I am glad that you have mentioned epigenetics and regulation networks, because I was about to use them as examples of why I think your initial ideas about the eventual demise of "atheist sub-species" or the dominance of "religiousity" are just fantasy. Epigenetic regulation of networks acts subtly and introduces a fair degree of flexibility into the system and is heritable, even if not hard-encoded in genetic alleles. These sorts of regulation are quite likely to play a large role in plastic traits like behaviour, attitudes, and whole host of other subtleties. The key thing is that epigenetic regulation is largely reversible or alterable without altering the underlying genetic structure. It is the interface between genes and their expression through interaction with the environment. So that means that while attitudes may be partialy inherited from ones parents (but not necessarily from ones grandparents or their grandparents), the environment (especially the social environment) in which you live has a great deal of influence over their expression, and so are reasonably likely to be specific to local social environments. The authors weren't kidding when they said that whether the effects seen in a small sample set of Minnesotan male twins should be checked in a larger population. As a quantitative genetics statistician, you would certainly understand the significance of a large 95%CI in assessing exactly how precise a research tool a questionnaire comprising of a dozen or so questions is in assessing the heritability of particular attitudes.

Scientists have known that genes function in networks for far longer than a decade. When the Oxford nanosequencer comes online and the $1000 genome prize is won, I reckon the future is going to be far weirder than you expect, because we should be able to nail down a few 'gene networks' and be able to tackle some very big issues. By comparison, I see sci-fi projections of what the future holds based on the weakest of premises as trivialising an exceptionally interesting topic.

Lastly, steven, I am not exactly sure what you are hoping you are 'helping' me with? Did I ask for assistance?

LOL Bugsy,

Do get over yourself.

You write:

"I am not exactly sure what you are hoping you are 'helping' me with?"

You asked about my experiences corresponding with researchers. I replied and expressed the hope that you found my comments helpful.

You write:

"I see sci-fi projections of what the future holds based on the weakest of premises as trivialising an exceptionally interesting topic."

I enjoy this type of speculation. You don't. It's a matter of taste. Each to his own.

You write:

"When … the $1000 genome prize is won, I reckon the future is going to be far weirder than you expect,…"

I reckon the future is going to be much weirder than ANY of us expect including you and me. I think many of our cherished notions are going to be destroyed.

BTW I no more think that atheists are going to become extinct than Dawkins really thinks genes are "selfish". I freely admit to indulging in a bit of headline writers' hyperbole.

What I DO think is that religiosity in Western society is going to grow because of the factors I mentioned. How it will play out I am uncertain. For all I know it will manifest itself in a sort of Gaia worship.

You seem unwilling to accept the fact that human populations – not individuals – do evolve. One of the most interesting evolutionary adaptations in humans I've come across is the blood chemistry of Tibetans. Living more than 12,000 feet above sea level, they have a blood chemistry that is somewhat different to us lowlanders.

See: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626284.700-special-blood-lets-tibetans-live-the-high-life.html

Religion is not the only attitude that seems to be heritable. So apparently is attitude towards economic risk:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=19210185

Maybe one day bankers will choose their traders genomically.

Actually they already can.

If banks employed solely female traders and executives we'd probably have been spared the current global economic crisis.

Lighten up, Bugsy.

Hey if you want to talk about science fiction, that's fine. Really. But don't pretend it isn't.

I was trying to point out in what was probably in hindsight a completely misread way, that writing to any scientist point blank and telling them that you think that their research is likely a waste of time is unlikely to provoke any sort of meaningful response. Instead, I guess you thought I was asking for advice.

I actually thought that this was an interesting topic of research, apart from the oddly strong defence of what has now been admitted as improbable speculation, but why not in future put in a thread title that reflects what you actually think?

I hope this helps.

Many people make the mistake believing that just because something is heritable and natural selection acts upon it, that it follows that sub-groups will form and that trait will come to dominate or disappear. It doesn't: variety and variability tend to be maintained.

A lot of people also make the mistake of believing that if women were in charge, then certain crises such as war, economic crises etc. may never have happened. This has no basis in history.

I don't want to lighten up steven, I like berating you, it gives me great pleasure.

Gentlemen,
Up front I'll admit I'm well out of my depth here. But I feel the need to thank you for one of the most entertaining and informative conversations I've read on OLO. Good chuckle too.
My heart felt thanks
examinator

stephen quote<<..Right now having an appendix causes neither a significant advantage nor a disadvantage...>>unlike foreskins lopped off for 6000 years...lol

<<Over evolutionary time it will probably wither>>>just like the goy forskins wither at the thought of mutilating their boy children

<<but this could take many thousands,..perhaps tens of thousands,..of generations....>>yeah that has worked with the jews and arabs...lol..you will be talking about ears..evolving piecings..next..lol

sadly you evolution nutters..got no concept of evolution principles[involving random 'evolutions'...mainly negative/destructive of species/survival...

i blame it on dorkins..with his flathead fish...lol..dragging thier eye.. in the mud...lol..only..butt one of his..'teachings'..to his flock/followers..as the new[neo]age messiah..of the athiest hoard..or is it a herd..of athiests..or a coven..of athiest-ics..nest of athiest....swarm?..swamp..such a feast of the mindless evolving belief in disbelief

You can always tell when Johan's been smokin' again.