Thread: On going Intelligence. Based on Hereditary.Limited Pool of Intelligence.

A dictionary consultation will give you the precise pathway I wish to discuss.Suffice to say I am coming around to believing that general useful intelligence is in short supply. Limited to the really clever among us. I would suggest, as an estimate, that no more than 5% of our present population would be in this category.

Where does this Gourmet Intelligence come from? Originally I mean?

The Genuine Intelligence that we are aware of when we hear of Noble Prize winners, of Surgeons sailing through their exams, of NASA R&D People, of Computer Programmers working on original concepts, all in this group rise to the top of their profession by clear perception and solutions to occurring problems.

If we are lucky as ordinary people one or two of these Intellectuals could be elected to Government, bringing about change that enhances our wellbeing.

Having, I think, established that their is, indeed, brain power out there, I would now like to ask the question, are we seeing the remnants of an original pool of intelligence that came into existance, by whatever means, several thousand years ago? westwind.

Just as some gymnists are born with olympic ability...and some sprinters are born with record breaking speed.... Some individuals are blessed with the brain capacity and proper wiring to contemplate things the average man can't. They may suffer in other areas....and may need a dumb-ass like me to help them install a faucet....but I believe as a whole we are getting smarter.

My best friend is a brilliant computer programmer...he makes a 1/4 of million dollars a year for what he does. But when it comes to mechanical things...he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a map. That's when he calls me. I have looked at his code, and it is so way beyond me...it's not even funny. But when he needs some to change his garbage disposal...he calls me.

From observation I would surmize that our intellectual talent and capacity is largely genetic and that it may be aided in reaching it's potential by means of a stimulating environment.

We learn by experience, conditioned response, and as enough variety in experience is accumulated the ability to extrapolate possibilities or 'fill in the blanks' is the next step for many.
Some persons, as MacGyver suggests, may be many steps ahead of the rest of us in an area of specialization, yet completely at a loss in another area where they have limited or no experience.

Good old 'common sense' does surely seem to be in short supply these days, I will agree and my horse would like me to share with you that 'Horse sense is what prevents horses from betting on people.'

from what I've read on the subject, these higher levels of intelligence
A) lumping all genius together is problematic, as excelling at one thing(a savant) is more common for the highest levels, and some seems to be tied to one of the senses, eg visually oriented=excellent modeling abilities,vs aurally oriented which would include excellence in language and music.
B) parents with like levels of capability tend to have children of slightly higher levels, whereas if different, the child will more closely resemble the lower of the two.
...........
as/re "remnants of an original pool"
well yes and no
and that "pool" is being recreated with each new generation
often with unexpected results
example--normal parents with 2 brilliant children, one excells at music, one at physics, and another who seems "normal" by all tested measurements.

but then again, all is a guess, and many who could excell will never be noticed outside of a very small group

I'll bet on your horse over people anyday. Some people may be able to explain a Higgs Boson...but a horse knows loyality, companionship and love.

parents with like levels of capability tend to have children of slightly higher levels, whereas if different, the child will more closely resemble the lower of the two.

I'd need a citation to back that.

Aaaaaand. Intelligence is not an innate, immutable genetic endowment like the length of your fingers or the shape of your eyebrows.
(And how many children exhibit an exact copy of one parent's attributes or a predictable modification of the two. Not many.)

The capacity to learn and to remember, to think and to reason are just like all our other physical processes. All of us are born with the ability to run long distances barefoot - and who does that? Traditional persistence hunters and a few groups where it's become a feature rather than a bug of school attendance and competitive play. We are not born in an environment where we need to scan the horizon, or to notice minute changes in the vegetation at our feet, to eat that day or to identify predators. So our vision is literally underdeveloped compared to some people living traditional lifestyles. And the same goes for the thinking. Traditional folks may not need formal logic but they need phenomenal memories to recall all the little bits of information that can mean the difference between life and death each day or each season.

