|
@philipcball | |||||
|
This is a good question from Dawkins. And I hope scientists working on genetics are asking it of their own community: that's the place to start looking. Today more than ever. twitter.com/kph3k/status/1…
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Tom Slists
@TomSlists1
|
2. velj |
|
if you know a child with dyscalculia, you come to realise it is in a different league from 'poor teaching' or environmental factors in learning mathematics. In-born factors *are* more nearly immutable.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Ball
@philipcball
|
2. velj |
|
It's true, he goes (surprisingly) too far the other way - some can't be reversed, but must be accommodated.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ewan Birney
@ewanbirney
|
2. velj |
|
this is ... interesting, and genetics is, in my view, much misunderstood, even by geneticists. Let me take you on a trip down this rabbit hole :).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Ewan Birney
@ewanbirney
|
2. velj |
|
First off, the instinct that the a pretty wide spread public perception of genetics - that it's the "inherent you", unchangeable and somehow like a modern destiny is - commonplace, wrong and often bolstered by the way genetics is presented.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Matthew Cobb
@matthewcobb
|
2. velj |
|
Well, you know, that book wot he wrote might have something to do with it...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Dr Adam Rutherford
@AdamRutherford
|
2. velj |
|
I forget what was called. Did the title indicate a positive colloquial reading of the concept of a gene? 🤷🏽♂️
|
||
|
|
||
|
joe mahoney
@jos_b_mahoney
|
2. velj |
|
Dawkins' language is completely reasonable&nuanced. But morphological constraints due to genetic endowment (build-a-drosophila-brain vs. build-a-human-brain) are overpowering. So the 'juggernaut' sense is obvious, yet easily abused. Because beyond that, who knows?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Lautaro Vergara
@VergaraLautaro
|
2. velj |
|
Maybe is not the genes, but diseased or conditions that originate on genes.
|
||
|
|
||