The Science Thread

Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Clearly we aren't communicating or you're purposely avoiding the questions I made. That article doesn't answer my questions, nor does it make the claim that the genes are not from the parents.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Ok now I finally got you. Of course child genes came from both parents. But father passed to his child genome that originally belonged to the zygotic cells of fathers' assimilated twin.
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
What doesn't make sense is the failure of the DNA test. Even the fused zygots should share the father's genes (and allele snippets). I don't understand "major" / "minor" genome terminology in the article.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Standard DNA testing showed avuncular relationship between the father and child. It means that man's relationship to the child showed up that of an uncle and not the father.
If you want to find out more, google "Congenital Chimerism".
 
Joined
Jan 10, 2008
Messages
4,721
Yes I read that too, but it doesn't explain to me why the genetic material would be different from what was found from the cheek scraping.

Interesting. Chimerism can cause hermaphroditism or eyes of different colors.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
The thing is that before, or soon after they start to divide, the zygotes or the cells from two zygotes join (group together), before cells start to differentiate. That union has some cells with one set of genes, one set with another. The cells don't fuse, so no intracellular mix of the genes, and no mutation. But two cell lines. During embryogenesis different parts of the body may arise from different cell lines. The gastrointestinal tract may come from one cell line, the gonads may come from the other. So when that individual gets children, there may be a genetic mismatch with the child if you takes samples from one part of the parent's body, and not if samples are obtained from another part.

It's a well known phenomenon, but rare. No surprise, most cases go undected.

Pibbur who wrote this from memory and who hasn't tested his genes, nor those of his alleged daughters. But who thinks at least he's human.
 
Last edited:
That would explain it if the father was the chimera, but in this case it was the child. Both cells lines of the child should trace to the father, right? So the DNA test shouldn't have failed.

Nevermind. I re-read the article. The father IS the chimera. My error.
 
Joined
Aug 18, 2008
Messages
15,682
Location
Studio City, CA
Religious upbringing associated with less altruism, study finds

Many families believe religion plays an essential role in childhood moral development. But children of religious parents may not be as altruistic as those parents think, according to a new international study from the University of Chicago published Nov. 5 in Current Biology.

A team of developmental psychologists led by Prof. Jean Decety examined the perceptions and behavior of children in six countries. The study assessed the children’s tendency to share—a measure of their altruism—and their inclination to judge and punish others for bad behavior.

Children from religious families were less likely to share with others than were children from non-religious families. A religious upbringing also was associated with more punitive tendencies in response to anti-social behavior.

The results were at odds with the perceptions of religious parents, who were more likely than non-religious parents to report that their children had a high degree of empathy and sensitivity to the plight of others.

“Our findings contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others. In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous,” said Decety, the Irving B. Harris Distinguished Service Professor in Psychology and Psychiatry and the College and director of the University of Chicago Child NeuroSuite.

The study included 1,170 children between ages 5 and 12, from six countries—Canada, China, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey and the United States.

For the altruism task, children participated in a version of the “Dictator Game,” in which they were given 10 stickers and provided an opportunity to share them with another unseen child. Altruism was measured by the average number of stickers shared.

For the moral sensitivity task, children watched short animations in which one character pushes or bumps another, either accidentally or purposefully. After seeing each situation, children were asked about how mean the behavior was and the amount of punishment the character deserved.

Parents completed questionnaires about their religious beliefs and practices and perceptions of their children’s empathy and sensitivity to justice. From the questionnaires, three large groupings were established: Christian, Muslim and not religious. (Children from other religious households did not reach a large enough sample size to be included in additional analyses.)

Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Children from religious households favored stronger punishments for anti-social behavior and judged such behavior more harshly than non-religious children. These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

“Together, these results reveal the similarity across countries in how religion negatively influences children’s altruism. They challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development—suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite,” Decety said.

The study was supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation.

Source
 
Using games to determine altruism?

You might as well look at how people play Call of Duty and pretend you discover something about their true nature.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,997
Location
Old Europe
Behold! The P&R Forum!

:p
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Using games to determine altruism?

You might as well look at how people play Call of Duty and pretend you discover something about their true nature.

It's not a game as we know it. It more like an experiment , The rules are very simple. From wikipedia "In the dictator game, the first player, 'the dictator', determines how to split an endowment (such as a cash prize) between himself and the second player. The second player, 'the recipient', simply receives the remainder of the endowment left by the dictator". The question is then: how much do people keep themselves, and how much do they share.

Games like this (most of them more complex) are part of game theory, "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.". Again nothing like the games we play. They are of practical value in psychology, economics and political sciences. Even in biology.