And there are other issues with statements like this. Very few couples have enough children for us to come up with sufficient sized samples to overcome other effects if you wanted to test this idea. Highly intelligent, educated couples tend to have fewer children than others in their society. So you instantly get a higher proportion of your child sample showing "only child" or "first child" effects (regardless of what they may really be) and smaller family sizes allow for more parental and other carer input into the crucial early years. Which gets us to ......

The 30 million word gap results from Hart & Risley's research tell us how most of the observed learning problems arise for children of impoverished backgrounds.

This number came from the data that showed welfare children heard, on average, 616 words per hour, while children from professional families (essentially children with college educated parents) heard 2153 words per hour. The longitudinal research in the following years demonstrated a high correlation between vocabulary size at age three and language test scores at ages nine and ten in areas of vocabulary, listening, syntax, and reading comprehension.

See The Hart-Risley 30 Million Word Gap Study – 1995 « Language Fix

And I can tell you (as a tutor of school children) that an inadequate vocabulary at age ten leads to very poor science comprehension at age 12 or 13.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a map. That's when he calls me.

Fascinating.

Originally Posted by MacGyver1968

But when he needs some to change his garbage disposal...he calls me.

You do house calls! This is very welcome news.

Originally Posted by westwind

I would suggest, as an estimate, that no more than 5% of our present population would be in this category.

at what stage does an outlier from a normal distribution require a special explanation ?

parents with like levels of capability tend to have children of slightly higher levels, whereas if different, the child will more closely resemble the lower of the two.

I'd need a citation to back that.

Adelady:

I really wish I could give you a citation, but that came from a psych text book circa 1970-78?

and you bring up the old nature vs nurture arguement.

look at it this way
nature provides the framework and nurture fills in the details
---if nature gives you the framework for a cottage, dumping the materials for shelling in a palace on your lawn ain't gonna make the cottage no bigger.
---if nature gives you the framework for a palace, having only the materials for shelling in a cottage means your palace is gonna be awfully drafty.

and
If nature gives you the framework for a tower, dumping the materials for a boat at your feet ain't gonna build the best tower.

without the materials(nurture) for optomizing the particular abilities of the particular child, that rare genius may never blossom.
but no amount of nurture can turn someone into something that (s)he was not genetically predisposed to be.

No amount of training is gonna turn a lion into a cheeta, nor me into an amelia earhart, nor a cassius clay

----------------------
when I was a child, my mother put a websters unabridged dictionary(5 x 8 x 11") in front of me, and my vocabulary blossomed well beyond that of my school mates, which led to me being treated well by my teachers.
meanwhile, I have a dyslexic cousin who, though actually much smarter than me(especially about mechanical things), was treated as a dolt in school, and treated to a reather poor education.

perception matters
and there is a great deal of difference between various forms of abilities
.....edit, epimetheus:
for example,
I'm a lot more intelligent than most people I know, and can pick up a conversation with someone, at the same sentence we left off on, 5-10-15 years later, but I ain't all that bright-----so I tend to avoid meetings because 1000 words into the meeting, my brain goes numb--I think it is trying find the circuitry to store all that new information. and be able to respond, and everybody is saying something different, and people just won't stop talking, so I go mute, and sit there in a silent haze.
--example, I once sold a property in Chicago when I was out of state, and a friend who was an attorney offered to be my local rep. He kept trying to change the contract, and I said, "Paul, the contract is a good and fair document, which protects me and the buyer without advantaging one over the other, so please, don't change one single comma. What I'm really gonna need you for Paul, is the closing, because there will come a time during the meeting when my brain goes numb, and I'll turn to you and say"Paul" and need you to pick up the ball and run it the rest of the way."
so, The day of closing comes, and I show up early and meet the lady who is in charge of the escrow meeting, and provide all the documtation she asks for, at the end of which, she said: "I've been doing this for 20 years, and in all that time, you were the best prepared --and I said, "I have to be because I ain't very good at meetings".
so the meeting starts, and everything the buyer brings up, she says that's already been done, and reads the details for him.....after awhile, he's talking, his atorney is talking, the escrow lady is talking and i go numb, and turn to Paul and say"Paul, your turn" and Paul picks up the ball and runs it home. ... Paul had always thought that i was more intelligent than he, and said that he thought that I was joking when I cautioned about the brain numb. I was damned lucky to have him there. Without him, I'd have stood up and said "This meeting is over, lets pick it up after lunch or next week".

