Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: Rastaman Vibration on June 03, 2013, 07:11 pm
-
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/03/188291914/supreme-court-upholds-warrantless-collection-of-dna
By a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a Maryland law that allows police to collect DNA, without first getting a warrant, from persons who are arrested.
"When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment," joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito.
The dissenting opinion brought together an unsual quartet: conservative Justice Antonin Scalia and liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagen. Scalia, writing for those justices, says that:
"The Court's assertion that DNA is being taken, not to solve crimes, but to identify those in the State's custody, taxes the credulity of the credulous. And the Court's comparison of Maryland's DNA searches to other techniques, such as fingerprinting, can seem apt only to those who know no more than today's opinion has chosen to tell them about how those DNA searches actually work."
To Scalia and the other dissenters, the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against "searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence ... is categorical and without exception."
NPR's Nina Totenberg . As she reported:
"Twenty-eight states and the federal government have enacted laws that provide for automatic DNA collection from people at the time of their arrest. ...
"The case before the court stems from the Maryland arrest of Alonzo King in 2009 on assault charges. Police, following state law, swabbed King's cheek to get a DNA sample, and then submitted the sample to the federal DNA database to see if there were any matches.
"The database eventually came up with a hit, matching King's DNA to DNA found from a rape kit six years earlier. A masked man had broken into the home of a 53-year-old woman and raped her while holding a gun to her head. King was subsequently tried for the rape and sentenced to life in prison.
"But the conviction was thrown out by the Maryland Court of Appeals. The state court noted that King was presumed innocent at the time of the initial arrest and that his DNA was not taken to prove that charge. Therefore, the state court concluded, the DNA collection was nothing more than a state fishing expedition for anything prosecutors could catch."
With Monday's ruling, the court has now overturned the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision. Kennedy's opinion for the majority concludes with this:
"In light of the context of a valid arrest supported by probable cause respondent's expectations of privacy were not offended by the minor intrusion of a brief swab of his cheeks. By contrast, that same context of arrest gives rise to significant state interests in identifying respondent not only so that the proper name can be attached to his charges but also so that the criminal justice system can make informed decisions concerning pretrial custody. Upon these considerations the Court concludes that DNA identification of arrestees is a reasonable search that can be considered part of a routine booking procedure. When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee's DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.
"The judgment of the Court of Appeals of Maryland is reversed."
-
Our 4th amendment rights are being eroded....
-
Nothing surprises me anymore about the Roberts court. But Scalia siding with the antistatist view? Hmmm. He musta had a sleepless night, or a hangover.
-
Sadly, this is really no different than fingerprinting. Since we allow that, DNA is perfectly logical to allow.
-
Sadly, this is really no different than fingerprinting. Since we allow that, DNA is perfectly logical to allow.
DNA contains far more information than a fingerprint. As science progresses we may be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts by analysis of their DNA. We will never be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts via analysis of their fingerprints.
-
So many BS laws, can't help but to be a criminal. Everything is backwards. The good guys are really the criminals; the guys you call criminals -have no choice but to scam and thieve from the real criminals, because the real criminals scammed and thieved everything in existence from everyone else. the people loss since back at the point of being issued a social security number and birth certificate.
the government want us monitored to the point of being constantly recorded as a sim bot on their cctv network.
-
DNA contains far more information than a fingerprint.
True, which is why LE's desire to collect it make some sense.
As science progresses we may be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts by analysis of their DNA. We will never be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts via analysis of their fingerprints.
I'm quite sure we have not progressed to the level of being able to predict the actions of people based upon their DNA. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that this will ever be possible.
-
DNA contains far more information than a fingerprint.
True, which is why LE's desire to collect it make some sense.
As science progresses we may be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts by analysis of their DNA. We will never be able to screen for people inclined to certain criminal acts via analysis of their fingerprints.
I'm quite sure we have not progressed to the level of being able to predict the actions of people based upon their DNA. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that this will ever be possible.
