On Darwinism

[DC Tom]

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to believe you got the SAT score you say you got. Here are the exact same words you quoted, with the relevant sentence bolded.

 

You missed the point of that first post completely, didn't you? Bungee Jumper (a.k.a. DC Tom) tried to argue a eugenics program wouldn't increase the average level of intelligence, because of regression toward the mean. Two people with I.Q.s of 140 would be expected to have children that were generally in, say, the 130s range. Over time, he felt this regression toward the population mean would cause the eugenics program to fail. The point of that first post was to show that if Bungee Jumper's line of reasoning was actually valid, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. Just about all traits are subject to regression toward the mean. For example, very tall parents tend to have children that, while also tall, aren't as tall as their parents.

 

I'm duly impressed. You've managed to link a complete misunderstand of modern genetics with a complete misunderstanding of evolution using your complete misunderstanding of mathematics and use all together to develop a complete and coherent theory of genetic evolution.

 

It's absolute and total bull sh--, of course, of such high order that you would need a brain transplant before we could begin to explain it to you. But it's coherenet as hell, which is an impressive accomplishment in and of itself.

[DC Tom]

You are trying to use IQ as though its a 100% foolproof method of somehow measuring this thing we call "intelligence". If you actually tried to present this case to a scientist, you'd be laughed out of the room, much like the last time you tried to talk to a woman.

 

Credit where due, though...it's an improvement over the "Is X an East German scientist" method of measuring intelligence.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Should I even bother reading this car wreck?

[Ramius]

Environment plays a very weak role in determining intellectual differences

 

Environment: Twins have a higher correlation in their test scores than unrelated children. That shows that there is some type of genetic aspect to intelligence. this isnt debated.

 

Ever hear of the Milwaukee project in the 1960's? I'll sum it up for you. Children (newborns) were selected from a section of milwaukee where the pop. density was the highest, the average income was the lowest, and there was a high rate of unemployment. All of the children were selected from mothers with an IQ <80 (think your mother). Half of the children were kept in a similar environment, and half were placed in an environment where the mothers had received vocational training, life skills training, and parenting training. By age 6, the average IQ of the control group was 87. By age 6, the average IQ of the experimental group with the enriched environment was 120. But no, theres no effect of envrionment on IQ.

 

Also, its funny how when poor black children are placed in white middle class homes, their IQ rises on average. They must only be selecting the smart black kids for the experiment, huh? Science is littered with thousands of experiment visibly demonstrating that environment has a HUGE effect on IQ. But then again, you have shown the tendency to ignore mainstream science in an attempt to push your facist, nazi agenda.

 

Also, up until the 1950's, Blacks consistently scored lower than whites on US military IQ tests. Does this mean they were less intelligent? NO. It means that the blacks had a poorer education. When education standards were increased, blacks all of a sudden started scoring better. So all of a sudden, increasing education standards caused black itelligence genes to mutate making them smarter?

 

Also, IQ is not a terribly good predictor of 'intelligence'. It is shaky at best. Just like the SAT is no predictor of college success. Standardized testing is simply that, standardized testing. IQ tests do not test spatial ability, nor do they test creativity and practical knowledge. IQ tests do not test memory. All of these ideas play a large role in intelligence.

 

Why dont you explain autism to me? Autistic individuals score extremely low on IQ tests, yet are often highly intelligent.

 

 

As for the so-called "decline of the gene pool", you've pulled that from the same place you;ve pulled all of your other so-called "knowledge"...your ass. I win, this arguement is over. You done an admirable job of demonstrating your incompetence in statistics and now genetics. Whats the next subject you'd care to get taken to school in?

 

And you still havent explained why you advocate a eugenics program in which you would be the first person sterilized due to gross incompetence.

[Bungee Jumper]

All of the children were selected from mothers with an IQ <80 (think your mother).

 

 

Of course, suggesting that he inherited his stupidity from his mother in a thread where you're trying to prove you can't inherit intelligence is...well, disingenious.

[Ramius]

Of course, suggesting that he inherited his stupidity from his mother in a thread where you're trying to prove you can't inherit intelligence is...well, disingenious.

 

I know. But the opportunity was too good to pass up. Plus, in all of his inane arguements, he's flip-flopped countless times, so i figure i am allowed ot do it once to drive home a point.

[Orton's Arm]

I'm duly impressed. You've managed to link a complete misunderstand of modern genetics with a complete misunderstanding of evolution using your complete misunderstanding of mathematics and use all together to develop a complete and coherent theory of genetic evolution.