BTW: From Wikipedia: "precisely what to conclude from the evidence [the dictator game, my addition] is controversial".

pibbur who thinks this is interesting.

PS. The american mathematician and winner of the 2015 Abel prize John Nash, has made significant contributions to game theory. (He also suffered from schizophrenia, and is portrayed in the film "A beautiful mind"). Sadly he died in a car crash just a few days after receiving the Abel DS.
 
Last edited:
Happy birthday Lucy. 41 years (+3.2 million). www.google.com

pibbur who would raise a toast. If he could go to the kitchen (1st floor). But he has just painted the stairway to hea… eh .. 1st floor (White. Floor paint. Very visible on non-white floors). So that is currently not an option. Unless he wants to (dares) anger the wife. He clearly doesn't want that.

PS. Cat isn't too pleased. She's been locked behind bars in the living room. Can't have her walking the stairs before paint (White. Floor paint. Very visible on non-white floors) is dry. DS.
 
It's not a game as we know it. It more like an experiment , The rules are very simple. From wikipedia "In the dictator game, the first player, 'the dictator', determines how to split an endowment (such as a cash prize) between himself and the second player. The second player, 'the recipient', simply receives the remainder of the endowment left by the dictator". The question is then: how much do people keep themselves, and how much do they share.

Games like this (most of them more complex) are part of game theory, "the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.". Again nothing like the games we play. They are of practical value in psychology, economics and political sciences. Even in biology.

BTW: From Wikipedia: "precisely what to conclude from the evidence [the dictator game, my addition] is controversial".

pibbur who thinks this is interesting.

PS. The american mathematician and winner of the 2015 Abel prize John Nash, has made significant contributions to game theory. (He also suffered from schizophrenia, and is portrayed in the film "A beautiful mind"). Sadly he died in a car crash just a few days after receiving the Abel DS.

That sounds like a game to me. As in, whatever happens as the result of your actions won't actually affect the other children in any real sense.

I'm sure you're aware that people act very, very differently when they're playing a game than they do in real life. That's why children will laugh when they slaughter all their friends when playing cops and robbers. That's not a sign they'd actually enjoy that in reality.

Also, to test children for altruism is like saying you don't understand what it's about. Altruism is something you tend to develop as your understanding of the world and the consequences of actions become clearer. You can't take the actions of a child and expect it to hold true when they grow up - as they've not finished developing.

My point is that the conclusion is ludicrous - as we're talking about a game, not reality.

Not only is the concept of altruism extremely hazy - you'd certainly need something real with real consequences to observe anything like this.

That said, I'm not saying the game is useless or that the "test" isn't interesting. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to draw this kind of conclusion from it.
 
That sounds like a game to me. As in, whatever happens as the result of your actions won't actually affect the other children in any real sense.

I'm sure you're aware that people act very, very differently when they're playing a game than they do in real life. That's why children will laugh when they slaughter all their friends when playing cops and robbers. That's not a sign they'd actually enjoy that in reality.

Also, to test children for altruism is like saying you don't understand what it's about. Altruism is something you tend to develop as your understanding of the world and the consequences of actions become clearer. You can't take the actions of a child and expect it to hold true when they grow up - as they've not finished developing.

My point is that the conclusion is ludicrous - as we're talking about a game, not reality.

Not only is the concept of altruism extremely hazy - you'd certainly need something real with real consequences to observe anything like this.

That said, I'm not saying the game is useless or that the "test" isn't interesting. I'm just saying it's ridiculous to draw this kind of conclusion from it.
Researchers prefer a game to real life to ensure all circumstances, that might influence the outcome, will be the same to every participant.

As for children laughing at misfortune of others when in real life they might not enjoy it:
all were children, all children were tested equally and the conclusion was
In our study, kids from atheist and non-religious families were, in fact, more generous

As for children not suitable as lab rats because they are not able to fully grasp the idea of altruism:
These results support previous studies of adults, which have found religiousness is linked with punitive attitudes toward interpersonal offenses.

And as for your "Altruism is something you tend to develop": yes, you've got a point:
Consistent with previous studies, in general the children were more likely to share as they got older. But children from households identifying as Christian and Muslim were significantly less likely than children from non-religious households to share their stickers. The negative relation between religiosity and altruism grew stronger with age; children with a longer experience of religion in the household were the least likely to share.

Ludicrous conclusion? Extremely hazy? That's a bit harsh, isn't it? These findings are nice and interesting food for thought, they just
challenge the view that religiosity facilitates prosocial behavior, and call into question whether religion is vital for moral development—suggesting the secularization of moral discourse does not reduce human kindness. In fact, it does just the opposite,” Decety said.

Or are you afraid someone might use these findings to forbid religion? ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom