If they were taxes, it would be a citizen's duty to write their legislators and complain that they're spent on frivolous things that benefit only a few individuals, rather than on important stuff that affects everyone.
Intellect is not a particularly good defense against con artists. It's better than nothing, but not by much. Education is a little bit better, and practiced skepticism is better still, but no-one is immune. Con artists are very good at taking advantage of the belief that only the stupid fall for their tricks. Not only do the use it to catch the smart unawares, they use it make the smart feel so ashamed as to not report the crime.
I guess that's why you're helping them, by spreading the belief that only idiots are fooled by con artists.
What you've said here is little different than saying that someone who got robbed is stupid, and the robbers are doing a society a service by teaching a lesson to those whose homes are not adequately secured. The people running this scam are essentially the same as thugs who use guns to hold up the unwary and empty their wallets.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | November 19, 2009 4:32 PM
Might they also locate the genes that control the faux dialectic of gullibility and dishonesty?
"And on this chromosome, I see a gene that determines that you will believe anything!" Nothing to see here, folks, nothing at all.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 4:32 PM
Reproducing.
Posted by: middlekk | November 19, 2009 4:32 PM
That parents pass along genetic traits that provide their children with aptitude for certain skills or skill sets is unsurprising.
One need only look as far as Ken Griffey Jr - arguably one of the best baseball players of all time - to see that this is true.
Of course, one need only look as far as Pete Rose Jr to see that it's not that simple.
Posted by: Word Slinger | November 19, 2009 4:35 PM
"Anyway, it's fraud. Don't fall for it."
Hey! Teacher! Leave them kids alone!
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 4:37 PM
You mean like preachers begging for tithes?
Posted by: SteveM | November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
Like Edison said, "Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration". And if you believe Martin Gladwell's Outliers, that seems to apply to "talent" as well. "Talent" is very dependent on the amount of time and effort one puts into practicing one's "gift". So genes may make someone more attracted to a particular field, but becoming an expert is more about environment and practice. And often, innate ability can actually be a detriment to excelling as one might tend to "coast" on one's talent rather than put in the hard work to really excel.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
@Lose_the_woo: I'm not gonna throw a shoe at you, Mr. Woo... I'll cook you something. It's FAR deadlier.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 19, 2009 4:38 PM
I suppose it depends on whether she uses Maybelline or Max Factor. Or maybe just a lot of either would qualify.
Posted by: SteveM | November 19, 2009 4:40 PM
Sorry, Malcolm Gladwell, not Martin.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
November 19, 2009 4:44 PM
We can test for some genetic disorders, but not for intelligence or homosexuality. A test for homosexuality might be possible in the future, but not necessarily. "Intelligence" is such a broad concept, with so many factors, both genetic and environmental, that I don't think we will ever be able to predict it based on a genetic test.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 19, 2009 4:51 PM
I think my genes are telling me that this is a trap. (t's been said that I has the genes for good figurin')
Posted by: sasqwatch | November 19, 2009 4:56 PM
As a rather accomplished pianist, I can say with 100% certainty that my genetic makeup is responsible for my ability. It wouldn't have been possible were it not for the genes that helped form my fingers.
Posted by: Word Slinger | November 19, 2009 4:56 PM
""Intelligence" is such a broad concept, with so many factors, both genetic and environmental, that I don't think we will ever be able to predict it based on a genetic test."
While there are no genetic tests for intelligence, there are many standardized tests that are excellent predictors of IQ, educational achievement, job performance and income.
Posted by: Curious | November 19, 2009 4:57 PM
And often, innate ability can actually be a detriment to excelling as one might tend to "coast" on one's talent rather than put in the hard work to really excel.
Spot on
Posted by: Björn Lindström
|
November 19, 2009 5:03 PM
Wait now. If those gene profiles are from God, shouldn't they all be good anyway?
Posted by: Eng | November 19, 2009 5:07 PM
"...they would argue with my wife and I." The preceding statement is grammatically incorrect. This man is clearly a sleazy moron.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 19, 2009 5:09 PM
why you.... I oughta..
genetic make up...
Posted by: Maggi Moo | November 19, 2009 5:10 PM
presumably the more salient question would be from whom did she inherit that tendency?!
Posted by: Haley | November 19, 2009 5:10 PM
I WISH there was a test to know these things. It would make finding out what I want to be when I grow up so much easier. It would probably be good for lazy parents who don't want to put in the effort of nourishing all their child's potential talents.
I also wish I could do magic.
Posted by: Kim Hosey (AZ Writer) | November 19, 2009 5:15 PM
Obviously a bunch of crap, even if I didn't know jack about how genomes work. But when I saw that it was an affiliate scam thing, yeah. Double crapola. When your peers have videos about how seven buck in the mail today will net you $89,000 by next week, you don't look so credible.
Posted by: James Sweet | November 19, 2009 5:17 PM
This is an excellent analogy. If the concept of genetic determinism comes up in conversation, hopefully I will remember to steal it. Bravo.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 19, 2009 5:22 PM
Posted by: Bubs | November 19, 2009 5:22 PM
This guy is obviously a charlatan. However, this type of screen is completely plausible. There's already plenty known about the genetic basis of many traits, including behaviors, and so what you'd end up with is some limited predictive ability. To think this kind of thing isn't possible _at all_ is inane.