 

It's absolute and total bull sh--, of course, of such high order that you would need a brain transplant before we could begin to explain it to you. But it's coherenet as hell, which is an impressive accomplishment in and of itself.

You really shouldn't be drinking at work.

[Orton's Arm]

Environment: Twins have a higher correlation in their test scores than unrelated children. That shows that there is some type of genetic aspect to intelligence. this isnt debated.

 

Ever hear of the Milwaukee project in the 1960's? I'll sum it up for you. Children (newborns) were selected from a section of milwaukee where the pop. density was the highest, the average income was the lowest, and there was a high rate of unemployment. All of the children were selected from mothers with an IQ <80 (think your mother). Half of the children were kept in a similar environment, and half were placed in an environment where the mothers had received vocational training, life skills training, and parenting training. By age 6, the average IQ of the control group was 87. By age 6, the average IQ of the experimental group with the enriched environment was 120. But no, theres no effect of envrionment on IQ.

You are correct in saying that studies show that environment plays a large role in determining intelligence differences for children. That's why I was very careful in saying that, by adulthood, there was no correlation between the intelligence levels of unrelated people who had been raised together. If you take children from unintelligent parents, and put them in really good homes, then as children they'll score better on standardized tests. But that environment bonus gradually wanes as they get older, even though they remain in that same positive environment. By adulthood, the I.Q. of the adoptive mother ceases to have any correlation with the children's I.Q.s, while the correlation with the biological mother's I.Q. is stronger than ever.

 

In 1928, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko annonced that he'd developed a method to moisten and treat seeds to improve the later growth of crops. He made the Lamarckian claim these improved traits were passed onto subsequent generations. Lamarckian ideas had captured the imagination of Josef Stalin; who wanted to believe in a future unlimited by any sort of genetic ceiling. Stalin was quite pleased when Lysenko promised improved acricultural production through Lamarckian means. By 1937, Lysenko had become a member of the Supreme Soviet. Scientists who embraced Mendelian genetics were sent to gulags or executed by firing squads. By 1948, the theory of genetics had been officially banned as "bourgeois pseudoscience."

 

Like Stalin and other members of the communist movement, you have politicized science in ways which understate the effect genetics have on human potential. I realize it's human nature to want to be inclusive, and to imagine anyone at all can be a top scientist or engineer if they just try hard enough. That's not the way the world really is. The laws of nature work a certain way, and wishful thinking on your part or within the leadership of the communist movement can't change those laws. Humanity never got anywhere by blinding itself to natural forces. Achievement comes when you combine a fanatical determination to see things as they are with an equally fanatical determination to make the world a better place.

[justnzane]

You are correct in saying that studies show that environment plays a large role in determining intelligence differences for children. That's why I was very careful in saying that, by adulthood, there was no correlation between the intelligence levels of unrelated people who had been raised together. If you take children from unintelligent parents, and put them in really good homes, then as children they'll score better on standardized tests. But that environment bonus gradually wanes as they get older, even though they remain in that same positive environment. By adulthood, the I.Q. of the adoptive mother ceases to have any correlation with the children's I.Q.s, while the correlation with the biological mother's I.Q. is stronger than ever.

 

ok, if you had a great, ideal environment growing up as a kid, chances are that you have extended your education by getting oppurtunities that an underpriviliged kid would not get. So, this means that the kids w/ High IQ's typically stay at a high range barring change in situation, Likewise the unpriviliged kids do not get the oppurtunites to flex their mind, develop higher order thinking skills, thus their IQ's are typically lower as they are adults. SInce these lower IQ learners do not get the chance to earn enough to further advance themselves, thus the role of enviromental situation plays a huge part from birth to death in intelligence, and many other traits. Thus kids that are raised together probably lived under simliar expectations and would have the same environment to fail or succeed under. For example, Madonna and Angelina Jolie both adopted kids from parents that probably do not have a high IQ. So, what you are saying is that these kids are going to be smart kids but dumb adults. These kids will have the best conditions to thrive under and will probably be smarter than their adoptive parents, since the kids they have more ideal environment because the parents are able to provide more than they had. Not too mention, these kids will probably have private tutors as well. These kids will be far from low IQ. So, Please stop talking out of your ass, and get a clue

