In short the author of the statement is full of shit - I suspect he was either making a exaggeration to make a point and this was published, or the he is just plain misinformed (which given who he is, is unlikely). As the article states evolution doesn't stop if you have children earlier you just have less mutations so it slows down.
You are of course correct - intelligence is multifaceted and not yet fully understood - but it doesn't invalidate the point. Its interesting you mention the example of Daniel - I would be truly interested in the outcome of such a cloning experiment. Unfortunately we cannot do such things now, but the other things we can rely on are natural clones (ie genetic twins) who grow up separated from their twin. The amazing thing is the number of bizarre similarities in their lives, including such inconsequential things as the way they fidget, the occupation they choose, their success/failure in marriage. This suggests that genes to play a role in all these aspects of our lives.
You are right, I stand corrected - 1/4 is only the case when they are both 'carriers' but not expressed. In any case intelligence is likely governed by multiple sets of genes, as you mentioned, so the calculation will be more complex.
That's a pretty weak argument, given that Hitler and his ilk will always be fuelled by nationalism, racism and xenophobia supported by the majority rather than actually genetically "lucky" 1% of people who would more likely be targets then oppressors.
I would agree with you that labelling people is wrong, both ethically and from a practical perspective (as it neglects the environmental impact)
If you mean with genetic engineering then I agree - otherwise I think there is a limit to how much you can fix from the outside, if things are badly broken on the inside. Diabetes and such are liveable, but what if you are missing (broken) an enzyme for making ATP? Or one of the main positioning marker proteins is broken meaning your body parts are all in the wrong places! So at the very least there will be natural selection pressure there.
Why is Hitler a source for your argument? Do you ask someone in the street for their opinion of the stock market? Who cares what he thought about Jews.
Having good genes does give you an advantage in life - just like having a predisposition to creativity, good motor skills, not being born a psycho or any number of traits with genetic components. Having good parents (also an unearned privilege) is a massive advantage in life. Likewise being born a haemophiliac or with down syndrome is a disadvantage. However that is life, and you have to make the best of what you have.
As for your notion that this is how things should be all I can say too bad. Life is how it is, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything. http://xkcd.com/240/
I see what you are trying to say - but your point doesn't apply as you think it does. As creatures get longer dna / live longer (note: these two are not related but both increase mutations), their dna correction mechanisms improve, a necessity to avoid mutational meltdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutational_meltdown). So in essence the amount of mutations that humans would pass onto the next generation at their (pre-civ) average breeding age is the same as for cats or squirrels at their average breeding age.
All creatures hover around the 1 (on average) for each offspring - as this nets you the best rate of evolution vs stability (although in crisis situations a higher mutation rate might be beneficial / opposite case as well)
Human mind is not a clean slate. This has not been the consensus since the 60s.
The aptly titled book "The blank slate" by Steven Pinker is a really good overview of the research that has evolved our understanding of the nature and nurture debate.
There are genetic factors that influence intelligence, as well as environmental factors. The notion that everyone is born equal is unfortunately not true. (people are much more accepting that physical differences are genetic, but not mental...)
Due to how genetics works - having two above average IQ people as parents will only have about 1/4 (on average) of having a smart kid. It needs to be done for generations before you get consistent effects.
As far as I can see, following this "story" from the start in different news reports - it has evolved from "evolution in humans is slowing down" to "evolution has stopped". I expect that in a couple of days the news will be that evolution is slowly reversing...
As an FYI even the original claim is incorrect as the number of mutations in the population is overall increasing, due to the fact that the effect of natural selection is reduced. If anything we should be worried that the increase in harmful mutations in the general population is going to result in increased birth defects / genetic diseases.
Who would use their own car in a bank robbery... or rob a bank without a mask... Or not have a car ready somewhere to switch. If you don't do any of these things already then you don't need a surveillance system to catch you.
I have no idea what committee selected a guy who ruined several telco companies as the best choice... What on earth were the criteria.
And thanx to Telstra I cant get broadband in my area (they used old infrastructure parts scavenged from other areas they upgraded - when they promised fibre to the node). My area is even called "Technology Park"...
Keep in mind that developers don't edit text files to make the game - they first develop internal tools to use with the game. So essentially about 80% of the work has already been done. All that they have to do it to tidy it up and perhaps add some more capability to the game to better handle mods. Being this close to release date the developers are likely to be in panic mode and are more worried about other things. After things calm down a bit, they will likely put in the effort to release mod tools (if the game doesn't spectacularly tank).
I cant really agree with your example - by covering it up you become an accomplice in the crime, and under most legal systems that nets you the same punishment as every other member of the conspiracy. Though I'm not sure how that relates to Nixon as he did not rig an election, and his crimes were very petty and amateur - the whole point of watergate and the ensuing scandal was Nixon's handling of it. It showed a picture of a man who did not care about due process, or about his country as he was willing to put himself first above its law. The way he blatantly fired the investigator showed that he wasn't even embarrassed about it, he did really think that this was the "right" thing to do.
There are many criminals in jail who have led good positive lives, but then did something and ended up in jail - and this taints any good deeds the might have done previously. You don't forgive a murderer because he had regularly given to charity. To me corruption, and abuse of public office is the most heinous crime (unfortunately the law doesn't reflect this - corrupt officials rarely get more than 10 years in jail, despite the fact their net damage is far worse.) and he should have been made an example of. Throughout his life Nixon never admitted any wrongdoing (even the cover up part) nor apologised for the loss of faith in government that resulted from his actions. Surely the highest public office is deservant of only the highest level of integrity!
Given American history, you are right, that he would have likely escaped jail. If you ask me he should have been arrested for treason. I disagree with you that Nixon was a good president - he was paranoid, secretive and thought himself above the law.
We don't know for certain what Nixon's role in Watergate was
Slashdot Mirror
In short the author of the statement is full of shit - I suspect he was either making a exaggeration to make a point and this was published, or the he is just plain misinformed (which given who he is, is unlikely). As the article states evolution doesn't stop if you have children earlier you just have less mutations so it slows down.
You are of course correct - intelligence is multifaceted and not yet fully understood - but it doesn't invalidate the point. Its interesting you mention the example of Daniel - I would be truly interested in the outcome of such a cloning experiment. Unfortunately we cannot do such things now, but the other things we can rely on are natural clones (ie genetic twins) who grow up separated from their twin. The amazing thing is the number of bizarre similarities in their lives, including such inconsequential things as the way they fidget, the occupation they choose, their success/failure in marriage. This suggests that genes to play a role in all these aspects of our lives.
You are right, I stand corrected - 1/4 is only the case when they are both 'carriers' but not expressed. In any case intelligence is likely governed by multiple sets of genes, as you mentioned, so the calculation will be more complex.
It would be my "journalists are full of shit" theory :(
That's a pretty weak argument, given that Hitler and his ilk will always be fuelled by nationalism, racism and xenophobia supported by the majority rather than actually genetically "lucky" 1% of people who would more likely be targets then oppressors.
I would agree with you that labelling people is wrong, both ethically and from a practical perspective (as it neglects the environmental impact)
If you mean with genetic engineering then I agree - otherwise I think there is a limit to how much you can fix from the outside, if things are badly broken on the inside. Diabetes and such are liveable, but what if you are missing (broken) an enzyme for making ATP? Or one of the main positioning marker proteins is broken meaning your body parts are all in the wrong places! So at the very least there will be natural selection pressure there.
Why is Hitler a source for your argument? Do you ask someone in the street for their opinion of the stock market? Who cares what he thought about Jews.
Having good genes does give you an advantage in life - just like having a predisposition to creativity, good motor skills, not being born a psycho or any number of traits with genetic components. Having good parents (also an unearned privilege) is a massive advantage in life. Likewise being born a haemophiliac or with down syndrome is a disadvantage. However that is life, and you have to make the best of what you have.
As for your notion that this is how things should be all I can say too bad. Life is how it is, and pretending otherwise doesn't change anything. http://xkcd.com/240/
I see what you are trying to say - but your point doesn't apply as you think it does. As creatures get longer dna / live longer (note: these two are not related but both increase mutations), their dna correction mechanisms improve, a necessity to avoid mutational meltdown (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutational_meltdown). So in essence the amount of mutations that humans would pass onto the next generation at their (pre-civ) average breeding age is the same as for cats or squirrels at their average breeding age.
