Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2020 January 21

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 21

According to the logic of racist “geneticists”...

The drift of claims that I get from white, male, racist “geneticists” is that 1.) Europeans are smarter than Africans, on average. 2a.) Women might be smarter than men, on average. 2b.) But even whether or not (2a) is true, because men have more genetic variability, the “geneticists“ claim that there are more male supergeniuses than women supergeniuses..... But, since it is also true that Africans have more generic variability than Europeans, shouldnnt these “geneticists” also admit by the same reasoning that whether or not (1) is true, there would be more African supergeniuses than European supergeniuses? In any case, anecdotal data tends to show, at least to me, that African-Americans of extraordinary ability are more common than they are among European-Americans.Rich (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

You're not likely to be able to dissuade a racist from his views using logic and reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

" there would be more African supergeniuses than European supergeniuses?". If variability did really mean that, which is not proven, then there would be also more African/women superdumber so the average would not change, would it? 91.1.100.33 (talk) MPB —Preceding undated comment added 15:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

So, you are claiming that intelligence is absolutely controlled by genetics. I feel that your argument (regardless of which side you are on) is based on a weak assumption. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I never made any such claim, and I wouldn’t agree with it. The thing that I bet is most correlated with intelligence (negatively) is lead poisoning. In my post above I had tried and I think succeeded in making it clear that I was referencing racist “geneticist” reasoningand beliefs, not my own.Rich (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The fatal flaws with statistical generalizations include (1) the assumption that it's possible to determine what "superior" genetics are; and (2) that generalities have nothing to do with individuals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if one believes that "intelligence" is a purely genetic trait, then obviously one might , as you say, statistically expect more super geniuses from the varied gene pools in Africa. A few things points against this. Firstly, the notion of "intelligence" itself is poorly defined. Secondly, the connection to genetics is weaker than the connection to other factors, like being born rich. Thirdly, the increased genetic variability in Africa is confined to 14 distinct sub Saharan peoples. I do not know how many people they are, and if there are not many of them, that would affect the statistics. Most African populations, say in Nigeria, are of the same genetic pool as Asian, European and Americans. The greater greater variation comes from 14 distinct peoples. Star Lord - 星爵 (talk) 15:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Cure for cancer and selective pressure

Given the modern progress in cancer treatment, particularly news about new immune cell, is there a concern that any future cure for cancer (or any other disease for that matter) would provoke selective pressure similar to antibiotic resistance, becoming ultimately ineffective (also given its expected sky-high demand after wider availability)? Would restricted usage mitigate/delay that? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is a known thing. They already use combination treatments, etc, similar to antibiotics. "Cancer drug resistance" brings a lot of search hits. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Except of course that unlike with bacteria, Cancer is not infectious, i.e. a person with cancer cells in their system cannot give another, otherwise healthy person cancer. This means that any resistance developed by cancer cells in subject 1 would be unable to spread or otherwise influence the cancer cells of subject 2. Presumably subjects who are genetically predisposed to be resistant to whatever the miracle cure is for cancer, would expire quicker and would be therefore unable to transfer their genetic code to offspring. Restricted the population it is available to would not impact how quickly an individual becomes resistant to said treatment. Bacterial cells can pass resistance conferring plasmids horizontally to other bacterial cells, vastly speeding up the process of conferred immunity, in comparison to us lowly eukaryotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldbeanything (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Fascinating. Any sources for those claims? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711443/ the only currently known way of transmission is placental — Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldbeanything (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC)