Recession and job loses,whens it going to end………………..

Sadly non of the above helps with the current unemployment in the uk plc.

Agreed – the last couple of pages are irrelevant to what we were meant to be talking about – sorry.

I give up convert i cannot cope your special brand of logic. You can believe your abhorrant beliefs and bizare horse racing analagies. Just one question, whats the opposite of success?

Do i believe genetics plays a part [ and probably the biggest part] YES
DO i believe the rich are the brightest? Not particularly
Do i belive the quality of the school gives added value particulatuy with huge fee paying public schools, yes
Do i believe Oxbridge takes more than their fair share/a representative sample [ even when we consider academic ability] YES
Does this have anything to do with the topic ? NO
😳

* pops in to thread to see what the fuss is about*

* leaves *

What do you think you are druidh, a panda.
Next you’ll be eating and shooting.

Genetics plays the biggest part in what? Exam success or intelligence or oxbridge entry?
To my eye intelligence could well be genetic in basis but the fact that i see siblings with such varying difference in intelligence suggests that its controlled by a huge number of genes (as well as large dose of env) and what this means is that it is not a trait easily passed from one generation to the next and so converts theory is flawed. If we go back to the race horse analagy race horses have been selectively bred for speed and thay are all fast. The genes for those traits that make them fast are very much concentrated at the fast end, there is little variation. In humans even thickos get to breed. The evolution of man has largely stopped as far as natural selection is concerned. So the genes for intelligence show massive variation in individuals and the population. What this means is its hard to predict the intelligence of offsprings. It would be like expecting a true breeding colour of flower to be produced from a population with almost infinate numbers of different colours available in the genes.

Genetics plays the biggest part in what?

Intelligence I gave the correlation earlier.

i see siblings with such varying difference in intelligence suggests that its controlled by a huge number of genes

siblings are not that similiar [>50% iirc] but it still stays at .5 for dizygotic [ two egg] twins.

it is not a trait easily passed from one generation to the next

the evidence/research is not with you on that one.

In humans even thickos get to breed. The evolution of man has largely stopped as far as natural selection is concerned.

??? evolution can never stop and human breeding is natural selection in operation.

So the genes for intelligence show massive variation in individuals and the population.

True

What this means is its hard to predict the intelligence of offsprings.

False – bright people have bright children as they give them the gense for being bright in the same way they give them the genes for being tall or smaller – on average not for each individual. It is much harder[less likely] that two bright people will have a stupid child just like it is harder [less likely] to be stupid and have a bright child. It does happen [ most things do with evolution] but it is less likely.
Accepting this does not make one a Nazi or a fan of Eugencis…many things run in families, sporting ability, mental health , breast cancer etc. Intelligence is no different.

It would be like expecting a true breeding colour of flower to be produced from a population with almost infinate numbers of different colours available in the genes.

I dont know what you mean there/what your point is tbh
It is not unreasonable to expect that , on average, bright people have bright kids. It is also what the evidence shows.

siblings are not that similiar [>50% iirc] but it still stays at .5 for dizygotic [ two egg] twins.

if you dont realise why this is an idiotic statement theres not much point me trying to explain the rest of it to you.

It is not unreasonable to expect that , on average, bright people have bright kids. It is also what the evidence shows.

how did they measure “bright”. You said yourself that theres only a 50% chance that bright people have bright kids acording to your “evidence”.

But even thick kids from well of parents get to have good well paid jobs, even if they cant do the job to start with.

Surely the answer is that British industry will not recover while trade unions are allowed to run a protection racket. Employers should not be required to pay the lazy the same amount as those willing to work. Collective bargaining simply removes any form of work ethic. That’s fine until you find people in China, Spain, and anyone without a job in the UK all willing and able to work for less than the union rate.

Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist at University College London, said: “In Shakespeare’s time, only about one English baby in three made it to be 21.”
“All those deaths were raw material for natural selection, many of those kids died because of the genes they carried. But now, about 99% of all the babies born make it to that age.”
The bulk of medical and other technological developments which protect us from our environment have come in just the past century. So in the developed world today, what is there left for natural selection to act on?
“Natural selection, if it hasn’t stopped, has at least slowed down,” says Jones.

and human breeding isnt nat selection if there is no selection pressure.

🙄
why call me an idiot just get some research and humiliate me with it

This number is characterized by a decimal, or .XX. Some have argued that this estimate is as high as .75, meaning that fully 75% of all IQ variances can be attributed to genetic differences. Studies have shown this to be high, except in monozygotic (MZ) twins raised together. These twins share the same exact genotype. In this case, the correlation was as high as .88. In the study of MZ twins raised apart, the correlation was as high as .75. In contrast, Dizygotic twins, who share 50% of their genes on average, had a correlation factor of .53 when growing up together and .46 when raised separately. This seems to indicate that similarity of a genetic component has a direct influence on IQ scores. At the very least, it indicates a much higher influence than that of non-related children having a correlation of just .17 (Loehlin, Lindzey, and Spuhler, 1975).

