Chatha, I know you probably think you proved your point--that genes don't matter; however, you didn't. Moreover, I am baffled as to how somebody who can speak proper English can have the thought logic that you do. I'm going to try and explain my bafflement to you now.
1 There is NO scientific evidence that babies have I.Qs, babies can't even talk, and babies don't even know that they are babies. Everything a baby knows is learned by its parents and its little surroundings, the foundations for his cognitive development, NOT genetics.
I don't think anybody said people learn things through genes. That is a complete and silly idea for anyone to have--not to mention a non-sequitur from you. I think it is likely that you may be one of those who doesn't know the difference between knowledge and intelligence. Moreover, your point is that genetics don't matter, yet they provide us with instincts to suckle in the presence of a teat. They provide us with the instincts to cry when in need. They provide us with instincts to avert pain. And you think these things don't matter?
Yes, humans do carry hereditary genes, but it’s not as relevant as you are making it to be. Genes will only show you the door; it’s up to the user to walk through the door and right of passage. Sociology also has a great influence on what we think, how we think, and why we think, which all coupled together is the basis for the identification of self. Sociology has a great influence on humans because man is a social animal, and he can’t see his genes, but he experiences his environment everyday.
Of course our conditioning has an influence on
what we learn. How could it not? Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about how genes aren't important when it comes to IQ.
The magnitude of sociology cannot be stressed enough. A few years back, sociologist drew an experiment on how confident humans were, based on their understanding of certain simple things. They put an unsuspected man in a room with 5 other people and asked him to identify a bottle of coke amongst 2 other different bottles. The 5 other people were working for the sociologists. The unsuspected man pointed at the bottle several times and said “that’s the coke bottle”, while all the other 5 people said there was no coke bottle in the room. The experiment was repeated several times. Guess what the man started saying, “there is no coke bottle”. This conclusive argument is that every individual is a temporal node of series of transferred memes by the society, and highlights the power of the relationships of early childhood development.
Here, you're saying that relationships matter to us a lot. I never said they don't. I have never even once said that environment doesn't matter--just that overall, environment doesn't have much to do with our adult intelligence. What you're talking about here is that environment matters... but you don't specify in what way. Sure, environment may determine your socialization (obviously), preferences about some things, politics, etc. As animals, we humans are flexible in the things we can do--in the thoughts we carry out, the ideologies we uphold, how we react in different situations, etc. This flexibility is what makes us wonderfully successful. But it doesn't mean that genes do not influence our intelligence. No sir.
2 Yes, first world citizens live in a more stable environment, but that doesn’t mean they can control it, there is a difference. Genetic traits also skip generations in first world countries; first world countries also have retarded children, and first world countries still NEED to work hard to control their environment to a satisfactory state. America is a first world country, and the average black man is called a minority, not from birth but from social formulations. Some black men grow up to think this way, they roam around the cities seeing white people in certain places and doing certain things, and black people vice verse, then he begins to think in according to the norm. Even the intellectual black doctors think in similar patterns, but some who aren’t lucky enough end up in unfavorable conditions. I know a girl who’s parents did not go to school, but she is a fine mathematician. How do you explain this? Do you still need scientific proof ? And what about physical intelligence?
How do I explain it? First, how the hell do I know that she didn't have intelligent parents? Did you just assume they weren't intelligent because they weren't educated? Second, how do I know what a "fine mathematician is"? Third, and I've already explained this, even if you
do have stupid parents, it doesn't mean that you're
absolutely going to be a stupid person; if you have stupid parents, it only means it's likely that you're going to grow into a stupid adult. That's all it means. Parents and their spawn do
not share the same genome. Honestly. How many times do I have to say this? Is this stuff really that complicated for you?
First world countries are lacking in physical intelligence
What is physical intelligence? I looked it up and couldn't find anything. I'm guessing it's something you coined yourself. Actually, please don't explain it. I'm not interested.
because the automatic machines do all the work for them, its not in white people's genes to be bad at sports.
White people are bad at sports?
Third world citizens have lower I.Q because their society is infrastructured in the same way, and a lot of why their society is relatively backwards can be traced to societal issues such as colonialism, economy, and even peripherals such as favoritism.
