On Darwinism

[justnzane]

You cant train someone who runs a 4.4 40 to run a 4.2 40.

that really depends Ramius. It depends on how much potential that athlete has left, and how long of a time frame for training. For example, if you had a kid off the streets that was very gifted naturally and comes in running a 4.4, chances are that you could train this kid to improve his running form and prepare the muscles for the stress that runnin a 40 would put on the frame. This is an extreme example, but in generalities your point does stand.

 

I agree with the rest of your post tho.

[molson_golden2002]

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

I read this and had a real problem with its basic premise. We are SMARTER than people who lived 5,000 years ago? Why, because we are taught to read and write? I think that is just a percepetion on your part, and a false one. If we dropped you off somewhere 5,000 years ago and you tried to fit in I bet you would starve to death because you couldn't feed yourself. I bet the people would think you are a complete idiot just like you think they are. We are talking about the people who invented reading and writing, math, calenders, devised irregation systems, built fortifications--the city of Jerico had walls around it 10,000 years ago--, began working with iron and bronze and improved agriculture. Maybe you meant much farther back in time, I don't know, but to say the people 5,000 years ago were stupid just because they were not as advanced as us just doesn't float

[Orton's Arm]

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

The fact humans may have grown more intelligent over the past 5000 years doesn't mean we're still getting smarter today.

[Orton's Arm]

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.

That's a bunch of Marxist baloney. Environments don't play the "huge" role in intelligence you describe. If they did, you'd expect to see a "huge" correlation between the adult I.Q.s of unrelated siblings raised together. The correlation for adult I.Q.s of unrelated people raised together is zero! I suggest you start digesting the implications of that fact.

[Orton's Arm]

And let's quote Plomin, shall we?

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

According to the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, heritability means,

The proportion of phenotypic variance attributable to variance in genotypes.

If you think the definition of heritability disproves anything I've been saying, you simply don't understand the subject matter being debated. Which, based on what I've seen from you over the past few months, would hardly be anything new for you.

[Taro T]

I read this and had a real problem with its basic premise. We are SMARTER than people who lived 5,000 years ago? Why, because we are taught to read and write? I think that is just a percepetion on your part, and a false one. If we dropped you off somewhere 5,000 years ago and you tried to fit in I bet you would starve to death because you couldn't feed yourself. I bet the people would think you are a complete idiot just like you think they are. We are talking about the people who invented reading and writing, math, calenders, devised irregation systems, built fortifications--the city of Jerico had walls around it 10,000 years ago--, began working with iron and bronze and improved agriculture. Maybe you meant much farther back in time, I don't know, but to say the people 5,000 years ago were stupid just because they were not as advanced as us just doesn't float

Why does it not surprise me that you can't tell the difference between 50000 and 5,000?

[Bungee Jumper]

According to the American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, heritability means,

 

If you think the definition of heritability disproves anything I've been saying, you simply don't understand the subject matter being debated. Which, based on what I've seen from you over the past few months, would hardly be anything new for you.

 

 

It certainly proves you have no idea what any of that definition means. Again: heritability and inheritability are two different things. You keep treating them as the same thing. You can link to as many different definitions as you want, and it still won't change the very simple fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

[justnzane]

Why does it not surprise me that you can't tell the difference between 50000 and 5,000?

this is why I love Holcomb's Arm's response cuz there usually exists a little bit of misquoted info from the previous poster. Thus the regression towards the mean is somewhere around 3.5 or pi.

[molson_golden2002]

this is why I love Holcomb's Arm's response cuz there usually exists a little bit of misquoted info from the previous poster. Thus the regression towards the mean is somewhere around 3.5 or pi.

You are right, my bad

[Ramius]

That's a bunch of Marxist baloney. Environments don't play the "huge" role in intelligence you describe. If they did, you'd expect to see a "huge" correlation between the adult I.Q.s of unrelated siblings raised together. The correlation for adult I.Q.s of unrelated people raised together is zero! I suggest you start digesting the implications of that fact.

 

Nice to see you have gotten spakned and all you can do is whine and cry.

 

Shutup B word.