Well, we kind of already can. For example there is a gene associated with alcoholism. Somebody with that gene is probably significantly more likely to drink and drive than somebody without it. The ability to predict the actions of people with their DNA is just getting better and better actually. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene
In fact there is also a gene associated with binge drinking http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57557041/gene-variation-may-make-a-person-more-likely-to-binge-drink/
and a gene associated with rape and murder: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/121221/news-current-affairs/article/genes-responsible-rape-study
-
I'm quite sure we have not progressed to the level of being able to predict the actions of people based upon their DNA. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that this will ever be possible.
Well, we kind of already can. For example there is a gene associated with alcoholism. Somebody with that gene is probably significantly more likely to drink and drive than somebody without it. The ability to predict the actions of people with their DNA is just getting better and better actually. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene
"More likely" is not the same as "will be". I guarantee you I have that gene, as it has ravaged both sides of my family for generations. Yet I'm not an alcoholic. There's a gaping chasm between predisposition to behaviors/disorders and manifestation thereof. Environment cannot be reasonably ignored.
In fact there is also a gene associated with binge drinking http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57557041/gene-variation-may-make-a-person-more-likely-to-binge-drink/
and a gene associated with rape and murder: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/121221/news-current-affairs/article/genes-responsible-rape-study
In addition to my above response, we have to take into account how and when these measurements are taken. To say a certain gene is "responsible" for rape is just not science, and the article you posted mentions a crucial fact:
Psychogenetic analysis of a rapist’s mind, the study says, reveals that it is the environment that plays a key role in activating the genes and anti-social personality disorder in the person.
We are products of our genes, our experiences, the thoughts we attach to (e.g. beliefs), our actions, and so on. As I said before, we are not currently able to accurately predict behavior based on DNA alone. The idea this is even feasible in the long-term is dubious at best.
-
LEO can suck the DNA right outta my cock.
If they want my DNA theyre gonna have to work for it.
Don't give up nothing guys and gals! Its your body, how dare they remove something from it without your permission!
Fuck the fucking cock sucking police and fucking shit-eating government!
8)
-
I'm quite sure we have not progressed to the level of being able to predict the actions of people based upon their DNA. Furthermore, it's highly doubtful that this will ever be possible.
Well, we kind of already can. For example there is a gene associated with alcoholism. Somebody with that gene is probably significantly more likely to drink and drive than somebody without it. The ability to predict the actions of people with their DNA is just getting better and better actually. http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20040526/researchers-identify-alcoholism-gene
"More likely" is not the same as "will be". I guarantee you I have that gene, as it has ravaged both sides of my family for generations. Yet I'm not an alcoholic. There's a gaping chasm between predisposition to behaviors/disorders and manifestation thereof. Environment cannot be reasonably ignored.
In fact there is also a gene associated with binge drinking http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57557041/gene-variation-may-make-a-person-more-likely-to-binge-drink/
and a gene associated with rape and murder: http://www.deccanchronicle.com/121221/news-current-affairs/article/genes-responsible-rape-study
In addition to my above response, we have to take into account how and when these measurements are taken. To say a certain gene is "responsible" for rape is just not science, and the article you posted mentions a crucial fact:
Psychogenetic analysis of a rapist’s mind, the study says, reveals that it is the environment that plays a key role in activating the genes and anti-social personality disorder in the person.
We are products of our genes, our experiences, the thoughts we attach to (e.g. beliefs), our actions, and so on. As I said before, we are not currently able to accurately predict behavior based on DNA alone. The idea this is even feasible in the long-term is dubious at best.
Notice that my original claim was never that DNA analysis can be used to determine a persons behavior with certainty, rather it can be used to determine if a person is inclined to certain behavior, inclination being a keyword. Also, your response used the keyword 'predict', which I interpreted to mean 'take a guess at, based on available information'
Verb 1. predict - make a prediction about; tell in advance; "Call the outcome of an election"
Predictions do not need to be 100% accurate. And we can predict a persons behavior by analysis of their DNA with more accuracy than we can predict their behavior by random guessing.