All creatures hover around the 1 (on average) for each offspring - as this nets you the best rate of evolution vs stability (although in crisis situations a higher mutation rate might be beneficial / opposite case as well)
Human mind is not a clean slate. This has not been the consensus since the 60s.
The aptly titled book "The blank slate" by Steven Pinker is a really good overview of the research that has evolved our understanding of the nature and nurture debate.
There are genetic factors that influence intelligence, as well as environmental factors. The notion that everyone is born equal is unfortunately not true. (people are much more accepting that physical differences are genetic, but not mental...)
Due to how genetics works - having two above average IQ people as parents will only have about 1/4 (on average) of having a smart kid. It needs to be done for generations before you get consistent effects.
A shout out to Mendel for this tidbit.
As far as I can see, following this "story" from the start in different news reports - it has evolved from "evolution in humans is slowing down" to "evolution has stopped". I expect that in a couple of days the news will be that evolution is slowly reversing...
As an FYI even the original claim is incorrect as the number of mutations in the population is overall increasing, due to the fact that the effect of natural selection is reduced. If anything we should be worried that the increase in harmful mutations in the general population is going to result in increased birth defects / genetic diseases.
Well thanks for posting your nugget of wisdom :P
Just like the titanic needs no lifeboats...
The Vatican is years ahead on quantum theory research, but they are too modest to release it ahead of the scientists.
But I'm pro-skub!
Who would use their own car in a bank robbery... or rob a bank without a mask... Or not have a car ready somewhere to switch. If you don't do any of these things already then you don't need a surveillance system to catch you.
I have no idea what committee selected a guy who ruined several telco companies as the best choice... What on earth were the criteria.
And thanx to Telstra I cant get broadband in my area (they used old infrastructure parts scavenged from other areas they upgraded - when they promised fibre to the node). My area is even called "Technology Park"...
Despite all that Adam Smith is associated with today, he highlighted the importance of good morals in business to make society work.
Why do you still use reason to argue with irrational people. This has never worked.
Maybe to work out why they still behave as if they are in the dark ages.
4) Why are you still reading! Off to jail with you!
With made in china on the bottom...
Keep in mind that developers don't edit text files to make the game - they first develop internal tools to use with the game. So essentially about 80% of the work has already been done. All that they have to do it to tidy it up and perhaps add some more capability to the game to better handle mods. Being this close to release date the developers are likely to be in panic mode and are more worried about other things. After things calm down a bit, they will likely put in the effort to release mod tools (if the game doesn't spectacularly tank).
I cant really agree with your example - by covering it up you become an accomplice in the crime, and under most legal systems that nets you the same punishment as every other member of the conspiracy. Though I'm not sure how that relates to Nixon as he did not rig an election, and his crimes were very petty and amateur - the whole point of watergate and the ensuing scandal was Nixon's handling of it. It showed a picture of a man who did not care about due process, or about his country as he was willing to put himself first above its law. The way he blatantly fired the investigator showed that he wasn't even embarrassed about it, he did really think that this was the "right" thing to do.
There are many criminals in jail who have led good positive lives, but then did something and ended up in jail - and this taints any good deeds the might have done previously. You don't forgive a murderer because he had regularly given to charity. To me corruption, and abuse of public office is the most heinous crime (unfortunately the law doesn't reflect this - corrupt officials rarely get more than 10 years in jail, despite the fact their net damage is far worse.) and he should have been made an example of. Throughout his life Nixon never admitted any wrongdoing (even the cover up part) nor apologised for the loss of faith in government that resulted from his actions. Surely the highest public office is deservant of only the highest level of integrity!
We don't know for certain what Nixon's role in Watergate was
Once the courts forced him to hand over the tapes it was revealed that he knew what was going on ( http://www.watergate.info/tapes/72-06-23_smoking-gun.shtml ). During the investigation he fired the independent investigator for refusing to cover up the crime (after first firing the attorney general and his deputy for refusing to fire the investigator) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Night_Massacre ).
I'm sorry but I don't know how anyone could think of him as a good president!