On Darwinism

[EC-Bills]

I would like to confess to Ramius and Tom. It's me, who has been manipulating the content of wikipedia on a regular basis that HA likes to quote as gospel. I simply cannot keep this secret anymore. I feel like such an instigator

[Ramius]

I would like to confess to Ramius and Tom. It's me, who has been manipulating the content of wikipedia on a regular basis that HA likes to quote as gospel. I simply cannot keep this secret anymore. I feel like such an instigator

 

So YOU"RE responsible for his John Kerry like flip-flopping and his irrational ability to understand anything he reads. finally we have the culprit!

[Bungee Jumper]

you cant define variance.

 

you cant define heritability.

 

you dont understand the fundamental concept of genetics, that phenotype = genotype + environment

 

And the most laughable is that you are too stupid to realize how wrong you are.

 

 

He can't define correlation, either, don't forget. Nor regression. Nor "mean". Nor expectation value.

 

Really, he can't define much of anything.

 

But at least he knows his quarterbacks. Oh, wait...

[Bungee Jumper]

The abstraction of g stems from the observation that scores on all forms of cognitive tests correlate positively with one another. g can be derived as the principal factor from cognitive test scores using the method of principal components analysis or factor analysis. . . .

 

Tests of cognitive ability derive most of their validity from the extent to which they measure g. If quantifiable measures of the performance of a task correlate highly with g, it is said to be g-loaded. Creators of IQ tests, whose goals are generally to create highly reliable and valid tests, have thus made their tests as g-loaded as possible.

 

So g is measured by performance on cognitive tests, and cognitive tests are designed to correlate highly with g.

 

 

 

 

How in the name of all that's holy do you think that even begins to prove anything?

[justnzane]

He can't define correlation, either, don't forget. Nor regression. Nor "mean". Nor expectation value.

 

Really, he can't define much of anything.

 

But at least he knows his quarterbacks. Oh, wait...

just wait until he changes his name to Jeff George's_Arm. Then we can say he has good taste in picking QB's

[Orton's Arm]

I guess i need to tell my entire lab and the authors of the 200 ro so papers sitting on my desk that all of their and our work is a bunch of bull. We are all studying the effects of microenvironment on various cells. And our research results show that the exact same cells, with the exact same genes, grow vastly different under differing environments.

 

But, since environment doesnt effect phenotype and genotype is the only determining factor, i guess that our research is wrong, and that the significant differences shown are just error.

Based on the intellectual shallowness of your posting career here on these boards, it wouldn't exactly shock me if the research you're trying to assist with turned out to be disappointing. If you're attempting to show your research is somehow applicable to this debate, you've failed. To correct that failure, you'd have to tell us the following:

1. How different are the microenvironments from one another?

2. How do those differences compare to the microenvironmental differences typically found in different people's brain cases?

3. To what extent are microenvironmental factors inside the human skull the result of nutrition, etc., and to what extent are they the result of genetics?

 

Even if you succeed in answering these three questions in a way which suggests nurture plays a bigger role than nature; you will still be left with the task of telling us why identical twins raised apart show a 0.86 correlation in their adult-level I.Q.s; while unrelated people raised together show zero correlation in their adult-level I.Q.s.

 

I'm not saying environment plays zero role in determining intelligence. But shared environmental factors such as common meals, common schools, and common foster parents aren't powerful enough to explain a statistically significant portion of the intelligence vatriation observed in Western countries. To some extent this may be because of a relatively successful adoption screening process. If almost all adoptive parents provide at least a decent environment for their foster kids, the role of environment will appear smaller. On the other hand, adopted children generally come from low-I.Q. parents. The very best adoptive parents, who provide the best environments, won't be able to do much for their foster children, because of the strict ceiling those low-I.Q. genes impose. It's possible children with high I.Q. genes could receive a statistically significant benefit from an enriched environment. This effect wouldn't necessarily show up in the adoption studies.

[Orton's Arm]

He can't define correlation, either, don't forget. Nor regression. Nor "mean". Nor expectation value.

 

Really, he can't define much of anything.

 

But at least he knows his quarterbacks. Oh, wait...

Tom, I don't want to insult your intelligence, but accusations like these just make you look like an idiot.

[Orton's Arm]

So g is measured by performance on cognitive tests, and cognitive tests are designed to correlate highly with g.

How in the name of all that's holy do you think that even begins to prove anything?

I suggest you read the rest of the article. You know, where they discussed how g correlates positively with the size of certain sections of the brain, and with the brain's glucose metabolization rate. g also correlates positively with numerous beneficial life outcomes; and correlates negatively with negative life outcomes.

[Ramius]

I suggest you read the rest of the article. You know, where they discussed how g correlates positively with the size of certain sections of the brain, and with the brain's glucose metabolization rate. g also correlates positively with numerous beneficial life outcomes; and correlates negatively with negative life outcomes.