-
DNA can also be used to predict, with better than random accuracy, if a person believes in God (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html) as well as if they are Liberal or Conservative (www.nymag.com/news/features/liberals-conservatives-2012-4/)
-
I just don't think these predictions are ever going to be any better than random guesses. Let's circle back in ~10 years or so and I'll concede if necessary ;)
-
I would argue that today it is already proven that we can guess with better than random accuracy. For example, a significant percentage of people with Autism have an identifiable genetic cause, and our ability to identify genetic causes for Autism is only going to increase over time. Studies have already shown that Autistic people are statistically significantly more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people. It seems to follow that if we identify DNA with genes indicating Autism, that we can guess it belongs to an Atheist, and that we will achieve better accuracy by taking the genetic information into account than we would by assuming the probability of atheism is that of the general population.
A. Autism can sometimes be identified by genetic analysis
B. Autistic people are statistically far more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people
therefor
C. In at least some cases, genetic analysis can be used to statistically determine that the probability of Atheism is greater than it is in the general population
If points A and B are true, and all of the scientific literature I have read seems to indicate that they are, then point C seems to logically follow.
-
All of this sounds very reminiscent of the move "The Minority Report"
To me its amazing how futuristic some SCI-FI movies seem when you see them for the first time but then 5-10 years later we have technology that matches or exceeds the capabilities of the "fake" tech that you saw in the movies
-
We're talking about different things here. You cannot apply the same heuristic methods used to link DNA to Autism to predict behavior like "will rape someone" or "is likely to be a drug dealer". Completely different contexts, to say the *least*.
-
I would argue that today it is already proven that we can guess with better than random accuracy. For example, a significant percentage of people with Autism have an identifiable genetic cause, and our ability to identify genetic causes for Autism is only going to increase over time. Studies have already shown that Autistic people are statistically significantly more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people. It seems to follow that if we identify DNA with genes indicating Autism, that we can guess it belongs to an Atheist, and that we will achieve better accuracy by taking the genetic information into account than we would by assuming the probability of atheism is that of the general population.
A. Autism can sometimes be identified by genetic analysis
B. Autistic people are statistically far more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people
therefor
C. In at least some cases, genetic analysis can be used to statistically determine that the probability of Atheism is greater than it is in the general population
If points A and B are true, and all of the scientific literature I have read seems to indicate that they are, then point C seems to logically follow.
seriously. environmental causes are the result of autism, genes are only markers of possibility, genes are not absolute fact. The only fact, is what you can observe in the present. To extend on your flawed nytimes point C, I can randomly predict if a person is atheist by his/her lifestyle; because logically lifestyle causes autism and 'atheist-ism', not dna. a realism is, man made chemicals in the environment cause autism, so logically our popular western atheist movement is the result of poor health by poisoning.
the reality is, if it has anything to do with the u.s. court system, the root issue is always, how to suck more money from the sheeple.
-
We're talking about different things here. You cannot apply the same heuristic methods used to link DNA to Autism to predict behavior like "will rape someone" or "is likely to be a drug dealer". Completely different contexts, to say the *least*.
I mean, DNA could predict aggression, intelligence, impulsiveness, potential for addiction, etc. but not whether someone is about to commit a crime. I think facial recognition technology in cameras might be able to, and that seems imminent. Just look at London. Ubiquitous CC surveillance. Imagine ten, twenty years from now, a camera notices you have shifty eyes and an elevated heart rate as you wait for the bus, determines this to be probable cause for some undetermined crime, and suddenly you're in custody.
I'm probably exaggerating, but the Bill of Rights Baby has still definitely pissed in the bathwater.
-
We're talking about different things here. You cannot apply the same heuristic methods used to link DNA to Autism to predict behavior like "will rape someone" or "is likely to be a drug dealer". Completely different contexts, to say the *least*.