Posted by: Nomen Publicus | November 19, 2009 5:27 PM
I wonder if there is a gene that makes
people buy lottery tickets at odds of millions to one against?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 19, 2009 5:31 PM
According to Ensembl the odds for finding that gene are a lot better at 23,299 to one...!
Posted by: ckitching
|
November 19, 2009 5:43 PM
It seems these things are all the rage... Here's a couple sites that promises to tell you if two people's genes are compatible for love... $99 each test for the first, or $2000 for a "lifetime membership" for the second. I'll bet they're making a killing off this nonsense. You know what they say about a fool and his money...
Posted by: karen | November 19, 2009 5:45 PM
compare and contrast,
http://www.mychildtalentprofile.com/termofuse.html
http://www.mapmygene.com/terms.htm
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 19, 2009 5:47 PM
Rothenbuhler's 1964 work on hygienic behaviour of Van Scoy bees. As Dawkins (1982) in The Extended Phenotype puts it: 'The point of using this example is that it illustrates how a highly complex behaviour difference can be due to a single gene difference. The hygienic behaviour of the Brown strain of honeybees involves the whole neuromuscular system, but the fact that they perform the behaviour whereas Van Scoy bees do not is, according to Rothenbuhler's model, due to differences at two loci only. One locus determines the uncapping of cells containing diseased brood, the other locus determines the removing of diseased brood after uncapping.'
As Prof. Dawkins says earlier in the first chapter of that work:
'...we may find ourselves aggressively challenged to substantiate our 'claims' of the existence of 'genes for' some adaptation in which we are interested. But this challenge, if it is a real challenge at all, should be directed at the whole of the neo-Darwinian 'modern synthesis' and the whole of population genetics ... A few workers have, indeed, flung just such a challenge at the whole neo-Darwinian modern synthesis and have claimed not to be neo-Darwinians. Goodwin (1979) in a published debate with Deborah Charlesworth and others, said "..neo-Darwinism has an incoherence in it ... we are not given any way of generating phenotypes from genotypes in neo-Darwinism. Therefore the theory is in this respect defective." Goodwin might just as well say that, before Hodgkin and Huxley worked out how the nerve impulse fired, we were not entitled to believe that nerve impulses control behaviour ... It follows from the fact that geneticists are always concerned with phenotypic differences that we need not be afraid of postulating genes with indefinitely complex phenotypic effects [my emphasis - FT], and with phenotypic effects that show themselves only in highly complex developmental conditions. Together with Professor John Maynard Smith, I recently took part in a public debate with two radical critics of 'sociobiology', before and audience of students. At one time in the discussion we were trying to establish that to talk of a gene 'for X' is to make no outlandish claim, even where X is a highly complex, learned behaviour pattern. Maynard Smith reached for a hypothetical example and came up with a 'gene for skill in tying shoelaces'. Pandemonium broke loose at this rampant genetic determinism! The air was thick with the unmistakable sound of worst suspicions being gleefully confirmed. Delightfully sceptical cries drowned the quiet and patient explanation of just what a modest calim is being made whenever one postulates a gene for, say, skill in tying shoelaces.'
I sense where Professor Myers would have stood in that particular debate.
Posted by: Carlie | November 19, 2009 6:02 PM
"There's only two things I hate: Intolerance of other people's cultures... and the DUTCH"
"And poor, sweet Brittany. Oh, I know the Dutch are famous for being a cold people, but that’s no excuse for treating you like some half-priced hooker in Amsterdam’s famous red-light district."
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 19, 2009 6:16 PM
and so Carlie, putting Acronym Jim at #45 with Me at #55 and you at #66, the genetic makeup of the Rev's daughter (at #4) would certainly be unreal...
Posted by: CJO
|
November 19, 2009 6:21 PM
The difference is between the possibility, in principle, that a gene or genes might be a significant determinitive factor for a given complex behavioral trait, and the claim that it's been identified and can be tested for.
Regarding the former, I don't think that PZ's stance would differ markedly from Dawkins', though I'm sure that he would emphasize developmental and other non-genetic biological factors that might come into play. On the latter claim, I doubt you'd get Dawkins' endorsement for the traits in question here.
Posted by: Rose Colored Glasses | November 19, 2009 6:26 PM
Littlejohn: Yes, we see that music runs in families. So does wealth. Musical parents are likely to draw/force their children into music early on, which tends to perpetuate musical culture, just as great family wealth perpetuates aristocracy. But don't go looking for a money gene.
Posted by: amphiox | November 19, 2009 6:30 PM
re: #27
While it may well be theoretically possible to breed for certain mental abilities in humans, that is a far cry from predicting anyone's aptitudes for a genetic test, inasmuch as selective breeding works by choosing phenotypes, and one doesn't actually need any knowledge of the underlying genetics whatsoever, so long as the trait being selected for has even the slightest bit of heritability.
Of course, just like the guy who bred the Silver Foxes for tameness, and ended up getting dog-like barking, floppy ears, piebald fur, one is certainly open to many unintended consequences.
Breed for mathematical ability long enough, and maybe you get a spike in Asperger's-like traits, or whatnot.