Perhaps the problems such as colonialism and economy are symptoms of a bigger problem: low IQ.
3 We are man, we are not animals
Wrong. We are man
and we are animals.
, and we are able to change our destiny right down to the phenotype. Your mum didn’t give you enough breast, you get a boob implant. You weight half a ton, you can get a liposuction. You hate to be a skin color; you can get your skin altered like the pop singer Michael Jackson. You want to be Astronaut; you can go to the engineering and aeronautics school in Florida. You want to give birth to an athlete; just find a good sperm donor agency. We are men, we control our own destiny, and we can even alter our own genes through researchers in genes and technology. There is no end to the practicability of choice and the influence of the environment.
Yes. You did a superb job at explaining that we can change ourselves. This, however doesn't mean that genes don't matter. After all, if it weren't for our genes, we wouldn't have to change ourselves to begin with! This whole time you've been trying to make your point that genes don't matter by explaining the different ways in which many of our behaviors and socialization are determined by environment, which is, by the way, obvious and axiomatic. You don't even seem to know how silly your arguments are. You don't even know what you're arguing, it appears. You're just confused as all hell, trying your damned best to avoid reality.
Again, your arguments did absolutely nothing to show that intelligence is not influenced by genes. I am completely baffled as to how you think you did. I am baffled as to how you can even write proper English.
4 Evolution. Human race and its differences were formed by isolation of culture, climate, altitude, and even proximity to water and dry desert.
Another important factor is geography.
This environment made great impact on what men understood and how men understood them. Arguably they were passed from one generation to the next, but not by genes, but by culture. Not all human ideas are conveyed by genes, in fact very little at all.
So very few ideas are conveyed through genes? That means that, according to you, some ideas
are passed through genes. Could you give me some examples?
Yes. I'm mocking you. There are
no ideas that are passed through genes. You are incredibly naive. I don't know how anybody could think the things you do. You, truly are a baffling character. But you speak correct English, for the most part. If anything you have that! I see that as an admiral quality and it fills me with (false?) hope. So I must press on!
A good example is the renaissance period, nobody started it on through genes, we just woke on one evolutionary day and decided to feel a deeper appreciation for things. And you can guess how many enormous discoveries were made throughout this period. The appreciation of women, art, life, science, e.t.c. Humanity was another study that just came from nowhere, it started with Erasmus of Amsterdam, and in it we found a little bit more of ourselves and our nature. We began to show more appreciation towards humans, where humans live, the condition of humans, e.t.c. Nobody thought us that. And today America is at war in Iraq on the state of humanity. The first few written laws of human history were by an Egyptian king, but he claims he got them from a God, not genes. Today, written laws have manifested into an actual profession by some.
Really? You're going to tell me that the first few written laws of human history weren't written by genes?! Omg, that's amazing! I never would have guessed that! I guess that means I was wrong all along and that genes hardly matter at all! Thank you! I feel so enlightened and alive now!
In conclusion, the fascination of genetics is pointless. As we go on into the future and we hope even more advances in genetic engineering, genes will be so irrelevant and customized that they will be the new…”Jeans”
Here, you've contradicted yourself. You're saying that as genetic engineering advances, genes are going to be increasingly irrelevant. Here, you're exemplifying how truly and profoundly confused you are. If anything, genetic engineering advances will only increase the relevancy of genes. I think the point you were struggling to try to make was that as genetic engineering advances, we will be decreasingly as the mercy of our genes, because we will be able to
change them. That would be a much better way to put it. However, it doesn't mean that genes are not important, which is what your whole post was about. How unfortunate.
Once again, you are terribly confused. You seem to equate genetic determinacy with inflexibility. You then made the point, extensively that we humans, are flexible animals (and we
are animals), which are capable of learning and transmitting information one generation to another--not through genes. I wouldn't, nor would anybody who knows what they're talking about, deny this. But you seem to think that just because we're flexible we are not determined by our genes
at all and that genes are completely irrelevant. You are making a
gigantic, monumentous leap here. It is in fact, wrong and unwarranted. And you can't back it up. That is why you haven't. Let me repeat my point here that you seem to be missing: genetic determinacy
does not mean or imply inflexibility.