I don't think it is really different at all. For example: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/5270316/Anger-is-in-the-genes.html
This study shows that
Those who had the "TT" or "TC" versions of the gene portrayed significantly more anger than those with the "CC" version.
Anger and violence definitely correlate. So do you really think that somebody who doesn't have the "TT" or "TC" version of the studied gene, is as likely to commit a violent crime as somebody who does?
I mean, DNA could predict aggression, intelligence, impulsiveness, potential for addiction, etc. but not whether someone is about to commit a crime.
It was never claimed that DNA can tell whether someone is about to commit a crime or not. The only claim I made was that DNA can be used to determine the probability that someone will EVER commit a certain type of crime, and that fingerprints cannot be used for this. DNA can also be used to predict with better than random accuracy if a person believes in God or not, if a person is a Democrat or a Republican, and all kinds of other things. So DNA contains a lot more information of interest than a fingerprint does.
seriously. environmental causes are the result of autism, genes are only markers of possibility, genes are not absolute fact. The only fact, is what you can observe in the present. To extend on your flawed nytimes point C, I can randomly predict if a person is atheist by his/her lifestyle; because logically lifestyle causes autism and 'atheist-ism', not dna. a realism is, man made chemicals in the environment cause autism, so logically our popular western atheist movement is the result of poor health by poisoning.
Even if genes are only markers of possibility, they can still be used to increase the accuracy of a guess to greater than that of the general population. It is really simple statistics. If someone in the general population has a 1% chance of being atheist that means 1 out of 100 people are atheists. If people with a certain gene have a 90% chance of being autistic, that means 90 out of 100 people with that gene are autistic. If autistic people have a 90% chance of being atheists, then 90 out of 100 people with that gene have a 90% chance of being atheist.
-
Nothing surprises me anymore about the Roberts court. But Scalia siding with the antistatist view? Hmmm. He musta had a sleepless night, or a hangover.
When "The State" is controlled by like minded leftists, anyone who is not a leftist, should be anti-Statist.
The current administration is the most far left, secretive, divisive, fascistic administration this country has ever had.
Though if you were brought up indoctrinated by this same kind, you probably support the current dictatorship.
As far as DNA being used to 'predict' behaviors, while possible, I don't see it being used in our lifetime.
World War III will likely happen first.
In fact, that is the goal of the elitists who control the world. They need to get rid of a few billion "useless eaters".
-
If you don't see it being used in our lifetimes then you must not be looking very hard
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/15/1216841110
Punishment of free-riding has been implicated in the evolution of cooperation in humans, and yet mechanisms for punishment avoidance remain largely uninvestigated. Individual variation in these mechanisms may stem from variation in the serotonergic system, which modulates processing of aversive stimuli. Functional serotonin gene variants have been associated with variation in the processing of aversive stimuli and widely studied as risk factors for psychiatric disorders. We show that variants at the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) and serotonin 2A receptor gene (HTR2A) predict contributions to the public good in economic games, dependent upon whether contribution behavior can be punished. Participants with a variant at the serotonin transporter gene contribute more, leading to group-level differences in cooperation, but this effect dissipates in the presence of punishment. When contribution behavior can be punished, those with a variant at the serotonin 2A receptor gene contribute more than those without it. This variant also predicts a more stressful experience of the games. The diversity of institutions (including norms) that govern cooperation and punishment may create selective pressures for punishment avoidance that change rapidly across time and space. Variant-specific epigenetic regulation of these genes, as well as population-level variation in the frequencies of these variants, may facilitate adaptation to local norms of cooperation and punishment.
http://www.biologyreference.com/Ar-Bi/Behavior-Genetic-Basis-of.html
The foregoing observations and experiments, and many others like these, no longer leave room for doubt that genes significantly influence animal behavior. The subject becomes very controversial, however, when we come to the behavior of the most complex of animals, Homo sapiens. Behavioral geneticists find evidence of a genetic influence on schizophrenia, alcoholism, sleep disorders, depression, sexual orientation, intelligence quotient, and many personality traits.