One of my favorite Clint Eastwood lines from one of his movies---"A man has got to know his limitations".

I really wish I could give you a citation, but that came from a psych text book circa 1970-78?

There's been a lot, a huge lot, of more recent work in this area. And it's not the old, over-simplified nature versus nurture idea any more either. It's both more complex and more simple (if you choose to see it that way) than the old view.

The purpose of education is, quite literally, to raise IQ. (As IQ is conventionally understood.) What we see from the Hart-Risley research and later work is that "education" for these purposes starts long, long before children see a classroom.

And there's some really good stuff coming out of the cognitive science field. This American Educator article by Dan Willingham is a good example - have a look at the Stress section starting at the bottom of p 35. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneduc...Willingham.pdf

In fact, searching the archive of the magazine gives a lot of useful items related to specific learning issues. (It's one of my favourite go-to sites for up to date material in education and child development. I just ignore all the articles about union activity - and there are fewer than I'd expect, but I suppose that's a signal of decentralised groups having separate issues.)

Originally Posted by adelady

And there's some really good stuff coming out of the cognitive science field.

I would switch on the spot the CERN's LHC budget to sponsors those kind of much more promising research. But then I am too dumb to be in control.
Of all the various Q possible (I am not talking about Bond movies) I am afraid that my EQ is to weak to fight my MQ which is asking my IQ to trample this thread with the backing of BQ if possible.

Seriously, since when genius in a lab should be dragged of the place were they thrives to give advise in domain they haven't a clue about ?
Is there any studies that correlate abilities to play chess with the enhancement of well being (which is decide how and by whom again ?)

I didn't expect aristocracy to make a come back on the political plate. It has been tried before and history tells how it ends...

boing-boing-boing
say what?

(i sincerely hope that what you typed made sense to you, 'cause that would make at least one of us.)

Originally Posted by sculptor

(i sincerely hope that what you typed made sense to you, 'cause that would make at least one of us.)

Hope is over-rated.

Quick Question: If you go back in time, take baby Albert Einstein and place him in an Ethiopian family where the toddlers will starve to death before they learn the name of the country they happened to be born in, does that improve the pool of intelligence because someone that didnt win a Nobel prize doesnt get to reproduce? (just kidding )

albert had three children, Lieserl (born 1902), Hans Albert (born 1904) and Eduard (born 1910).
Have you ever heard of any of them?

I once watched a program that followed the lives of people who were brought into life through artificial insemination. Their non biological parents bought sperm from a clinic for various reasons.

Men who were from the sperm of various 'studs' with various qualities but grew up in completely different environments to the biological doner parent, and so they developed in completely different ways.

One of the 'experiments' said that he thought charachter and personality was 10% genetic and 90% environment. That sounds about right.

QFU
that flies in the face of identical twin studies who, seperated at birth were found to have a lot in common, regardless of whether raised rich or poor, urban or rural.

from what i've read on the subject, I'd have to weight nature a bit over nurture
but, as I said, nature without nurture is just an empty framework

Originally Posted by sculptor

QFU
that flies in the face of identical twin studies who, seperated at birth were found to have a lot in common, regardless of whether raised rich or poor, urban or rural.

from what i've read on the subject, I'd have to weight nature a bit over nurture
but, as I said, nature without nurture is just an empty framework

Oh no sculptor sorry to pull you up, but nurture is capable of vast gulfs of difference. Just look at a scrawny plant in a 3" pot compared to a sunflower grown out of a healthy bed.