[Bungee Jumper]

That's a bunch of Marxist baloney. Environments don't play the "huge" role in intelligence you describe. If they did, you'd expect to see a "huge" correlation between the adult I.Q.s of unrelated siblings raised together. The correlation for adult I.Q.s of unrelated people raised together is zero! I suggest you start digesting the implications of that fact.

 

If the correllation of adult IQs of unrelated people raised together is zero, and the post-adolescent heritability of IQ scores is around 80%...where's the other 20% go, poindexter? You're making a statement now that IQ is simultaneously 80% and 100% genetic.

 

THIS is the difference between reading something and UNDERSTANDING it.

[Orton's Arm]

It certainly proves you have no idea what any of that definition means. Again: heritability and inheritability are two different things. You keep treating them as the same thing. You can link to as many different definitions as you want, and it still won't change the very simple fact that you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Orton's Arm]

If the correllation of adult IQs of unrelated people raised together is zero, and the post-adolescent heritability of IQ scores is around 80%...where's the other 20% go, poindexter? You're making a statement now that IQ is simultaneously 80% and 100% genetic.

 

THIS is the difference between reading something and UNDERSTANDING it.

One study found an 86% correlation between adult-level I.Q. scores of identical twins raised apart. On the other hand, if John Doe takes an I.Q. test twice, he's expected to have an 87% correlation between his two test scores. You could very easily make the statement that roughly 86% of variation in people's I.Q. test scores is explained by genetics, while the remaining percentage is simply random variation caused by the nature of the test taking process.

[DC Tom]

This is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

You keep saying that, and it keeps not changing the fact that many people here understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

[Ramius]

You keep saying that, and it keeps not changing the fact that many people here understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

He doesnt? You mean to tell me that mainstream science (biology to be specific) DOESNT think that phenotpye is caused only by genotype? oh my gosh!

 

Yawn. HA's lack of knowledge is getting boring. Watching HA try to stop himself from drowning IS quite comical tho. Correlation now equals heritibility?

[DC Tom]

One study found an 86% correlation between adult-level I.Q. scores of identical twins raised apart. On the other hand, if John Doe takes an I.Q. test twice, he's expected to have an 87% correlation between his two test scores. You could very easily make the statement that roughly 86% of variation in people's I.Q. test scores is explained by genetics, while the remaining percentage is simply random variation caused by the nature of the test taking process.

 

You could very easily make that statement...but you'd be wrong. Because - again - you don't understand the math. If the heritability is .8, but the correlation is .86, what does that actually mean????

[DC Tom]

He doesnt? You mean to tell me that mainstream science (biology to be specific) DOESNT think that phenotpye is caused only by genotype? oh my gosh!

 

Yawn. HA's lack of knowledge is getting boring. Watching HA try to stop himself from drowning IS quite comical tho. Correlation now equals heritibility?

 

Correlation can very easily be heritability when you don't have a clue what "variance" is. Two months of this bull sh--, he still can't be bothered to look it up.

 

I was more amused by "It's caused by error". Apparently, everything is error.

[Orton's Arm]

You keep saying that, and it keeps not changing the fact that many people here understand that you don't know what you're talking about.

Wrong. You keep repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about, and this has misled your puppy jzmack to believe there must be some truth to the accusation. But as usual, you haven't backed up your accusations with anything credible. Those with actual critical thinking skills and the willingness to use them aren't buying what you're selling.

[Ramius]

Wrong. You keep repeating that I don't know what I'm talking about, and this has misled your puppy jzmack to believe there must be some truth to the accusation. But as usual, you haven't backed up your accusations with anything credible. Those with actual critical thinking skills and the willingness to use them aren't buying what you're selling.

 

phenotype = genotype + ENVIRONMENT

[Orton's Arm]

You could very easily make that statement...but you'd be wrong. Because - again - you don't understand the math. If the heritability is .8, but the correlation is .86, what does that actually mean????

As you ought to know, a number of studies have been done relating to the heritability of I.Q. Obviously the researchers who concluded I.Q. is 80% heritable either a) didn't rely on the identical twin study I mentioned, or b) didn't rely on it exclusively.