Santorum blames ‘abortion culture’ for Social Security woes

[Amby 490]

Huh? Beauty cannot be genetically mapped? What are you smoking?

Sure, beauty is subjective because different people have different opinions on what is attractive. However, conformance to any given definition of beauty is most certainly genetic. Whether you find a skinny person or a fat person attractive, both "skinny" and "fat" can be expressed in genetic terms. So can tall/short, or any other characteristic in humans which appeals to the aesthetic sense.

Huh? I'm not playing any games.

I don't have enough energy to fight you or explain it completely because I don't think it matters either way to you. Yes, genetics is why we look the way we look, but genetics is not why people are lazy.

[^_^ 5,021]

Can genetics play a role in energy levels?

[Amby 490]

Can genetics play a role in energy levels?

I read about a study on mice sometime last year about breeding them with faster runners or high energy mice.

"The current study, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, analyzes house mice that have been selectively bred for high-activity lifestyles. The mice have been bred for 43 generations to include 4 lines of high runners (HR) and 4 corresponding control lines. Overall, at this generation, the HR mice ran almost 3 times as many revolutions per day on exercise wheels than the control mice. The increased number of revolutions was due to increased speed in the HR mice more than increased time spent running, compared to the control mice.

Through several similar studies on previous generations of mice, the same researchers have proved that activity levels can be enhanced by selective breeding. That is, offspring of mice who enjoy high levels of activity also enjoy high levels of activity. In addition to voluntarily engaging in wheel running, the HR mice have evolved over dozens of generations to have increased running economy, spending less energy per distance run compared to control mice. Over time, HR mice also showed lower body mass and less body fat, despite consuming more food, as well as increased oxygen consumption, higher muscle aerobic capacity, and lower anaerobic muscle capacity than the more sedentary control mice."

http://brainblogger.com/2010/09/16/born-to-be-lazy/

[mawilson 2,133]

Yes, genetics is why we look the way we look, but genetics is not why people are lazy.

UC biologists disagree.

[mawilson 2,133]

Specifically; precisely because here is no empirical definition of what it is to be beautiful there is no genetic marker that can determine who will be beautiful and who will not.

Any way you define it, there's a genetic marker which determines who will be beautiful according to the definition.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

[Peikko 1,575]

Any way you define it, there's a genetic marker which determines who will be beautiful according to the definition.

Are you purposely being obtuse?

Anyway you define it, there is not. There are genetic markers for specific physical traits but not for beauty because beauty is not a physical trait but rather a subjective interpretation or classification of many physical traits. Are you being deliberately dense?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Anyway you define it, there is not. There are genetic markers for specific physical traits but not for beauty because beauty is not a physical trait but rather a subjective interpretation or classification of many physical traits. Are you being deliberately dense?

Only ugly women believe beauty is anything but skin deep.

[Danno 1,228]

I had hoped some professional breeders might have wandered in the room so we could get past the

"My professor told me....."

[Amby 490]

UC biologists disagree.

I posted something similar in the post before yours.

[Peikko 1,575]

Only ugly women believe beauty is anything but skin deep.

Only an idiot would believe that made any sense. A woman who is not classically beautiful would necessarily believe that there are other aspects to being a 'beautiful' person than aesthetics unless they also lacked self esteem. An aesthetically beautiful person might be inclined to believe that aesthetics are the be all and end all of beauty, but even then that would be an extreme personality type.

However, this discussion is about aesthetic beauty and whether or not there can be genetic indicators for something so ephemeral as 'beauty' regardless of whether those discussing the subject are or are not beautiful themselves, never mind that it has been established by all parties that aesthetic beauty is subjective and any shape or form could be considered beautiful.

[SuperDuper! 230]

Intelligence is poorly correlated with winning at life. Pick another trait

Agreed. +1. Wisemen know, that it is better to be lucky than good in life. Hey, fools rush in...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I posted something similar in the post before yours.

I think they found the gene for hooliganism in mice, and another gene in humans that causes facebooking.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[rika60607 215]

They don't. You just stretch their conclusions a bit. Quite a bit.

UC biologists disagree.

[rika60607 215]

Science is not religion, you know...

The equivalent of "my pastor told me" does not work in the science world.

I had hoped some professional breeders might have wandered in the room so we could get past the

"My professor told me....."

[rika60607 215]

In layman's terms, existence of a gene (genes) for general laziness is about as likely as existence of a second moon near the Earth or Loch-Ness monster in modern days. I can not prove they don't exist, and not very interested either - as it is a bit futile.

There is a good old Russian joke: someone asks a man, to estimate the probability that he will meet a dinosaur on his way to work tomorrow... Man says 1/100,000,000. Okay.

Someone asks a woman the same question. She says 50%. What??? How???? She says, well, either I will meet it or not. So 50% it is.

To sum it up in laymans terms.

Aint no evidence it is and aint no evidence it aint