TRTL

Your handful might not be such a small number. Those who have written 'scientific' textbooks over the last 100 years or so must be highly
embarrassed at having to revise their theory time and time again At it wont be the last time. The account in Genesis can't be scientifically proven as it takes a step of faith to believe. The theory of evolution will never be proven and takes a far bigger step of blind faith to believe. Even Albert Einstein (a non believer) recognised that an uncreated earth is impossible.

You are right wizofoz IQ test are merely one facet of intelligence Einstein had an IQ of 139 while Marlin Munroe had an IQ of 160! I think IQ is just your ability to learn/grasp concepts. It does not measure creativity.

Its just my 2 cents I don’t support something which will only produce a negative outcome. There are no positives from it.

Proving that one group of people have higher or lower IQ is like proving one group of people are more attractive. What’s the point?

The facts are people are going to feel belittled by it and they will be belittled for no good reason.

If somebody can point out the good which would come out of for example women being scienticly proven to be smarter then men or people from Mongolia being proven to be smarter then people from Germany I will change my mind but till then I cant see any reason too support it and will only lead to people being crestfallen

runner: "the account in genesis can't be proved. It requires a leap of faith to believe"

There's your self imposed ignorance. That's essentially what faith is.
I don't necessarily mean ignorance in a negative sense, but faith is giving up on rational thought, so you can't argue against it.
You can't actually argue for it either, at least, not using an intelligent argument... but people try anyway.

I've not said anywhere that there hasn't been a creator deity. I'm rejecting that anything outside a minority crank section of the scientific establishment have rejected everything we've learnt about dating and elementary science such as dinosaurs or even civilisations that we know date back further than 6,000 years.
It's the fact that people blissfully try to believe this 6,000 year creationist story when there is so much weight against it, citing your 'faith' as the sole reason.
Unfortunately, that argument can be used just as effectively to argue in favour of anything from mars being made of chocolate, to the flying spaghetti monster. All we've got is science and when you reject that, we're effectively regressing back to the dark ages.

I urge you to visit the link I posted earlier, then place your faith in the FSM. May his noodly appendages strengthen your faith.

I concur with the posters who say the research is hardly going to advance mankind and intellectualism isn't everything, but by the same token, we don't know what kind of benefits genetic research can bring.

The main problem with these scientific claims is that they are without foundation. stevenlmeyer, the actions you speak of - the follow up research by the scientific faculty hasn't been necessary, because although this scientist is respected in one field, this is entirely outside his area of expertise.

It's a crank claim and deserves to be ridiculed as such. It's not worthy of a follow up.

Of course, there's stacks of research occurring right now into the genetic sources and distribution of 'intelligence'. However, Steven and other contributors seem unaware that such research is conducted under the auspices of university ethics committees, whose role is to consider not only the design and conduct of the research project, but also its ethical implications.

Steven's scenario in his most recent post would make for interesting science fiction, but it bears only slightly more semblance to reality than runner's creation myths.

Would I be correct in deducing that Steven's background is not in science, and that his speculative claims (and his claims about speculation by scientists) reflect this?

FOXY,

Thank you for your kind words. Your post was so short I missed it the first time around.

WIZOFAUS

I agree entirely with your post.

CJ MORGAN and TRTL

The idea that creative scientists confine themselves to a sort of "silo of expertise" is CLAPTRAP.

The mark of many creative scientists is that they are "polymaths." Erwin Schrodinger, for example, was a remarkable physicist who wrote a book on the nature of life that is still quoted 60 years on. Richard Feynman not only made important discoveries in disparate areas of physics but contributed to information theory and his 1959 talk to the American Physical Society laid out the vision for nanotechnology.

If you really were an academic scientist CJ MORGAN you would know all this.

Furthermore, in Watson's cases, neither of you know just what is his "area of expertise." Given his "Passion for DNA", the title of one of his books, I imagine he has devoted much to studying the topics on which he spoke.

The sense I'm getting CJ MORGAN and TRTL is that you both think Summers' and Watson's speculation are entirely without foundation. In fact, in both cases, there is some evidence supporting both their speculations.

In Watson's case, given what we have learned in the past decade about the distribution of alleles in different population groups and the speed at which favourable alleles can spread within isolated populations, the terms of the debate have actually changed. Those who assert the "null hypothesis" of no differences in cognitive ability between population groups now have to explain what MAGIC kept the evolution of the brains of population groups isolated from each other for 3,000 generations in synch.

What was it folks? Intelligent design maybe?

As an article in New Scientist referring to the speed at which evolution operates put it, "Blink and you'll miss it." (New Scientist, 9 July 2005)

CJ MORGAN

I trained as a physicist and worked as one for many years though not in an academic environment. I no longer work as a scientist but I have a passion for science. Not only have I kept up with developments, I'm still in touch with working scientists including population geneticists.

Now that I am approaching retirement I am planning a post-retirement career as a freelance science writer.

I am well aware of the workings of university ethics committees. I understand how carefully scientists have to word the goals of their research when applying for research funds.

You claim to have been an academic scientist. I wonder if you belong to that ilk of scientist who lets his ideology get I the way of his understanding of nature. You know the sort I mean? Like those who conducted a campaign of vilification against E. O. Wilson after the publication of his 1975 book on Sociobiology?

Have you in fact kept up with recent research in population genetics? If you have a subscription to Science here's something to help you update your understanding:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/309/5741/1720

Quote:

The gene ASPM (abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated) is a specific regulator of brain size, and its evolution in the lineage leading to Homo sapiens was driven by strong positive selection. Here, we show that one genetic variant of ASPM in humans arose merely about 5800 years ago and has since swept to high frequency under strong positive selection. These findings, especially the remarkably young age of the positively selected variant, suggest that the human brain is still undergoing rapid adaptive evolution.

Newsflash CJ MORGAN

Nature does not care about our preferences or ideological predilections. Nature is what nature is and we have to learn to live with whatever we discover.