[Bungee Jumper]

ok, if you had a great, ideal environment growing up as a kid, chances are that you have extended your education by getting oppurtunities that an underpriviliged kid would not get. So, this means that the kids w/ High IQ's typically stay at a high range barring change in situation, Likewise the unpriviliged kids do not get the oppurtunites to flex their mind, develop higher order thinking skills, thus their IQ's are typically lower as they are adults. SInce these lower IQ learners do not get the chance to earn enough to further advance themselves, thus the role of enviromental situation plays a huge part from birth to death in intelligence, and many other traits. Thus kids that are raised together probably lived under simliar expectations and would have the same environment to fail or succeed under. For example, Madonna and Angelina Jolie both adopted kids from parents that probably do not have a high IQ. So, what you are saying is that these kids are going to be smart kids but dumb adults. These kids will have the best conditions to thrive under and will probably be smarter than their adoptive parents, since the kids they have more ideal environment because the parents are able to provide more than they had. Not too mention, these kids will probably have private tutors as well. These kids will be far from low IQ.

 

HA simply doesn't understand how, where behavior (yes, HA, intelligence is a behavior) is concerned, genetics only establishes predisposition. Many, many environmental factors (cognitive, social, emotional, nutritional, for starters) can affect how a genetic predisposition expresses itself. But then, neither does he understand the relation between genetics and their expression as traits, seing as how he still continues to abuse the very concept of "heritability", and will continue to abuse it since he doesn't understand the underpinning concepts of "correlation", or "variance", or "mathematics"...really, he doesn't understand anything. I'd ignore him if it weren't so humorous.

 

So, Please stop talking out of your ass, and get a clue

 

Like he's going to stop now...

[Ramius]

ok, if you had a great, ideal environment growing up as a kid, chances are that you have extended your education by getting oppurtunities that an underpriviliged kid would not get. So, this means that the kids w/ High IQ's typically stay at a high range barring change in situation, Likewise the unpriviliged kids do not get the oppurtunites to flex their mind, develop higher order thinking skills, thus their IQ's are typically lower as they are adults. SInce these lower IQ learners do not get the chance to earn enough to further advance themselves, thus the role of enviromental situation plays a huge part from birth to death in intelligence, and many other traits. Thus kids that are raised together probably lived under simliar expectations and would have the same environment to fail or succeed under. For example, Madonna and Angelina Jolie both adopted kids from parents that probably do not have a high IQ. So, what you are saying is that these kids are going to be smart kids but dumb adults. These kids will have the best conditions to thrive under and will probably be smarter than their adoptive parents, since the kids they have more ideal environment because the parents are able to provide more than they had. Not too mention, these kids will probably have private tutors as well. These kids will be far from low IQ. So, Please stop talking out of your ass, and get a clue

 

good post. The 2 main points HA's wrong on are that 1. he thinks intelligence isnt influnced much by environment (this statement shows that he lacks even the most basic understanding of genes, genetics, and how genes are expressed as measureable or immeasureabel characteristics. He lacks any knowledge of the whole genotype to phenotype relationship. And 2. That IQ is somehow a good statistical measurement of "intelligence".

[Ramius]

You are correct in saying that studies show that environment plays a large role in determining intelligence differences for children. That's why I was very careful in saying that, by adulthood, there was no correlation between the intelligence levels of unrelated people who had been raised together. If you take children from unintelligent parents, and put them in really good homes, then as children they'll score better on standardized tests. But that environment bonus gradually wanes as they get older, even though they remain in that same positive environment. By adulthood, the I.Q. of the adoptive mother ceases to have any correlation with the children's I.Q.s, while the correlation with the biological mother's I.Q. is stronger than ever.

 

Yah, people get stupider as they get older. my God, where do you come up with this stuff? The latest trekkie convention? And i never mentioned any correlation between adoptive mother and adopted children IQ. In a good environment, a child will show a lot more intelligence, regardless of IQ, than a child reared in a poor environment.

 

Like Stalin and other members of the communist movement, you have politicized science in ways which understate the effect genetics have on human potential. I realize it's human nature to want to be inclusive, and to imagine anyone at all can be a top scientist or engineer if they just try hard enough. That's not the way the world really is. The laws of nature work a certain way, and wishful thinking on your part or within the leadership of the communist movement can't change those laws. Humanity never got anywhere by blinding itself to natural forces. Achievement comes when you combine a fanatical determination to see things as they are with an equally fanatical determination to make the world a better place.

 

Ok, hitler. Which race are you planning to exterminate first? And are you doing the killings, or are you sending kurt godel to do it for you?

 

 

And yes, ANYONE can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work and effort. Its called learning, something in which you are severely retarded. Its your inability to learn or comprehend anything that makes you come on the internet and spew your drivel about a master race, Nazi.