Posted by: amphiox | November 19, 2009 6:37 PM
If it were in any way possible to predict accomplishment from a genetic code (maybe you could do some heuristic analysis of several hundred genes and their interactions, over a predicted spectrum of likely environmental influences, factor in some chaos theory, holy water, and seven pairs of 21-sided dice, or something), you'd probably be best served looking for assocations with affinity, and not ability.
Take anyone of average ability, but enough love of the activity to devote the necessary time and effort, provide the appropriate dollop of opportunity and acess, and you will get yourself an expert, guaranteed.
But take someone of superior ability but only average interest, and all you will get is a big fight.
Posted by: F
|
November 19, 2009 6:40 PM
Teh stoopid, it is scalding hot.
Posted by: OpenMindedNotCredulous
|
November 19, 2009 6:41 PM
It looks like a MLM scam to me. Google "mygeneprofile" and find the result with the summary "for Affiliate Marketers: Historic Global Product Launch". Then click on the [cached] link (the main link is dead). Here are the first two points from the affiliate pitch page:
Blech. I feel dirty now having read and listened to those scumbags pitch.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | November 19, 2009 6:52 PM
Re. post 50:
"While there are no genetic tests for intelligence, there are many standardized tests that are excellent predictors of IQ, educational achievement, job performance and income."
I am curious what those standardized test might be? Other than a expressing Prostestant work-ethic fanstasy, how might one predict "job perfomance" and what might that mean? Such terms as "IQ","educational achievement", and "job performance" seem wholly compromised terms, based on certain rather tacit assumptions about people in the world (and the ability to slap a meaningful number on them too).
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 19, 2009 6:57 PM
@OpenMindedNotCredulous #73
and as an afterthought, the next hook is:
Posted by: Dan | November 19, 2009 7:01 PM
For whatever it means, despite the American accent in the video, My Gene Profile Pte Ltd. must be located somewhere else.
If it's the same as:
Map My Gene Pte Ltd
189 New Bridge Road #03-01/02
Singapore 059422
they have a web site at:
www.mapmygene.com/index.htm
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 19, 2009 7:03 PM
as though they were all measures of intelligence?
(not sure Alfred Binet would agree...)
Posted by: DJM | November 19, 2009 7:04 PM
Damn, I hope I can get my money back! Maybe the homeopathy pain killer is a scam as well.
Posted by: bluskool | November 19, 2009 7:27 PM
This is my favorite part.
Man, I would hate to be that guys kid.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 19, 2009 8:14 PM
"...translate DNA in a comprehensible, measurable way into discrete traits for such abstract abilities..."
That sentence set off my AMBIGUITY alarms.
translate? language, body parts, interpreter? What?
comprehensible? – by whom/what/where?
measurable? – Oh good, Nerd of Redhead will like that. Vernier? Durometer? Taber test? Scales? Stop watch?
Discrete? – No that can’t be right! Was DNA now is something new? Can I watch the slow motion replay please?
Traits? Character? Personality? Look Stephanie! Number Five is Alive. No disassemble!
Abstract abilities – Oh this just keeps getting better!
Good one PZ Myers! Keep ‘em comin’
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: LadyShea | November 19, 2009 8:23 PM
DNA Dynasty too. All the same guys, using different DBAs for whatever reason.
DNA Dynasty Group Pte Ltd
189 New Bridge Road
Country/Region: Singapore
Zip: 059422
Telephone: 65-00-65572953
Fax: 65-00-64361794
Posted by: Chris Johnson | November 19, 2009 9:12 PM
It seems as if they deliberately worded the following statement to be misleading; "Our Technology Spawned from Human Genome Project led by US Scientists. The Industry is Featured by CNN, CBS News".
When they say, "The Industry" they are referring to The Human Genome Project, not their organization, though it to make you think they are.
Posted by: Conor H. | November 19, 2009 9:36 PM
I found this place because they use the same online schedule system we use at my workplace:
http://www.dnaperfection.com/
I lost them at "Jesus had 12 strands of DNA" or somesuch.
Posted by: Pacal | November 19, 2009 9:41 PM
Fellow Traveller quotes Dawkin's at No. 65.
In his quote Dawkins refers to the idea that it is perfectly reasonable to postulate a gene for tying shoelaces. I do hope the context that would make this remark make sense as been left out because on the face of it it is a beatifully inane / mindless comment.
But then it is from 1982. Over 20 years ago.
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 19, 2009 9:50 PM
Posted by: CJO "A general explanation why not is simply that scientific and artistic aptitude are massively contingent on cultural influences. ..."
The whole issue of science/math vs artistic abilities is a false dichotomy. Many scientists are artistic and many artists are scientists. Leonardo was both inventor/scientist and artist. They are not mutually exclusive, in fact they support each other.
Posted by: Jesse | November 20, 2009 12:10 AM
@ LittleJohn (#11)
It's not possible because artistic talent, or musical, or pretty much anything is a vast, VAST, complex of myriad traits.
Hell, even WITHIN something like art there are subdivisions with different traits. Take painting, for example. For this you primarily need excellent fine motor skills (finger control, etc) and a good mind for spatial relationships, as well as excellent colour vision (you don't see colour or not, it is a range like most things).
No one gene controls all that. So while a gene for better fine motor skills might help you be a painter, it would also help you be a pianist or a carpenter. While there is certainly some form of genetic impulse to certain broad ranges of jobs it doesn't link too arbitrary job descriptions like art, music or science.