Consider, for example, sexual orientation, an intensely heated issue in which one side argues that people are born with a hereditary predisposition to become homosexual or heterosexual, and the other side argues that homosexuals simply "choose to be that way" and could change if they wanted to, or that this behavior was caused by childhood influences and can be "corrected" by such means as psychotherapy. J. M. Bailey and R. C. Pillard studied families with two or more male siblings, at least one of whom was homosexual. In 52 percent of the cases where the brothers were monozygotic (genetically identical) twins, the other brother was also homosexual; in 22 percent of dizygotic (nonidentical) twin pairs, the second brother was homosexual; and in only 9 percent of nontwin brothers, the second brother was homosexual. The 52 percent figure shows that genes do not inevitably determine sexual orientation; if they did, this figure would be 100 percent. But the contrast between this datum and the other two does suggest that heredity significantly increases the likelihood of a given adult sexual orientation.
The sequencing of the human genome will provide a new tool to assess the genetic underpinnings of behaviors in the human species. A shortcut to sequencing the genomes of many people is to identify places in the genome where people tend to differ in the particular DNA base found. These sites are called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs, and already an international consortium of researchers has identified more than two million of them among the three billion bases of the human genome. Many research groups are now correlating specific SNP patterns to disease susceptibilities, and these include conditions that have behavioral components. One company, for example, is amassing SNP patterns among six hundred families in which two or more members have eating disorders. The researchers look at SNPs in genes known to be associated with eating behaviors and satiety, such as leptin and neuropeptide Y, and other, as yet unknown places in the genome where certain SNPs are statistically more common in people with these types of disorders. Even with this powerful new technology, it will be difficult to separate inherited tendencies from learned behaviors.
Much of the opposition to the idea of a genetic influence on human behavior stems from political and social philosophies that are reluctant to accept the idea that not all human behavior can be shaped by experience or changed at will. It would be discouraging to think that tendencies toward war, racism, or marital infidelity were genetic and unchangeable. Hereditary theories of human behavior were taken to despicable extremes in the twentieth century, including a eugenics movement in America that argued that some races and classes of people were genetically inferior to others and, most horrendously, the racial philosophy of Nazi Germany, which extolled the fictitious "white Aryan race" while trying to systematically exterminate another. In light of this horrific history, it is understandable that some people recoil from any latter-day suggestions that human behavior is hereditary.
Yet scientific evidence cannot be rejected simply because it does not conform to a political philosophy. In evaluating the influence of genes on human behavior, several points must be kept in mind. One is that behavioral geneticists are not arguing for genetic determinism: they are saying genes influence behavior, not that they rigidly determine it and destine people to behave in certain ways. Genes may influence human behavior, but they do not enslave people. All behaviors require at least some contribution from genes (to build sense organs, nervous systems, muscles, and the other equipment of behavior) and environment (to provide the raw materials to build this equipment and the experiences that sway gene expression ). As evolutionary theorist Richard Dawkins puts it, behavior is like a chocolate cake, needing both a recipe and ingredients. Genes provide the behavioral recipe, and the environment the ingredients.
Finally, there is no such thing as a gene for any behavior. There is no aggression gene, no gay gene, no gene for bird song or nut-burying. Genes encode proteins , nothing more; but through proteins, they can influence behavior. Aggression and sexual behavior, for example, are influenced by testosterone, and testosterone is synthesized by enzymes , which are proteins encoded by deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Thus one can see how genes would influence these behaviors. All behavior, furthermore, depends on chemical signals (neurotransmitters) that are released by one neuron and bind to receptors on the next neuron. Neurotransmitters , too, are synthesized by enzymes encoded by DNA, and their receptors are proteins as well. Neurotransmitter levels control mood and probably aspects of personality. The list goes on and on. Indeed, it is impossible to see how genes could not play a role in behavior.
Honestly there is not much of a debate. There is a plethora of evidence that clearly shows that genetic analysis can predict behavior with results significantly more accurate than random guessing.