[Orton's Arm]

ok, if you had a great, ideal environment growing up as a kid, chances are that you have extended your education by getting oppurtunities that an underpriviliged kid would not get. So, this means that the kids w/ High IQ's typically stay at a high range barring change in situation, Likewise the unpriviliged kids do not get the oppurtunites to flex their mind, develop higher order thinking skills, thus their IQ's are typically lower as they are adults. SInce these lower IQ learners do not get the chance to earn enough to further advance themselves, thus the role of enviromental situation plays a huge part from birth to death in intelligence, and many other traits. Thus kids that are raised together probably lived under simliar expectations and would have the same environment to fail or succeed under. For example, Madonna and Angelina Jolie both adopted kids from parents that probably do not have a high IQ. So, what you are saying is that these kids are going to be smart kids but dumb adults. These kids will have the best conditions to thrive under and will probably be smarter than their adoptive parents, since the kids they have more ideal environment because the parents are able to provide more than they had. Not too mention, these kids will probably have private tutors as well. These kids will be far from low IQ. So, Please stop talking out of your ass, and get a clue

I can see why you think the way you do, but studies show you're wrong. Good environment + low I.Q. genetics = low I.Q. adult. Next time, instead of speculating on how you think I.Q. and heredity might work, you should read actual studies about how these things do work.

 

I suggest you begin by reading this:

 

# Plomin, R. 2004. Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 112-129

# ^ M. McGue, T. J. Bouchard Jr., W. G. Iacono, & D. T. Lykken (1993) Behavioral Genetics of Cognitive Ability: A Life-Span Perspective, in Nature, Nurture, and Psychology, by R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

# ^ R. Plomin, D. W. Fulker, R. Corley, & J. C. DeFries (1997) Nature, Nurture and Cognitive Development from 1 to 16 years: A Parent-Offspring Adoption Study Psychological Science 8 442–447

 

Or if you're feeling lazy, you could read the short version

It is reasonable to expect that genetic influences on traits like IQ should become less important as one gains experiences with age. Surprisingly, the opposite occurs. Heritability measures in infancy are as low as 20%, around 40% in middle childhood, and as high as 80% in adulthood.[9]

 

Shared family effects also seem to disappear by adulthood. Adoption studies show that, after adolescence, adopted siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adopted siblings (~0.0).[10]

[Orton's Arm]

Ok, hitler. Which race are you planning to exterminate first? And are you doing the killings, or are you sending kurt godel to do it for you?

And yes, ANYONE can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work and effort. Its called learning, something in which you are severely retarded. Its your inability to learn or comprehend anything that makes you come on the internet and spew your drivel about a master race, Nazi.

In the past, I've accused you of politicizing what should be a scientific debate. But this most recent post of yours takes the cake. Hey, it doesn't just take the cake, it swallows the cake whole.

 

The statement that "anyone can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work" would certainly keep you alive in Stalin's Soviet Union, but it would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible meeting. What's next? Are you going to tell us that "with a little hard work" Stephen Hawking could become a top NFL defensive tackle? In your world genetics don't matter much, and it's all just a question of hard work, right? So Hawking should get off his lazy behind, and start the process of getting that NFL paycheck!

 

Suppose that, say, Leon Lett had dedicated his whole life to intellectual betterment. Do you think he could have achieved what Stephen Hawking achieved? Are you honestly trying to say the only difference between those two's intellectual attainments was how hard they worked? What planet are you living on?

 

The genetics textbook quote you yourself provided displays the utter ridiculousness of the Marxist claptrap you're trying to sell us. According to that book, over half of observed differences in intelligence are due to genetics.

[Bungee Jumper]

I can see why you think the way you do, but studies show you're wrong. Good environment + low I.Q. genetics = low I.Q. adult. Next time, instead of speculating on how you think I.Q. and heredity might work, you should read actual studies about how these things do work.

 

I suggest you begin by reading this:

 

# Plomin, R. 2004. Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 112-129

# ^ M. McGue, T. J. Bouchard Jr., W. G. Iacono, & D. T. Lykken (1993) Behavioral Genetics of Cognitive Ability: A Life-Span Perspective, in Nature, Nurture, and Psychology, by R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

# ^ R. Plomin, D. W. Fulker, R. Corley, & J. C. DeFries (1997) Nature, Nurture and Cognitive Development from 1 to 16 years: A Parent-Offspring Adoption Study Psychological Science 8 442–447

 

Or if you're feeling lazy, you could read the short version

 

And let's quote Plomin, shall we?

 

...heritability of intelligence increases throughout the life span...