Too use myself as an example, I make my living as an artist. I'm willing too bet with my genes I'm predisposed to working with my hands. But if I'd grown up in a family that thought art was a waste of time I'd probably have decided to be a mechanic or carpenter. Or maybe I'd have ended up in a family with no money and no chance for me to get an education, and I would have ended up as a cashier at Wal-Mart for my entire life.
Posted by: Diane | November 20, 2009 12:17 AM
The website was created on October 20, 2009 and whoever owns it is hiding behind a privacy screen. All legitimate businesses allow their contact information to be listed in the "who is" directory, but not these folks. That phrase "The Industry is Featured by CNN, CBS News" is meaningless.
Thanks for pointing out the lack of true science.
BTW, Channel 12 in Cincinnati did a story on the Creation UnMuseum and quoted your blog.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 20, 2009 2:17 AM
Bugger a music gene, I'm hoping one of my kids spontaneously develops a "become world class at golf and keep their mother in the manner in which she intends to become accustomed" gene.
Now that's a gene I'd pay good money to slice into one of little weevils.
Posted by: Dan | November 20, 2009 2:37 AM
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1695#comic
someones had to post it
Posted by: Kagehi | November 20, 2009 2:40 AM
Yes, lets be clear. First you have to define what "can be" base line effects. Tying shoelaces is absurd. Music.. Not so much, or not specifically. Why? The later is more of a "I can do it in my sleep, without thinking about it", programmed in reflex. You don't "think" about tying shoes, you just initiate the event, then let your "muscle memory" do the rest. Someone very good at tying shoes is likely to have a "large" set of things they are equally good at, all of which require a) complex motor memory, b) manual dexterity, and c) the capacity to perform those complex step, with little or no mental intervention. Someone with those traits would be good at tying shoes. Duh!
Music is.. not quite the same. First is tonal recognition, then there is mapping that to complex patterns, then organization and an innate sense of the patterns, and finally, replication of those patterns. Musicians don't just "play", they have to *think* about playing, as they do it. The set of requirements are more complex, and failure of any of the systems it relies on will torpedo the attempt. If you can't recognize precise tonal patterns, you can't hear music, never mind play it. If you can't map those to complex patterns, and replay them, you may enjoy music, but you will never be able to "play" it. And so on. And, more to the point, much of the systems required to make it work are ***not*** learned. Every single living human, except the tone deaf, react to the same gaps, tonal changes, contrasts, etc. by matching them to "this is a different note", "this is a different instrument", "this is not from the same place", and even, "those two notes do not work well together". What makes a musician is the ability to take those "innate" insights and apply other processes to them. If you are good at processes, but tone deaf, you won't do well at music. If you have perfect pitch, but mediocre, or worse, skill at constructing new patterns, you might be amazing at karaoke, but horrible incapable of *writing* music.
Musical talent is more complex, but highly specific in that complexity, so you might reasonably expect to find *key* genes that affect the specific subsets of cognitive skills needed to work with it, which have a *high* degree of effect on what you can do, ranging from, "You can't, ever!", to, "You will either be amazing at it, or better than average, depending on training." For something like tying shoelaces... its a very simple set of requirements, with a ***very*** broad set of results. Such that someone horrible at tying shoes is likely to be horrible at just about *anything* involving complex motor control. Sort of like if "tone deaf" effected speech, writing, comprehension, etc., on a large scale, instead of being only really hugely critical to musical skill.
Though, there might be some things in the class that effect musical talent which "would" mangle the rest too, but it would be something like the "muscle control" type gene, having a broad range of obvious effects, instead of a fairly narrow one.
Posted by: latsot | November 20, 2009 2:49 AM
*HULK MAD*
Posted by: Rorschach | November 20, 2009 3:10 AM
Bride of Shrek,
your email is broken !
;)
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 20, 2009 3:58 AM
Rorschach,
Just sent you an email gorgeous
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 20, 2009 4:16 AM
You will also probably breed brain disorders and other issues along with it.
As long as you can press the keys in the right order you can play piano. The rest is practice. You may never be in the top 99%. But so what. I'd rather have a life.
Posted by: Daniel | November 20, 2009 5:20 AM
James T Clark,
I'd say there is a 100% genetic propensity in the human species to look for the "essence" of their personality somewhere: hands, stars, halo,... and now that we live in the biological revolution, genes.
What's wrong with such a test? Its very superstitious assumption: trying to find the expanatory holy grail of human nature. Very soon you'll find scholars explaining the fall of the Roman Empire on the emergence of certain genetic mutation.
More, I think, should be explained by thouse who know better.
Posted by: F
|
November 20, 2009 6:04 AM
Conor H. @ 83
That site is too awesome! I want to activate my ten strands of etheric DNA now!
It's like, multi-core processing or something. Parallel processing, even. For Huminz.
Posted by: F
|
November 20, 2009 6:08 AM
Diane
The domain is also for sale. Neat trick, huh?
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 20, 2009 6:54 AM
From my experience in my line of work I can tell you there is definitely a criminal gene. How else do you explain that I am currently defending 3, yes, friggin 3, generations of the same family....including GRANDMA! Of course they could be just total shitbags but I kind of like to think somewhere, swimming around in this family's reproductive systems, there are little spermatazoa and litte eggs dressed up like the Beagle Boys complete with prison uniforms with arrows on them.
