pcrh

49 ms·

601.
by pcrh 6y ago
This site appears to contain the images of the relevant (copies of) the murals in question: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history/pre-columbian-murals...
602.
by pcrh 6y ago
rsynnott is "technically" correct, but perhaps to clarify: the concept of slavery as existed in the New World was never legal on English soil, nor when it united with Scotland to become the UK. What this means for the fact that th
603.
by pcrh 6y ago
Thanks! That was interesting.
604.
by pcrh 6y ago
I think you are correct. The observation that was apparently key to W&C modelling the structure correctly was that the phosphates were on the outside of the helix. In my view of the history of this discovery, this would possibly be the
605.
by pcrh 6y ago
The original W&C model did not postulate three H-bonds between G and C, but two, which is one of the reasons why it is only "almost" correct.
606.
by pcrh 6y ago
The conventional view is unfortunately incorrect. They proposed an (almost) correct view of how the nucleotides were arranged into a helix. Their proposal included the feature that each strand of the double helix was in fact a "mirro
607.
by pcrh 6y ago
Sorry for the potato quality, but here are the reports by both Watson and Crick as well as Rosalind Franklin. One directly follows the other. https://i.imgur.com/f423vS5.jpg https://i.imgur.com/84fdLlp.jpg
608.
by pcrh 6y ago
Rosalind Franklin and Ray Gosling figured out it was a double helix. Pauling was speculating it was a triple helix. They published their finding in the same edition of Nature as Watson and Crick published their model.
609.
by pcrh 6y ago
Looks quite Modigliani.
610.
by pcrh 6y ago
Watson and Crick did not get the noble prize for discovering the chemical nature of DNA, nor for being the first to suggest it might be the material of heredity, nor for identifying it as a double helix... They got it for showing how DNA ar
611.
by pcrh 6y ago
>Bartholomaus Nice aptronym!
612.
by pcrh 7y ago
"Heritability" includes non-genetic factors, and combined with genetic factors accounts for ~50% of variation in intelligence. For genetic factors alone, the consensus so far is that there is very weak correlation of genetic varia
613.
by pcrh 7y ago
Even if you are right 11% is a pretty meagre contribution, when compared to most other biological traits..
614.
by pcrh 7y ago
Heritability is not only genetic, it includes a wide variety of social factors. Strict genetic heritability studies do not support a stong association of genetics with intelligence.
615.
by pcrh 7y ago
3.5% genetic association with intelligence means that 96.5% is not genetic. So your your citation does not support a strong link between genetics and intelligence?
616.
by pcrh 7y ago
Depends on the weight you assign to "just". At the current level of knowledge it would mean that genetics is not an important contributor to the differences in "intelligence" between individuals in the general population
617.
by pcrh 7y ago
Well... Accounting for 2.5% of the intelligence variation through genetics does lead to the conclusion that 97.5% of high IQ is not accounted for by (known) genetic variation.
618.
by pcrh 7y ago
The full text is available here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5987166/ In the conclusions section they state: >Focusing on the core 4-test g measure, we think that accounting for 1.6% of th
619.
by pcrh 7y ago
I think you perhaps misunderstand the study's conclusions (and that of most GWAS on intelligence). They conclude that high IQ (>170) is mostly not caused by genetic variants.
620.
by pcrh 7y ago
If you need millions, it means that there are no common enough variants with a large effect size.
621.
by pcrh 7y ago
People have done IQ vs genetic variation in GWAS. They find that there is almost no impact of common variants on IQ. Example: >A genome-wide polygenic score constructed from the GWA results accounted for 1.6% of the variance of intellige
622.
by pcrh 7y ago
Or maybe a meal at a nice restaurant?
623.
by pcrh 7y ago
You can't "iterate repeatedly" in a normal human lifespan.
624.
by pcrh 7y ago
>5 standard deviations is enormously huge. And also hyperbolic. There is no current science that suggests the ability to create such a difference in individuals by genetic engineering.
625.
by pcrh 7y ago
>The potential increase in IQ is so high Not really, at least with the current state of knowledge. There are very few genes where one can predict that altering them will increase intelligence.
626.
by pcrh 7y ago
Since men can father more children than women can bear, the numerical ratio of fathers to mothers is skewed in favor of mothers. Another way of looking at it is that people are more likely to share a father than a mother.
627.
by pcrh 7y ago
People call their dogs or horses smart as well. It's a view that often reflects congeniality and agreement rather an objective assessment of intelligence.
628.
by pcrh 8y ago
It also has the potential to be introduced into a living organism. In this manner it could well last for millennia by being transmitted to the organism's descendants. Assuming there is no disadvantage of carrying this DNA it could perd
629.
by pcrh 8y ago
It's also pretty close to the Baysian approach. The difference being that in the Baysian approach one is "permitted" to revise the hypothesis as new data is acquired.
630.
by pcrh 8y ago
The City was mostly for Remain. However, paradoxically, it is one of the sectors of the UK economy that will be least affected by it, as single market regulations don't cover services very broadly. Note that UK financial regulations ar

More ›