-
Honestly there is not much of a debate. There is a plethora of evidence that clearly shows that genetic analysis can predict behavior with results significantly more accurate than random guessing.
any alleged evidence is better than 'random guesses'.. my whole point is, like insurance, and airport scanners; this is just another sham to wring more money from us land serfs. a whole new industry will be created which center around using human dna as something to be traded on the stock market. What shit like this lead to is the implementation of DNA to determine things like -health insurance rates, and if grandma is going to get that heart operation needed to keep her alive for another 10 years, ect, ect.. IMO this is religious zealotry, replacing the god in the sky, with a mechanical god created using mathematical equations they like to call a science.
-
Our 4th amendment rights are being eroded....
What 4th Amendment rights? There aren't any left to erode.
-
Nothing surprises me anymore about the Roberts court. But Scalia siding with the antistatist view? Hmmm. He musta had a sleepless night, or a hangover.
When "The State" is controlled by like minded leftists, anyone who is not a leftist, should be anti-Statist.
The current administration is the most far left, secretive, divisive, fascistic administration this country has ever had.
Though if you were brought up indoctrinated by this same kind, you probably support the current dictatorship.
As far as DNA being used to 'predict' behaviors, while possible, I don't see it being used in our lifetime.
World War III will likely happen first.
In fact, that is the goal of the elitists who control the world. They need to get rid of a few billion "useless eaters".
Hyperbole, surely?
-
Our 4th amendment rights are being eroded....
What 4th Amendment rights? There aren't any left to erode.
Good point. Somehow those millimeter wave scanners at every airport don't qualify as "unreasonable search"
-
I'm only just now getting some time to dig into your logic a little deeper. There are some good points, though ultimately I think this is an opportunity for you to reconsider how far you allow yourself to go with regard to the conclusions you're tending to draw from available data.
Studies have already shown that Autistic people are statistically significantly more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people.
For the purposes of this discussion, I'll go ahead and assume that this is true, that there are multiple studies that have found this, and that they have all successfully made it through peer review[1].
It seems to follow that if we identify DNA with genes indicating Autism, that we can guess it belongs to an Atheist,
This is a very thin rope you're tying to two ends, I hope you know what you're doing.
We can agree that given an individual DNA sample and a confirmation of both Autism-linked genes and actual manifestation of Autism, the probability that the individual is irreligious could be determined via the information from the above-stated studies.
This doesn't mean much all by itself, however, and it is especially not actionable or even reliable without much further study. We can "guess" that the DNA belongs to an atheist based upon the information you've provided, but our guess is still quite likely to be wrong[2].
and that we will achieve better accuracy by taking the genetic information into account than we would by assuming the probability of atheism is that of the general population.
Better accuracy of *relative* probabilistic predictions —e.g. "The likelihood that a subject expressing gene A is atheist is X% higher than normal"– sure, but this is not the same as what you're talking about. Your case, as outlined here, has fallen apart. Any further claims you make based on this case are unfortunately not going to be reasonable.
A. Autism can sometimes be identified by genetic analysis
B. Autistic people are statistically far more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people
therefor
C. In at least some cases, genetic analysis can be used to statistically determine that the probability of Atheism is greater than it is in the general population
If points A and B are true, and all of the scientific literature I have read seems to indicate that they are, then point C seems to logically follow.
Even if we were to take everything you say as true, you're taking these ideas too far. Another example of why this is so is that the topic in the studies I have found revolves "identifies belief in God". This is quite different than "identifies as atheist."
Finally, even if somehow you're accidentally right about ALL this stuff, you can't take this and directly apply it to predicting the behavior of people based on their DNA. In this example, you're talking about a neurological disorder with genetic correlations. In the original context of this discussion, we were talking about going the other way and predicting behavior (not disorders or conditions, mind you, but another level removed) with them. You just haven't made a reasonable case for this.
---
[1] citations would be nice, since you are forming your entire argument based on this factual claim
[2] that is unless you can demonstrate an extremely high correlation between presence/expression of these genes with manifestation of autism
-
For the purposes of this discussion, I'll go ahead and assume that this is true, that there are multiple studies that have found this, and that they have all successfully made it through peer review[1].