 

ahhh, this is priceless. First off, g is not IQ. they are entirely different entities. g correlates strongly with the brain's glucose metabolism, but intelligence is NOT affected by environment. Your g is decreasing on a daily basis. In math terms, in this thread, we are watching the limit as Holcombs arm's g -->0.

 

Without going through the entire metabolic pathways of a cell and trying to keep things simplified, here goes. Glucose metabolism by any cell is DIRECTLY affected by the environment the cell/tissue/organ/organism exists in. change the microenvironment of the cell, and you will directly affect its glucose metabolism, by increasing it, decreasing it, or by shutting it off. Place a person in a home who does not get proper nutrition, is going to affect their glucose levels, thereby affecting glucose metabolism. hence environment having an effect on glucose metabolism. and since g is affected by glucose metabolism, it reasons that g is affected by environment. Thereby, intelligence is affected by environment.

 

And 1 twin study that gives a .86 correlation does not override the general consensus by science (real science, like biology, chemistry, neuroscience, NOT psychology) that heritability of IQ is roughly 0.6.

[DC Tom]

ahhh, this is priceless. First off, g is not IQ. they are entirely different entities. g correlates strongly with the brain's glucose metabolism, but intelligence is NOT affected by environment. Your g is decreasing on a daily basis. In math terms, in this thread, we are watching the limit as Holcombs arm's g -->0.

 

Without going through the entire metabolic pathways of a cell and trying to keep things simplified, here goes. Glucose metabolism by any cell is DIRECTLY affected by the environment the cell/tissue/organ/organism exists in. change the microenvironment of the cell, and you will directly affect its glucose metabolism, by increasing it, decreasing it, or by shutting it off. Place a person in a home who does not get proper nutrition, is going to affect their glucose levels, thereby affecting glucose metabolism. hence environment having an effect on glucose metabolism. and since g is affected by glucose metabolism, it reasons that g is affected by environment. Thereby, intelligence is affected by environment.

 

And 1 twin study that gives a .86 correlation does not override the general consensus by science (real science, like biology, chemistry, neuroscience, NOT psychology) that heritability of IQ is roughly 0.6.

 

But if the heritability of g goes from .2 to .8 as one grows to adulthood, does that mean that glucose availability becomes less of a factor in glucose metabolism as one ages? Right?

[Orton's Arm]

ahhh, this is priceless. First off, g is not IQ. they are entirely different entities. g correlates strongly with the brain's glucose metabolism, but intelligence is NOT affected by environment. Your g is decreasing on a daily basis. In math terms, in this thread, we are watching the limit as Holcombs arm's g -->0.

 

Without going through the entire metabolic pathways of a cell and trying to keep things simplified, here goes. Glucose metabolism by any cell is DIRECTLY affected by the environment the cell/tissue/organ/organism exists in. change the microenvironment of the cell, and you will directly affect its glucose metabolism, by increasing it, decreasing it, or by shutting it off. Place a person in a home who does not get proper nutrition, is going to affect their glucose levels, thereby affecting glucose metabolism. hence environment having an effect on glucose metabolism. and since g is affected by glucose metabolism, it reasons that g is affected by environment. Thereby, intelligence is affected by environment.

 

And 1 twin study that gives a .86 correlation does not override the general consensus by science (real science, like biology, chemistry, neuroscience, NOT psychology) that heritability of IQ is roughly 0.6.

There is no "general consensus" that the heritability of I.Q. is 0.6. The reading I've done indicates that 0.8 is widely viewed as a perfectly valid heritability estimate. But there's no consensus at 0.6, or 0.8, or any other specific number. There just isn't.

 

You don't need to eat tofu to get glucose into your bloodstream--a cheeseburger or pizza will do just fine. If you have regular access to food--even non-nutritious food--it's really tough to develop a serious glucose deficiency. If you want to be severely glucose deficient, the best way is to experience famine or near-famine conditions. Such conditions don't exist in the U.S. Differences in people's brains' glucose metabolism rates are due to genetics, and not because of widespread famine or other environmental conditions.

[Bungee Jumper]

There is no "general consensus" that the heritability of I.Q. is 0.6. The reading I've done indicates that 0.8 is widely viewed as a perfectly valid heritability estimate. But there's no consensus at 0.6, or 0.8, or any other specific number. There just isn't.

 

In other words, there's no agreed-on number, so you'll pick the highest no one's agreed on.

 

You don't need to eat tofu to get glucose into your bloodstream--a cheeseburger or pizza will do just fine. If you have regular access to food--even non-nutritious food--it's really tough to develop a serious glucose deficiency. If you want to be severely glucose deficient, the best way is to experience famine or near-famine conditions. Such conditions don't exist in the U.S. Differences in people's brains' glucose metabolism rates are due to genetics, and not because of widespread famine or other environmental conditions.