 

Which pretty much proves that heritability and inheritability are two different things, you moron. You really ought to read the sources you link to.

[justnzane]

I can see why you think the way you do, but studies show you're wrong. Good environment + low I.Q. genetics = low I.Q. adult. Next time, instead of speculating on how you think I.Q. and heredity might work, you should read actual studies about how these things do work.

 

I suggest you begin by reading this:

 

# Plomin, R. 2004. Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 112-129

# ^ M. McGue, T. J. Bouchard Jr., W. G. Iacono, & D. T. Lykken (1993) Behavioral Genetics of Cognitive Ability: A Life-Span Perspective, in Nature, Nurture, and Psychology, by R. Plomin & G. E. McClearn (Eds.) Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

# ^ R. Plomin, D. W. Fulker, R. Corley, & J. C. DeFries (1997) Nature, Nurture and Cognitive Development from 1 to 16 years: A Parent-Offspring Adoption Study Psychological Science 8 442–447

 

Or if you're feeling lazy, you could read the short version

 

I am still calling bull on that. If that study was 100% error, we would end as a society of equal intelligence, based on an IQ test. This can be disproved by the improvement of intelligent thinking over the past 50000 years where humans have evolved and become more intelligent and crafty. Not to rip off of Geico, If you had a caveman take an IQ test, he would not score too high. That means from generation to generation we are getting smarter, and not dumber as these studies suggest

[EC-Bills]

You really ought to read the sources you link to.

 

Yeah, but that pretty much takes the fun out of arguing over stuff you have no clue about.

[Ramius]

In the past, I've accused you of politicizing what should be a scientific debate. But this most recent post of yours takes the cake. Hey, it doesn't just take the cake, it swallows the cake whole.

 

The statement that "anyone can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work" would certainly keep you alive in Stalin's Soviet Union, but it would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible meeting. What's next? Are you going to tell us that "with a little hard work" Stephen Hawking could become a top NFL defensive tackle? In your world genetics don't matter much, and it's all just a question of hard work, right? So Hawking should get off his lazy behind, and start the process of getting that NFL paycheck!

 

Suppose that, say, Leon Lett had dedicated his whole life to intellectual betterment. Do you think he could have achieved what Stephen Hawking achieved? Are you honestly trying to say the only difference between those two's intellectual attainments was how hard they worked? What planet are you living on?

 

The genetics textbook quote you yourself provided displays the utter ridiculousness of the Marxist claptrap you're trying to sell us. According to that book, over half of observed differences in intelligence are due to genetics.

 

No, you;re wrong. but thats beside the point. you;ve been wrong for 4 months now, so i dont see you stopping anytime soon.

 

What would get oyu laughed out of any meeting is quoting wikipedia as a credible source. Quoting Wikipedia as a reliable source is roughly equivalent to quoting TSW for Bills news.

[Ramius]

In the past, I've accused you of politicizing what should be a scientific debate. But this most recent post of yours takes the cake. Hey, it doesn't just take the cake, it swallows the cake whole.

 

The statement that "anyone can be a top scientist or engineer with a little bit of hard work" would certainly keep you alive in Stalin's Soviet Union, but it would get you laughed out of any intellectually credible meeting. What's next? Are you going to tell us that "with a little hard work" Stephen Hawking could become a top NFL defensive tackle? In your world genetics don't matter much, and it's all just a question of hard work, right? So Hawking should get off his lazy behind, and start the process of getting that NFL paycheck!

 

Suppose that, say, Leon Lett had dedicated his whole life to intellectual betterment. Do you think he could have achieved what Stephen Hawking achieved? Are you honestly trying to say the only difference between those two's intellectual attainments was how hard they worked? What planet are you living on?

 

The genetics textbook quote you yourself provided displays the utter ridiculousness of the Marxist claptrap you're trying to sell us. According to that book, over half of observed differences in intelligence are due to genetics.

 

Thanks for proving my point. You cant train someones eyes to go from green to blue. Because it is a physical trait. Intelligence, which isnt physical, CAN be trained.

 

You cant train someone who runs a 4.4 40 to run a 4.2 40. But you can train someone who scores low on an IQ test (or wonderlic for that matter) to score higher the second time around. Hence environments huge role in intelligence. You CAN train someone to be smarter. You cant train someone to be more athletic.

 

Thank you for proving both of my main points and disproving yours in a single post.

[Ramius]

Yeah, but that pretty much takes the fun out of arguing over stuff you have no clue about.

 

Yup, if he actually read or understood what he was trying to argue, he;d see how wrong he is. but he lacks in the comprehension department.