Ofcourse if you want a 20ft monster then you need good seed stock.

Chances are the nurture of these twins had a lot in common despite appearances.

Or
gregor mendel wasn't a total f---ing idiot, and maybe, just maybe, nature has a lot to offer.......

breed the best pea plants you can, and leave one unweeded in poor soil, and weed and feed and water the other, and it seems like a world of difference
but
take your 2 ("identical twin")peas and plant them in the same nurturing (or non nurturing) environment and they behave almost alike
and
place them in relatively simular environments next to tall or dwarf, yellow or green, axial or terminal buds, etc... and they behave much differently, and much closer to their identical twin.


My wife the teacher/now full professor, and I used to argue this point
then,
raising twin sons
and watching just how different they were in attitude, body shape, talents, weaknesses, etc.....
I finally won a lot of points for the nature side of the arguement

that being said, water the damned plant, read to the children, and engage them in theoretical discussions
challenge the little one's brains and watch them flourish--------or, don't weed the things and watch them stagnate.

I feel I should also point out the link between nurture and nature... nature as you call it is the result of nurture or lack of it given to previous generations.
Genes are the result of environment so they say.

Originally Posted by question for you

Genes are the result of environment so they say.

only in a very roundabout way, as in (1) surviving genes are the result of natural selection, which in part is a result of the environment, and (2) genes express themselves through environmental factors in embryogenesis

Can someone remind me how we got from aristocracy to eugenics ?

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Can someone remind me how we got from aristocracy to eugenics ?

The tenuos link is as follows... Aristocracy live a certain life style in a controlled environment. That controlled environment has an effect on the genetics of the aristocracy. For example aristocracy will educate themselves and have a high degree of what seems to be considered a form of intelligence.

We were discussing how much of an aristocrat or anybody else 'intelligence' or ability, is inherited, compared with nurtured since birth.

Where did this "aristocracy" come from? It's not in the OP and I don't see it until suddenly, out of left field in #12 - then no discussion or elaborations and it emerges full-grown at #23.

I don't see the relevance. Unless someone wants to talk about the desirability or otherwise of elites - which btw doesn't require or imply or infer aristocracy - I don't see where it fits into heritability and educability of higher intelligence.

Originally Posted by adelady

Where did this "aristocracy" come from? It's not in the OP and I don't see it until suddenly, out of left field in #12 - then no discussion or elaborations and it emerges full-grown at #23.

I don't see the relevance. Unless someone wants to talk about the desirability or otherwise of elites - which btw doesn't require or imply or infer aristocracy - I don't see where it fits into heritability and educability of higher intelligence.

Haa... I have to fess up about not paying attention and accepting as fact that the convo had moved from an ealier point about aristocracy... I didn't even notice much about eugenics either.

I just felt like answering is all.

Perhaps boing is on one?

Ere boing pssst... we'r talking about intelligence/ability being from nurture verse genetics, or at least we were.

Originally Posted by adelady

Where did this "aristocracy" come from? It's not in the OP and I don't see it until suddenly, out of left field in #12 - then no discussion or elaborations and it emerges full-grown at #23.

I don't see the relevance. Unless someone wants to talk about the desirability or otherwise of elites - which btw doesn't require or imply or infer aristocracy - I don't see where it fits into heritability and educability of higher intelligence.

Well I think I did. Probably because I miss-interpret the post ... #1

The Genuine Intelligence that we are aware of when we hear of Noble Prize winners, of Surgeons sailing through their exams, of NASA R&D People, of Computer Programmers working on original concepts, all in this group rise to the top of their profession by clear perception and solutions to occurring problems.

If we are lucky as ordinary people one or two of these Intellectuals could be elected to Government, bringing about change that enhances our wellbeing.