It's a novel defence and I'm currently trying to draft it into my submissions but it would certainly help if I could get this company and it's "expert" opinion to ratify the gene theory I have.
Posted by: Briggs N. Stratton | November 20, 2009 7:25 AM
here almost on topic...
Chanan Tigay wrote an article for JTA on 6/07/2005
which describes the link between Ashkenazi intelligence and their susceptibility to certain genetic disorders... it cites a report in the Journal of Biosocial Science that "Ashkenazim do better than average on IQ tests, scoring some * 12-15 * points above the test's mean value."
The downside is susceptibility to Tay-Sachs, Gaucher's disease and Niemann-Pick - and some other diseases of the mind and the body. Not mentioned is Jewish susceptibility to some of the other diseases, i.e. Cystic Fibrosis, Torsion Dystonia and Libid 1 disorders.
[...]
Tigay writes, "The new study hypothesizes that the genetic disorders could be the unfortunate side effects of genes that facilitate intelligence. But for some people, ascribing collective traits to entire ethnic groups - especially to European Jews - reminds them that the Nazis heaped a pile of supposed genetic characteristics on that continent's
Jews and used the characteristics as a basis to exterminate them."
He says the researchers from that earlier study "say they had difficulty finding a journal that would publish their findings."
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 7:50 AM
@Briggs #99
Chanan Tigay also writes of Rabbi Arthur Green, Dean of the Rabbinical School at Boston's Hebrew College:
"it's best genetic stock"?!
Posted by: Greg | November 20, 2009 8:04 AM
When will they finally discover the "Shits gold" gene. Until then I am uninterested.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 8:07 AM
@Bride of Shrek #98
perhaps not the uniforms but the tell-tale criminal looks?
"scientists at the University of Manchester in England and the University of California at Irvine have found the gene for Treacher Collins syndrome, which affects only the face and head. Typical signs are deformed ears, down-slanting eyes, V-shaped lower eyelids, flat cheek bones and a small chin"
now that they have found the Treacle gene, the next step will be to determine what protein it codes for, but flippancy aside, over the last three years, research has indeed uncovered the genetic mechanisms that change the face along with seemingly unrelated parts of the body; "in many cases, a good diagnostician can now look at a misshapen face and see all the way down into the genome, predicting where in the genetic coils the DNA has become unsprung."
Posted by: Jack S. | November 20, 2009 8:25 AM
Consider nofollowing (adding rel="nofollow" to) links when you are linking to a site you don't like, if the blog you're using supports it.
rel="nofollow" informs Google that you are not endorsing a site by linking to it; otherwise, you're potentially boosting the page-rank of junk sites by linking to them. A naked link from a page-rank 7 site like yours could be worth at least hundreds of dollars in extra Google traffic to most scam sites.
Posted by: The Boil on Ray Comfort's Ass | November 20, 2009 8:44 AM
do you mean:
http://www.livingwaters.com/viplonge.htmlrel="nofollow"
or in the google search box:
ray comfort's erectile dysfunction rel="nofollow"
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 8:54 AM
Boil (!!)
I think he means when you use [a href=] and then paste a "URL" into a blog comment you would add rel="nofollow"> before you close out with [/a]
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 9:03 AM
let me try that again... the square brackets are for emphasis not for inclusion in your html but I have purposely omitted the "less than" and "greater than" symbols so you will actually see my text here (!):
i.e. when you use [a href=] and then paste a ["URL"] into a blog comment you would add [rel="nofollow">] before you close out with [/a]
Posted by: LadyShea | November 20, 2009 9:57 AM
I got an email from them, obviously English is not the email composers first language
Our Inborn Talent Genetic Test is:
~ Having 99.8% Accuracy
~ Top American Technology
~ 100% Safe Procedures
~ Total Confidentiality Assurance
~ Our Lab is Certified Lab with GLP (Good Laboratory Practice),
GMP (Good Manufacturing Practice), GCP (Good Clinical Practice)
~ Our laboratory partners includes Pharmaceutical Giants such as
Glaxo Smith & Kline, Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme(MSD) and Pfizer.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 10:32 AM
LadyShea,
Their grammar was suspect straight off the site and reads exactly like the generic Far-east Asian and Nigerian scam letters that are routinely spammed through the global providers like Yahoo, etc.
Posted by: Dr. P | November 20, 2009 10:56 AM
@#50,
exactly; IQ;how well this correlates to intelligence( and how exactly intelligence is defined) is hotly debated.Posted by: Culturemorph | November 20, 2009 11:45 AM
Do you think that if they had a test to determine if a person was going to be a liberal athiest the religious right would start supporting abortion?
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 20, 2009 12:01 PM
The evidence supporting the role of genes in the behaviour of living organisms has grown not diminished with further research since its publication. Many animals engage in far more complex behaviour than tying shoelaces and they don't do so as the result of attending school (e.g. termites build nests featuring tall, ventilation shafts several metres high, perfectly aligned with the sun in the case of an Australian species - the outcome of genes favoured by natural selection). I couldn't quote much more of Prof. Dawkins' book - I can only recommend that those interested seek it out and read it. He does go on to explain and justify his assertion.