Admittedly the Autism example is not the best, however I believe that it does a decent job of getting the point across. The studies linking autism to Atheism are not of the highest quality, however a clear correlation has been demonstrated. Additionally, there is theory as to why high functioning autistic people would be more likely to be atheists than neurotypical people. Having a theory and having demonstrated a correlation is at least supporting evidence that Autism is causative of Atheism, but I agree that currently the research is not capable of proving causation. I do believe that a more sophisticated study will demonstrate that Autism has a causative relationship with Atheism. As far as citations go, here are some links and relevant snippets from them:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/09/atheism-as-mental-deviance/
These two figures illustrate two results:
1) Among two equivalent demographic samples differentiated by autism diagnosis state, the high functioning autistics are much more likely to be atheists.
2) Among a sample of autistics and neurotypicals those who are atheists have the highest “autism quotient.”
http://www.scienceonreligion.org/index.php/news-research/research-updates/490-autism-and-ir-religiosity
In four separate studies, Norenzayan, Gervais, and Trzesniewski measured volunteers for autistic traits, mentalizing abilities, and belief in God. In the first study, the researchers actually recruited both autistics and non-autistics from the Miami area, while in subsequent studies volunteers simply filled out surveys that measured their empathic abilities and tendencies toward autism. (Autism is typically measured on a spectrum, so that even neurotypical people may show some autistic tendencies.)
In all four studies, men showed less belief in God than women, and greater autistic tendencies were strongly correlated with nonbelief. In statistical analysis, the researchers found that the both correlations were mediated by impaired mentalizing abilities. In other words, the reason that both men and autistic people were less likely to believe in God was at least partially because they were less likely to see the world as being made up of personalities. Instead, autistics – and, to an extent, males – were more likely to see the world as being composed of impersonal objects and patterns.
This research implies that these cognitive patterns extend to the metaphysical, or “big picture,” level. That is, people with strong mentalizing abilities are more likely to see the cosmos as being somehow fundamentally personal, while those with reduced mentalizing abilities are more likely to experience it as being more impersonal and abstract.
The researchers tried to control for several other possible explanations for their findings, including the possibility that autistic people, who can be intimidated by social gatherings, may be less likely to go to church. According to this model, autistic people would believe less in God not because of reduced mentalizing abilities, but because they would be exposed less often to social conditioning that encourages belief in God. However, the connection between autism, weakened mentalizing abilities, and reduced religious belief held true even after the researchers controlled for religious attendance. The same was found when the results were controlled for interest in math and science. And finally, intelligence – as measured by I.Q. – was found to have no correlation with religious belief one way or another.
The best explanation for the researchers’ findings, then, appears to match their original hypothesis: both males and autistic people believe less in God because they interpret the world less personally than women or neurotypicals, respectively. That’s a lot of generalizations in one sentence, but it does seem to fit the facts. Naturally, individual people very rarely fit the boxes that social scientists produce – but those boxes do help us understand how things work.
This is a very thin rope you're tying to two ends, I hope you know what you're doing.
I mean, it just seems pretty obvious to me that if points A and B are true, that point C must follow.
We can agree that given an individual DNA sample and a confirmation of both Autism-linked genes and actual manifestation of Autism, the probability that the individual is irreligious could be determined via the information from the above-stated studies.
This doesn't mean much all by itself, however, and it is especially not actionable or even reliable without much further study. We can "guess" that the DNA belongs to an atheist based upon the information you've provided, but our guess is still quite likely to be wrong[2].
The probability of the guess being correct is dependent on the degree of correlation between the presence of the gene and the manifestation of autism, as well as the degree of correlation between the presence of autism and atheism. We are not yet capable of diagnosing Autism via genetic analysis alone, however certain genes increase the risk of autism to several times greater than that of the general population. Additionally, further research needs to be done to establish a causative link between Autism and Atheism, however, current research is supportive of such a link existing. So I agree that today we might not be quite to the point that we can make highly accurate guesses as to a persons belief in God based upon the methodology I suggested.
