Looking at your post history I don't think you would accept evidence, or at least maintain a very different standard of evidence for ideas or claims which confirm your beliefs as opposed to those which challenge it.
Also, you are the one making many claims here, so the burden of proof is on you to post atual studies for which I can check their methodology and not sources indistinguishable from facebook mom initiatives.
Obviously mRNA therapy is not gene therapy as no nuclear DNA is involved. This is well established. Go read e.g. this basic book and you can go and study the primary literature referenced from there. If you can't buy it you could use gen.lib.rus.ec to download a pdf illegally if you choose to do so.
Maybe if I had the time I would post some more but I don't.
Janeway's is still a great textbook that is very current, immunology is just moving really fast right now. All of biology is because the new tools we have to work with are flat out amazing. Molecular Biology of the Cell is probably the best bang for your buck in terms of getting into this area. It covers a huge amount of terrain, after which you can dive into biochem, genetics, immunology, microbiology, etc.
With 213 specifically, you're in luck -- the labs are available online (just without solutions). https://csapp.cs.cmu.edu/3e/students.html There's also a cottage industry of reuploading CMU content for popular courses like this; I've DM'd you a link to the first random youtube playlist I found (you probably want to download this because I don't think it is supposed to be public).
150 is harder to find content for, unfortunately. I don't have good suggestions there. There is a supplementary book written by various TAs https://smlhelp.github.io/book/docs/ , and there is also PSML from https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~./15150/resources.html . You might be able to access some of these resources with just your CMU ID, so download whatever you can. The TAs may also be willing to share some HW problems if you ask, though I think they're not really supposed to.
To be clear, even if you did want to ask for the entire CS core, I think that's great! I am a big fan of self-study in general, I've been slowly and painfully trying to relearn biology and chemistry (eventual goal: read and understand https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Sixth-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815345240 ) . I just want to make sure you're scoping out your approach enough to have a better chance at success.
Given what you've currently mentioned, I would probably advise:
210 and 451 are harder to find resources for. I would also recommend downloading everything that you can now, while you have a CMU ID.
I recommend reading something about evolutionary developmental biology, and even basic biology and chemistry, to clear some those questions that you are having about the "creation"/evolution of humanity.
About evolutionary development, I studied that in bachiller (pre-university), so I don't know good titles to recommend, just these two Acepella science videos as a fun summary narrated in a song. [1] and [2]. But I'm sure you can easily find good recommendations.
One thing I'd like you to check out is the Miller-Urey experiements to support the theory of Abiogenesis, meaning how humanity's structural complexity can be explained by spontaneous chemical reactions of simple chemical elements with the right conditions.
And famous book about biology I know is Albert's molecular biology of the cell
Alberts.... sigur mai are cineva traume cu Albertsu.
OK cool, well for the biochemistry part, I would suggest two textbooks:
Molecular Biology of the Cell - https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Sixth-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815345240
Biochemistry - https://www.amazon.com/Biochemistry-Lubert-Stryer/dp/1319114679
Between them, they are an excellent resource for the introduction to biochemistry, Molecular Biology of the Cell I think is more cellular focussed, and Biochemistry is more focussed on the chemistry side of things, but they're the books suggested to 1st year biochem students and I still use them to this day as a final year PhD student.
As for microscopy methods and spectroscopy, I'm less helpful there but somebody else might know good resources. Often with microscopy I find useful youtube video from scientists/scicomm people that helps me with the fundamentals before reading the heavier material, which you might find helpful. Sometimes you can find good tutorials on university websites by googling things like 'introduction to [super niche method here]' or '[super niche method for dummies]'.
>therefore no longer has the antibodies
That's not how antibodies work. Go inform yourself: https://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Sixth-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815345240
For covid specifically: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
> My take on the best studies on IQ heritability (MZA) which tend to find h2 =~ 0.80
The article you yourself cite states 'found a heritability of IQ between 57% and 73%[6] with the most recent studies showing heritability for IQ as high as 80%.'
I appreciate the source, but you should represent it fairly. Without digging into the studies, it's phrased such that 80% heritability is the outlier while you represent it more like the mean.
>My claim is that for any consistently measurable phenotypic trait, there is one or more fixed genotypic traits underlying it.