Posted by: LadyShea | November 20, 2009 12:08 PM
There is a table on this page showing the genes they supposedly test for
http://innatetalent.jspiondetox.com/
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 20, 2009 12:10 PM
Another example closer to shoelace tying in the natural world would be the web spinning spiders (Prof. Dawkins devoted a chapter to them in one of his later works - Climbing Mount Improbable). These species of arachnids weave structures far more complicated than a tied shoelace and do so as the result of their genes.
Biology does not recognise any difference in the principles underlying human beings and other species of living organism (although learning does play a far greater role in our lives naturally but of course the ability to learn has a genetic basis).
Posted by: mary | November 20, 2009 12:12 PM
Don't know anything about this company per se, but here is a link to a lengthy, but readable article by Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker on his adventure with a personal gene profile and behavior genetics.
Posted by: mary | November 20, 2009 12:15 PM
Sorry, not linkable.
">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/magazine/11Genome-t.html?adxnnl=1&ref=magazine&adxnnlx=1258736426-q3OXD/w09ItysGcdORIoJw>
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 20, 2009 12:16 PM
A further point (sorry to bore): the argument that there exists behaviour too complex to be under genetic control closely resembles the Intelligent Design assertion of irreducible complexity. Given that natural selection has produced organs as complicated as the human brain and nervous system we have no reason to assume a priori that highly sophisticated behaviour might not result from genes as well.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 12:17 PM
LOL!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 12:20 PM
sorry, the above list referred to LadyShea's comment #112
Posted by: LadyShea | November 20, 2009 12:22 PM
Although I have no issue with the thought of genes being the basis for behavior, I have a serious problem with hucksters marketing genetic tests straight to the public for money.
All one would have to do is throw away the swab and print a faked report. It's no different than a personal horoscope.
Posted by: Sanction, Inherent Antonym
|
November 20, 2009 12:23 PM
Here's hoping that the judge isn't a stickler about the Daubert standard...
Posted by: Mike | November 20, 2009 12:35 PM
Don't be so fast to assume that CNN won't uncritically repeat anti-science and pseudoscience nonsense. They have a heavy post-modernist philosophy bias. Anything that's sensationalized and shiny gets their attention. They've recently broadcast urban legends of organ black markets, and Sanjay Gupta insisting that he's seen patients rise up from brain death.
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 20, 2009 12:53 PM
So looking through the "Character" gene group, I didn't see a "bar-fight" gene. Surely there must be a bar-fight gene - right?!
Posted by: jolly | November 20, 2009 1:01 PM
#90. I agree. Music seems to be a language because it makes a difference if you learn it early in life or do what is rarely done, try to pick it up later. At 19 when I started music, I couldn't differentiate between tones enough to tune a stringed instrument. I could tell the difference between songs, so I knew I wasn't tone deaf. It took me years to be able to tune but I still can't easily hear the differentiate between notes. Musical ability is so complicated that it makes a difference even when you first start listening to it. For some scam artist to try to tell me they can see these things in our genes is ridiculous.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 20, 2009 1:30 PM
Another example closer to shoelace tying in the natural world would be the web spinning spiders (Prof. Dawkins devoted a chapter to them in one of his later works - Climbing Mount Improbable). These species of arachnids weave structures far more complicated than a tied shoelace and do so as the result of their genes.
Yes, the structure is complicated, but the nervous system isn't (lacks plasticity) and neither is the culture (lacking altogether), so that's how we know it's under genetic control. There simply are no other inputs. Complex human behaviors arise from an interplay of massive CNS plasticity and the myriad inputs of the rich cultural environment that surrounds human beings and it should be obvious that matters are not nearly so simple, and that spiders weaving webs is a terrible analogy to even the simplest things humans do. Really, you're practically making the opposing argument.
Biology does not recognise any difference in the principles underlying human beings and other species of living organism (although learning does play a far greater role in our lives naturally but of course the ability to learn has a genetic basis).
The ability to learn has a genetic basis, yes, in the sense that it takes a highly plastic nervous system to learn and genes "build" nervous systems. But that's a universal. Nervous systems are for learning and control. That doesn't tell us anything about the genetic basis for differences in ability to learn between individuals; it's trivially true.
The point is, Biology may not recognize any differences of kind. But that there are differences of degree in the vast "action space" available to humans as opposed to members of any other species is undeniable and the parameters of that space are not currently tractable using the tools of biology. At a certain point, quantity becomes its own quality. That biology does not recognize these differences, you might reflect, is precisely why we have Psychology, Anthropology, and Sociology.
Posted by: SteveM | November 20, 2009 1:51 PM
re 124:
Thank you CJO for saying what I tried but could not get into writing. I'd like to add that "complex behavior" needs to be carefully defined as more than just "building a complicated structure". We know from iterated systems that very simple algorithms can produce very complicated structures. So things like arches in termite mounds, spider webs, weaver bird nests, etc. do not necessarily prove that all behavior is genetically "programmed". Yes, a spider web is more complicated than a tied shoelace, but the process of generating each is quite different, making tying a shoelace the more "complex" behavior because the learning process itself is the far more complicated behavior.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 20, 2009 1:52 PM
lose-the-woo at #122
perhaps a combination of Ta2 and Ta9, a complete lack of Tc1 through 5, and a preponderance of Th3 might do the trick!
