May we look forward to a second installment, wherein Metcalf ignores Saletan and presents (a) his own synthesis of what he estimates the reliable literature on the subject, and (b) his suggestions for incisive research projects to explore the fundamental question of intelligence genetics as a function of ancestral origin?

May we look forward to a second installment, wherein Metcalf ignores Saletan and presents (a) his own synthesis of what he estimates the reliable literature on the subject, and (b) his suggestions for incisive research projects to explore the fundamental question of intelligence genetics as a function of ancestral origin?

Why? (to the underlined above)

Answer to b:

Got 200 Million dollars I'll raise 100 black and 100 white poor orphans form babes up in the Rocky mountains in a monastic setting, providing for the best education/environment. At the age of 18 I'll test their IQ and we'll begin to understand from a psychology point of view only if black and white mean IQ's are a standard deviation or more different because of genes.

Did you even really have a point to make?

If that's the standard of proof, then we'll have to breed one species of animal into another in our Rocky Mountain redoubt to prove the theory of evolution to the creationists.

Home Is Anywhere You Hang Your Head:

If that's the standard of proof, then we'll have to breed one species of animal into another in our Rocky Mountain redoubt to prove the theory of evolution to the creationists.

You're kidding right? The whole argument is if the difference is due to environment or genetics. When you don't control for the environment how can you assert the degree of genetic influence.

Evolution is a great theory. I've see its continual use to great benefit to man. That doesn't mean there is no God or that God didn't create via evolution. But go ahead if evolution is a complete theory evolve one species into another. Why can't you? There are any other number theories I can experimentally prove or disprove why would evolution be exempt?

Funny!

But the nice thing about this hypothesis is there IS a meet-able standard of proof: identify the genes that cause human intelligence, show that humans differ from one to another in the sequences of those genes, and those differences map to ancestral backgrounds. Then show that the differences cause some phenotype related to intelligence (synapse formation, synapse speed or number of sustainable synapses per neuron, I suspect) in tissue culture outside the body.

Since we haven't identified any genes for intelligence, much less human differences between them (we are all ALMOST genetically identical after all) expect this to take awhile. Like, several decades.

But that's the ordinary standard of proof that something is genetic, in GENETICS. It's when social scientists presume their correlations are sufficient that the problems arise. Now don't get me wrong--social scientists can tell us a lot about environments that the hard sciences can't test, and I honor them for it. But in the hard sciences, correlations can only suggest hypotheses.