 

In other words, the effect of environment is such that the environment has no effect.

 

 

Jesus Christ, man. Don't you proof-read?

[Ramius]

In other words, there's no agreed-on number, so you'll pick the highest no one's agreed on.

In other words, the effect of environment is such that the environment has no effect.

Jesus Christ, man. Don't you proof-read?

 

the best part about his arguements? i just re-read the thread, and his arguements change over time, incorporating our corrections of his wrong assumptions, yet he still takes the stand that he's somehow right.

 

So he basically takes our ideas that are right, and then tells us we are still wrong.

[Chilly]

Jesus Christ, man. Don't you proof-read?

 

sh-- man, you DO proofread your posts? You think this forum is worth proofreading your posts?

 

You of all people I'd expect to see it my way. The "I don't give a damn what my posts look like because those !@#$s can understand it, and if not, !@#$ them" way.

[Bungee Jumper]

sh-- man, you DO proofread your posts? You think this forum is worth proofreading your posts?

 

You of all people I'd expect to see it my way. The "I don't give a damn what my posts look like because those !@#$s can understand it, and if not, !@#$ them" way.

 

 

Uhhh...yeah. It's a weakness, I admit...

[Orton's Arm]

the best part about his arguements? i just re-read the thread, and his arguements change over time, incorporating our corrections of his wrong assumptions, yet he still takes the stand that he's somehow right.

 

So he basically takes our ideas that are right, and then tells us we are still wrong.

You're a riot, you know that? You said that a cell's microenvironment matters, which I can buy. Then you tried and failed to argue that a more nutritious diet could lead to a higher available glucose level. Your logic would be correct if glucose was something esoteric and found only in certain types of tea. But you can increase your blood's glucose level by eating almost any calorie source. Yours wasn't a "correction," it was a mistaken assumption with no science to back it up.

[Orton's Arm]

In other words, there's no agreed-on number, so you'll pick the highest no one's agreed on.

Due to political considerations, many scientists apparently feel that if they're going to err, they'll err on the side of picking a lower heritability number. Based on the identical twin studies I mentioned earlier, and the fact that unrelated people raised together show no correlation in their adult-level I.Q.s, I feel the 0.8 estimate for heritability is more reliable than the 0.6 estimate. However, either estimate is high enough for a eugenics program to produce substantial benefit.

In other words, the effect of environment is such that the environment has no effect.

Jesus Christ, man. Don't you proof-read?

There are a number of assumptions you're making here. 1) There are systematic differences in people's cellular microenvironments. 2) Those systematic differences are directly responsible for differing glucose metabolization rates. 3) Differences in cellular microenvironments are not caused by genetics.

 

Do you have any particular proof for any of these assumptions, or are you just talking out your rear end?

[Ramius]

There are a number of assumptions you're making here. 1) There are systematic differences in people's cellular microenvironments. 2) Those systematic differences are directly responsible for differing glucose metabolization rates. 3) Differences in cellular microenvironments are not caused by genetics.

 

The fact that you are questioning statements 2 and 3 show just how little you know about genetics and molecular biology. But then again hell, what would i know. I'm only a PhD in molecular biology.

 

Changes in microenvironment can and do cause changes in cellular metabolism. And no, differences in cellular microenvironment are NOT cause by genetics.

[Orton's Arm]

The fact that you are questioning statements 2 and 3 show just how little you know about genetics and molecular biology. But then again hell, what would i know. I'm only a PhD in molecular biology.

 

Changes in microenvironment can and do cause changes in cellular metabolism. And no, differences in cellular microenvironment are NOT cause by genetics.

If statement 1 falls apart, statements 2 and 3 go with it. Sure, if you put a human brain cell in an iodine solution, it isn't going to do as well as a cell that's in a more appropriate environment. Nobody questions that. But by eating right, can you make your own cellular microenvironment different enough from everyone else's that it actually begins to increase your intelligence? I'm sure there are foods that help a little, but research shows that dietary differences aren't responsible for a statistically significant portion of the variation in Americans' intelligence levels.

[Bungee Jumper]

Due to political considerations, many scientists apparently feel that if they're going to err, they'll err on the side of picking a lower heritability number. Based on the identical twin studies I mentioned earlier, and the fact that unrelated people raised together show no correlation in their adult-level I.Q.s, I feel the 0.8 estimate for heritability is more reliable than the 0.6 estimate. However, either estimate is high enough for a eugenics program to produce substantial benefit.

 

So now you're saying that there's no consensus because liberal politicians censor the higher number, and you're right because you haven't been censored.

 

3) Differences in cellular microenvironments are not caused by genetics.

 

Wait...so now you're saying that environmental factors are caused by genetics? So environment has no effect, because ultimately it's genetic?