The 50% refers collectively how much “genetic material” you get from each parent. You get 50% of your genes from your mom and 50% of your genes from your dad.

Essentially you have two copies of each gene — one copy from your mom and one copy from your dad. Here is the strange part, the copy that you get from your mom may or not be the same copy that your sibling gets from your mom.

Remember each of your parents has two copies of most of their genes too. When the egg or sperm that made you got made, only one copy of each gene was put in.

The copy that gets put in is chosen randomly through a process called meiosis. What this means is that you have a 50% chance of getting one of their two copies.

That probability doesn’t seem impressive until you consider that you have around 25,000 genes. Throw in a 50% chance of getting one copy versus your sibling getting another copy and that makes meiosis a serious gene scrambler.

So, because of this scrambling you and your siblings are 50% genetically identical and are not 100% biochemically identical. You and your siblings are closer to 99.95% biochemically identical.

Of course, since we have 6 billion bases, a 0.05% difference still translates to 3 million differences! Now explaining how people are so different and yet be 99.95% “identical” is another topic and we are just starting to understand this phenomenon.
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=166

I would google before shooting of next time or get some actual understanding. this is not really an opinion based argument it is about facts. It i sis clear your level of ignorance is so great you dont even know where it is
Sorry or being so rude but really that was an idiotic point you just made.

how did they measure “bright”. You said yourself that theres only a 50% chance that bright people have bright kids acording to your “evidence”.

I did not say that it is just what you think I said. I gave the correlations earlier.
in my post i was not citing research just explaining re “bright” but it is usually IQ test and usually the Stanford Binet as it is usually US research.
Google should help you as tbh I cannot be arsed as you either dont understand, dont want to understand or want to have an argument.
I have no interest in helping you with any of these

skooby even a delicious troll like that wont be enough to drag this back OT but chapeau for your sterling efforts but a tad too obvious

Wow your ability to cut and paste is astounding Junkyard can you explain any of it in your own words?

Nothing that you have posted says that intelligence is reliably passed from one generation to the next though. If you have something under the control of many genes the random assortment means is less likely to be true breeding. So siblings can be very different to parents, the balance of probabilities means its more likely but not that predictable that intelligent parents have intelligent kids and going back to why i started this its certainly notr reliable enough to suit converts theory that successful parents send kids to private schools and they are more successcul at getting oxbridge places due to their superior genes rather than the more easily controllex and predicatble environment they grow up in.

So anyway siblings and dizygotic twins, why is it not suprising they show similar genetic relationships?

So the first bit you post suggests that siblings have about a 50% chance of having the same intelligence as each other? Is that right its hard to tell without looking at the complete article, it doesnt however make any suggestion how they relate to parents. It just shows that it has a genetic basis. The second part about meiosis supports my view and remember whilst you got 50% of your genes from your mum 50% of that could well have been recessive genes that were not expressed in your mum which could, depending on what you got from your dad be expressed in you.

NorthernStar – Member

That’s why these people often complain that all the immigrants have ‘stolen’ their jobs. No, the immigrants have taken the jobs because they got off their arses and have moved to find work. They also tend to have the motivation to work hard and to turn up on time.

Some of these jobless British think that the lower paid work that immigrants often take is ‘beneath them’.

The obvious logic of your comment is that if no British person was lazy all immigrants would be unemployed.

How have you come to the conclusion that immigrants wouldn’t be able to find any work if British people were willing to work ? Is it something you have read somewhere ?

I was working on building sites long before the influx of East Europeans arrived to the UK, I cannot recall one single solitary example where construction work was unable to progress because potential British workers were too lazy or unwilling to ‘get off their arses’ – there were no empty plots waiting for East European to arrive so that construction work could begin.

Every Lithuanian or Romanian working on British building sites is stopping a British national from doing that particular job – simply because they are here, it has nothing to do with your rather racist and insulting suggestion that British workers are lazy.

Talk Talk and British Gas are now closing call centres, in the NW and Southampton, along with Peacocks stores sacking more staff.

But Tata Jaguarlandrover, at liverpool are taking on staff, hopefully some to send out rejection letters to those who where deemed unsuitable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-17822815

Now we have a double dip recession, a huge costly sports games,2 posh boys are still in jobs.

00soppd – Member
I work for a large diesel engine manufacturer as a design engineer

Just curious.
Peterborough based?

slainte rob

No not that one. Just down the road in Daventry.