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 20, 2009 2:00 PM
Variation must exist genetically between individual organisms for natural selection to work - it picks out the individuals with superior phenotypes produced by their genotypes, indirectly 'choosing' the genes that producing favoured differences. Without different genes producing different outcomes selection can't operate. Any genetically based feature of an organism had at one time rivals selected out of the population. Variation may have exhausted as a result leaving only the descendants of the 'winners' all with the same genes (or with genes that produce near identical phenotypes) or some variation may yet continue to exist. It cannot be doubted that individual humans today exhibit both genetic and phenotype differences over a large range of features.
Whether specific attributes depend upon genetic variation or learning remains a matter for investigation. I simply point out that one cannot tell before examining the evidence whether a behaviour has a genetic basis or not.
Posted by: IAmJacksName
|
November 20, 2009 2:05 PM
Related BS:
http://mydnafragrance.com/perfume/mens-cologne-exclusive-by-my-dna-fragrance/
Posted by: lose_the_woo
|
November 20, 2009 2:09 PM
Maggie Moo @ #126
That just might work - as long as it doesn't produce an extra leg, or lack of one.
Posted by: Fellow Traveller | November 20, 2009 2:18 PM
As for SteveM's observation that simple algorithms can produce highly complex structures and behaviours, I respond: exactly! Natural selection is such a simple algorithm (explained best as such by Dan Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea).
Posted by: CJO
|
November 20, 2009 2:22 PM
I'd like to add that "complex behavior" needs to be carefully defined as more than just "building a complicated structure". We know from iterated systems that very simple algorithms can produce very complicated structures.
Right. A great example is beaver dams. You might imagine that the genome has to incorporate all these highly specialized suites of coded behaviors for building such structures, since nobody believes beavers "know what they're doing," the way a human building a dwelling does. But we actually see that relatively simple feedback iterations can accomplish the job. In the case of beavers, it's been shown that given a supply of mud and a speaker playing the sound of running water, a beaver will slather mud on the speaker until the sound is inaudible.
Not very complex, an aversion to the sound of a stream flowing freely, and it's that kind of environmental constant that allow a genome to "hard code" even for the creation of complex structures. Practically no human behaviors rely on a hard-wired response to such ubiquitous regularities in the natural world, but are instead nuanced responses to the vagaries of human social interactions, and hence require a much higher degree of broad-spectrum attention and cognitive control than seemingly similar non-human animal behavior.
Posted by: Kagehi | November 20, 2009 2:42 PM
Gah.. The problem, for the "gene for tying shoes", people is simply that we know its learned. There has never been a single person, that I suspect anyone here is aware of, including the people suggesting that there could be a gene for it, who just automatically "tied" their shoe laces, never mind learned dozens of other knot tying methods. The closest you could come to claiming their is a knot tying gene would be the "simple" knot, which half the children on the planet end up tying their shoes in, instead of the right way, resulting in long minutes spent untangling the laces, by annoyed parents.
Contrary to some estimations, it is possible, based on whether or not the behavior appear *spontaneously*, to tell what is learned and what may have genetic basis. Language *ability* is genetic, since even deaf children, in a group, without outside interference, have invented their own sign language. However, no one *spontaneously* acquires mastery of *specific* languages, like French, or English. Those are learned responses, which *direct* the underlying system, not something derived out of the system itself.
In terms of algorithms, language ability is the fractal, and *languages* are the "strange attractor", or similar system that bends, twists or distorts the original algorithm. Only, in this case, if you don't use the system, the system shuts down, and you lose both ability *and* language. In a vacuum, you don't get *either*, you get basically nothing. So, you have to have inputs to get the most out of the underlying genetic built system, but that system can only permute to fit what ever formal language system(s) you apply to it, it can't derive one, without **outside** inputs to respond to, i.e. other people with the same capacity.
Posted by: tyrone slothrop | November 20, 2009 2:52 PM
It goes without saying, and it has gone without saying, that tying shoelaces is not merely a behavior, but also, of course, a cultural practice as well. And the songs that I learned when I was learning to tie my shoelaces, that I still sometimes sing when tying my shoes, certainly are not a human universal. Nor might I add are the ways that I tie my shoelaces, which differ as well across time and across inviduals.
Dawkins could not have been serious, otherwise he has taken an abstraction (a type) "tying shoelaces" and reified it as an identical practice (token) across time and people. It would be the same for "walk" or "run", they differ in practice. Anyone who runs knows the ways that others run are different and at times identifiable as well. Same for "walking".
What is needed is anthropology here.
Posted by: Ryan | November 20, 2009 2:58 PM
While I agree that this is obviously a scam are we saying that it is and always will be impossible to do something like analyzing someone's genetic code and making some sort of statement about their expected natural skills?
As a thought experiment we could take the DNA, create several clones, and monitor their accomplishments up to a certain age. That would give us an idea of the natural talents this person would have had (a bit late though). After a century or two of continued research and technological improvements do it all in a computer simulation.