I'm not sure what this means - I've never heard the term genotypic trait before, and I wasn't able to find it on the google. Typically we either refer to genes or genotype. A given phenotype is the result of the underlying genotype along with environmental influences.
>This follows from the materialist idea that people are genetic machines. This in turn is a certainty based on causality. To channel Wittgenstein, causality can't be linguistically proven, only shown. But it's essentially the essence of all existence. If you exist, you can't honestly miss it.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. I don't know what a 'genetic machine' is or how it is the essence of all existence (or is causality the essence of existence?).
>The "genotypic traits" are a significant portion of input manipulation. Your whole flesh is derivative of your genetic code. This doesn't have to be given: read this unironically. Particularly Unit 3 and Ch 47. Ecology and the like aren't relevant for this.
No offense, as I appreciate that you offered me a textbook in earnest and politely. I don't mean the following as an argument from authority, as no doubt there is plenty in that textbook that I've forgotten, and even within my field I've been corrected by laypeople from time to time. But I took multiple classes based on this textbook nearly a decade ago, and in the meantime completed my PhD in a related field.
I say this not to shut you down or be rude, but I can't parse a lot of the terminology you're using. I've never heard someone say that our whole flesh is derivative of our genetic code, and I don't really understand what that means or how it's relevant. And you can assume I have at least an undergraduate's grasp on genetics and a PhD level understanding of molecular biology.
>But there's also environmental changes to the machine. Memory is one form. Damage is another. I contend that these are the only two. >Is somebody being mean damage? I don't think so. Given the same input and genotype, only physical damage to gene machines will cause different output. Poisons would be sufficient. Except IIRC the evidence says there isn't significant, IQ relevant differences in poison exposure between the races.
This whole part...I don't know what to make of it. I assume when you say memory, you mean something along the lines of learning facts in school, whereas damage you mean something along the lines of a major concussion? Take 'someone being mean' and replace it with 'chronic stress' whether it's due to a child being abused, being in an unsafe environment, drug use, whatever. Chronic stress has a huge number of physiological effects so I don't see any reason why it couldn't affect IQ.
>Except IIRC the evidence says there isn't significant, IQ relevant differences in poison exposure between the races.
Okay, well, I'm not going to pretend to be well-read on the subject of IQ-differences between races so I'm not particularly interested in arguing it. But exposure to environmental pollutants is absolutely different between races as well as class. I'm no expert in this subject either, but I've heard it invoked as one possible reason underlying higher covid death tolls in minority communities.
>Luckily it's still up behind a paywall and they haven't managed to get rid of that thing where you can skirt those yet, so censorship failed I guess.
Looks like they got you at this link too, my friend.
>Okay, so why is it you're so into consensus again?
I'm not. To elaborate on that point, I can't provide a supporting source because it's nearly a tautology/game of definitions. The strict definition of a complex trait is just one influenced by multiple genes, whereas Mendelian traits are monogenic. But nearly everyone refers to complex traits as polygenic traits whose phenotype is determined by interactions between environmental and genetic factors. They could be wrong.
Let me back up a bit. /u/Iconochasm asked for the mechanism behind 'racism affecting IQ.' They still haven't answered my question as to what they mean by that, but typically in the field mechanism refers to something more like 'molecular mechanism.' As in, untreated PKU leads to a decrease in IQ as excessive plasma levels of phenylalanine stunts neuron growth/survival and the brain cannot develop properly. 'Racism' decreases IQ as minorities growing up in poverty suffer more from chronic stress than their well-off peers, inhibiting brain development (hypothesis I invented, not statement of fact).
Your argument is more of an example of syllogism rather than a series of experiments/data helping us to understand the process. But who knows, maybe that's what Mr(s). Iconochasm wanted.
I was hoping your recommendation was actually this.
I'll be looking forward for that. Honestly Just finished Blindsight of Peter Wats, (read rifters trilogy months ago) and somewhere in 10% of http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-Bruce-Alberts/dp/0815345240 and can't sleep (I'm in GMT/CET). My background is IT electronics. I'm might write sth like that about Quantum Computing if someone would be interested.
BTW do you have some problems to open this: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardscifi ?? It shows me covering add to https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceFiction and only mobile version works