However, I do believe that we can currently guess, with higher than random accuracy, if a person is an Atheist or not, by by using the methodology I suggested. Even an increase in accuracy of half a percent would indicate that analysis of DNA can be used to predict a persons belief (or lack thereof) in God, with better accuracy than can be obtained without the DNA analysis (in which case the best guess would be that the persons probability of Atheism is in line with that of the general population). As further research is carried out on the link between Autism and Atheism as well as the link between the presence of certain genetic mutations and the presence of Autism, I strongly believe that our predictions will only increase in accuracy.
Better accuracy of *relative* probabilistic predictions —e.g. "The likelihood that a subject expressing gene A is atheist is X% higher than normal"– sure, but this is not the same as what you're talking about. Your case, as outlined here, has fallen apart. Any further claims you make based on this case are unfortunately not going to be reasonable.
How is this not what I am talking about?
Even if we were to take everything you say as true, you're taking these ideas too far. Another example of why this is so is that the topic in the studies I have found revolves "identifies belief in God". This is quite different than "identifies as atheist."
See the links I provided.
A. Autism can sometimes be identified by genetic analysis
B. Autistic people are statistically far more likely to be atheists than non-autistic people
therefor
C. In at least some cases, genetic analysis can be used to statistically determine that the probability of Atheism is greater than it is in the general population
If points A and B are true, and all of the scientific literature I have read seems to indicate that they are, then point C seems to logically follow.
:
Finally, even if somehow you're accidentally right about ALL this stuff, you can't take this and directly apply it to predicting the behavior of people based on their DNA. In this example, you're talking about a neurological disorder with genetic correlations. In the original context of this discussion, we were talking about going the other way and predicting behavior (not disorders or conditions, mind you, but another level removed) with them. You just haven't made a reasonable case for this.
I believe that I have made a pretty reasonable case, but I can see that as far as Autism and Atheism goes, I could have selected a better example with more research available. How about this study:
Punishment of free-riding has been implicated in the evolution of cooperation in humans, and yet mechanisms for punishment avoidance remain largely uninvestigated. Individual variation in these mechanisms may stem from variation in the serotonergic system, which modulates processing of aversive stimuli. Functional serotonin gene variants have been associated with variation in the processing of aversive stimuli and widely studied as risk factors for psychiatric disorders. We show that variants at the serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) and serotonin 2A receptor gene (HTR2A) predict contributions to the public good in economic games, dependent upon whether contribution behavior can be punished. Participants with a variant at the serotonin transporter gene contribute more, leading to group-level differences in cooperation, but this effect dissipates in the presence of punishment. When contribution behavior can be punished, those with a variant at the serotonin 2A receptor gene contribute more than those without it. This variant also predicts a more stressful experience of the games. The diversity of institutions (including norms) that govern cooperation and punishment may create selective pressures for punishment avoidance that change rapidly across time and space. Variant-specific epigenetic regulation of these genes, as well as population-level variation in the frequencies of these variants, may facilitate adaptation to local norms of cooperation and punishment.
To me this seems to pretty clearly state that gene variation can be used to accurately predict the behaviors of a person playing an economic game.
-
Pretty much it reduces to this:
if a% of b == c, and if d% of e == b, then a% of d% of e == c
10% of 100 = 10, 10% of 1000 = 100, 10% of 10% of 1000 = 10
if 90% of autistic people are atheists, and if 10% of people with a certain gene are autistic, then at least 90% of 10% of people with that gene are atheists.
I can tell that I am correct in purely mathematical sense but perhaps it doesn't apply to non-mathematical reality? For example:
if 10% of cats are brown, and if 10% of my animals are cats, then at least 10% of 10% of my animals are brown.
I imagine that probabilistically this would be true, but it is still entirely possible for all of my cats to be white.