Posted by: MrrKAT | November 20, 2009 4:04 PM
In Finland's television genetist said that we know still so small part of our DNA that it is easier to predict by asking your family history (illnesses, abilities..) than just by looking DNA.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 20, 2009 5:16 PM
Together with Professor John Maynard Smith, I recently took part in a public debate with two radical critics of 'sociobiology', before and audience of students. At one time in the discussion we were trying to establish that to talk of a gene 'for X' is to make no outlandish claim, even where X is a highly complex, learned behaviour pattern. Maynard Smith reached for a hypothetical example and came up with a 'gene for skill in tying shoelaces'. - Fellow Traveller
I've just been reading "Adapting Minds" by Derek Buller, which is a critique of sociobiology's "child", Evolutionary Psychology (upper-case E and P intentional). Interestingly, he criticises EP (as opposed to the general search for evolutionary explnaations of psychological phenomena) partly because of its claim of a "universal human nature", which he says ignores the possibility of stable behavioural polymorphisms governed by single loci. I'd also note an ambiguity in "gene for tying shoelaces": does it mean "gene which affects how good you are, in at least some circumstances, at tying shoelaces, or "gene that will always make you better at tying shoelaces", or "gene that has evolved under selective pressure for tying shoelaces well"?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 20, 2009 5:23 PM
Yes, the structure [spider's web] is complicated, but the nervous system isn't (lacks plasticity) and neither is the culture (lacking altogether), so that's how we know it's under genetic control.
Individual webs, even of the same spider, still differ quite a bit, depending on the local environment and how much silk it has available, so the spider's "extended phenotype" is still determined by gene-environment interaction. Also, different spiders with identical genotype could still end up different sizes, or lose legs, hence producing different webs in the same environment.
Posted by: CJO
|
November 20, 2009 5:40 PM
I'd also note an ambiguity in "gene for tying shoelaces": does it mean "gene which affects how good you are, in at least some circumstances, at tying shoelaces, or "gene that will always make you better at tying shoelaces", or "gene that has evolved under selective pressure for tying shoelaces well"?
I can't but imagine that Dawkins means the first one, and it does seem to me a modest claim, as he says, since it hardly seems possible that fine motor control of the upper extremities is without any genetic variation. But agreed that "a gene for tying shoelaces" is a silly way to express that, and seems calculated to be misunderstood and shouted down as ludicrous the way it was according to the anecdote.
Posted by: Qwerty
|
November 20, 2009 7:24 PM
Makes me wish I had the "snake-oil selling" gene so I could rake in the dough selling bogus crap like this.
Anyone want to take bets that they hire Ben Stein as their spokesperson?
Bueller... Bueller...
Posted by: scooter | November 21, 2009 12:48 AM
C'mon PZ, you're just pissed off because you didn't think of it.
It's a perfectly acceptable scam. There's one born every minute and this is a well designed sucker net for lesser evolved parental units.
If somebody on the list can send me a couple grand for start up money, I'll launch a non-theistic version of this scam. There's enough atheists suffering from not-too-brightness to rake in a nice pile of cash.
Posted by: Mack | November 21, 2009 2:41 AM
Even if your child had a "built-in genetic bias" (from god) that doesn't necessarily mean that your child would want to do what their built in genetic bias predisposes them to do. If this worked it would still be a horrible idea to get this test for your child. Suppose it shows your kids has a built in bias for music, so you spend years and years forcing your kid into doing music lessons, all to maximize your kid's potential. And all along, all she wanted to do was be a veterinarian, or a plumber, or a fireman. Just because someone has a talent or a gift, it doesn't mean they want to utilize that gift.
Posted by: windy | November 21, 2009 5:02 AM
I think I have the same kind of response to the sound of the alarm clock in the morning, except so far I haven't gone as far as to use mud.
Even a response like the beavers have is not necessarily independent of learning. Birds sing instinctively but birds that have been raised without hearing the species-specific song can only manage a different, simpler song. I would be surprised if beavers, being highly social animals, don't pick up some tricks from their kin group as well.
-
It's the first one, and it's a statistical claim, and does not imply such predictive power as the gene profiling scam. (although I would guess that even they mention the uncertainty somewhere in the fine print?)
Posted by: bsk | November 21, 2009 9:40 AM
I just kept thinking: you don't need a fucking gene profile to tell you your child isn't inclined towards a particular activity when he/she starts holding grudges against you for sending him/her there...
Posted by: CSue | November 21, 2009 10:28 AM
According to godaddy, they're registered via PrivacyProtect.org, which "has a strict abuse policy", so I suppose if you wanted to report the domain name as providing a scam, that MIGHT work.
Also, the domain was only registered as of Sept. 14 2009.
Posted by: Jason Febery
|
November 21, 2009 5:07 PM
The worst part is that I bet a lot of people will believe in this pseudoscientific nonsense. People with good intentions, but who at the same time don't know a whiff of science.
--
http://jasonfebery.wordpress.com/
Posted by: robert | November 21, 2009 9:03 PM
My take, both genes and environment account for the differences in the brains of individuals just as both genes and environment account for the differences in the heights of individuals.
Posted by: robert | November 21, 2009 9:15 PM
And, I agree with Katharine's comment about "idiot taxes". The stupid shall be punished and deserve to be punished.
Posted by: affiliate networking | December 23, 2009 1:00 AM
In my pnn, t s th bg rrr.