Having, I think, established that their is, indeed, brain power out there, I would now like to ask the question, are we seeing the remnants of an original pool of intelligence that came into existance, by whatever means, several thousand years ago? westwind.

The parts in bold are the parts that leads to assets what on earth intelligence is (post #2 #3), and if it could be remnant of some mythical tribes...

The parts in bold underline talk about who get to decide who is on top, which is the definition of aristocracy (post#12).

A dictionary consultation will give you the precise pathway I wish to discuss.Suffice to say I am coming around to believing that general useful intelligence is in short supply. Limited to the really clever among us. I would suggest, as an estimate, that no more than 5% of our present population would be in this category.

That part is somewhat nonsensical because a dictionary is not a map, and do not describe pathway, and even less the coming around of made up numbers or category.

Genetics tell how software is hardware in forth'nary language (G, A, T, C), and like every software of any use, depends only of the environment (the inputs/data) from which it could only do what it had been selected to do.

Genetics build various brains topologies (given correct food/inputs) which in turns will only be able to process what environment/input/education throw at them (some calling it nature #18 some call it nurtue #18 (hey! it is the same thing !)). You yourself and you providing very strong arguments about the importance of early stages development (post #11)

I am quite stunned by your comment Adelady, because I cannot see how you would discern some genomic trait, without a way to link it to real-life measurable quantities like intelligence or capacity to rise. I did not know either that selection was something else that a random process following classical distribution (reminded in post #9)

So, were are the reincarnation of the lost geniuses, and why are they all driving a Ferrari ?

My favourite Topic/Research/Hypo/Interest/and the possibilities thrown up for furure( future) Genetic manipulation. Thread Op. westwind. Thank you for your Postes. I especially liked "" good seed, as against "" bad seed. Where does this "" good seed come from? The best of a breeding programme? The accidental result of random couplings by ex Station Wagon Drivers at Drive In Theatres?

When I postulated about "" QUOTE "" original pool of intelligence...END QUOTE, I really was getting at a more gifted, a better wired, group of our early Ancestors. How would this come about? Nature? Nurture? Better opportunities? The need for a more complex problem solving or survival trait, better food resources? Brain capacity due to development of skills needed to survive, or, having more time, other than food gathering, to organize Games or Religion.?

Were Monks and Vatican People more gifted than others? better organized?

And the Marco Polos, Attila the Hun, Sinbad the Sailor, Cleopatra, Julius Ceaser( sic ), Noah, Confusious, Pele??. Where did they spring from. Remember, a smaller Genetic Pool. westwind.

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by question for you

Genes are the result of environment so they say.

only in a very roundabout way, as in (1) surviving genes are the result of natural selection, which in part is a result of the environment, and (2) genes express themselves through environmental factors in embryogenesis

I think the mechanisms of adaption and evolution go beyond the concept of fluke mutation and random chance of fitting into an environment.
I think that every living organism has the potential to make adaptions to itself and to it's seed, in order to better aclimatise itself to it's present environment.

I'm not sure what the word for this would be... 'Evolution Through Autonomous Self Redesign'. You probably heard it here first (and probably last).

Originally Posted by westwind

... I really was getting at a more gifted, a better wired, group of our early Ancestors. ... westwind.

What is it that made you think there ever was such a thing significantly different from today?

Maybe, there has always been a "gifted" percentage of the population, who
given the right circumstances
flew over the abyss
into greatness
that was recorded as "history"
?
(all is a guess)

Originally Posted by westwind

I really was getting at a more gifted, a better wired, group of our early Ancestors. How would this come about? Nature? Nurture? Better opportunities? The need for a more complex problem solving or survival trait, better food resources? Brain capacity due to development of skills needed to survive, or, having more time, other than food gathering, to organize Games or Religion.?westwind.

I think all of the above.

If a group or family starts to live a better lifestyle, more nuture from nature, the free time to think and play and rest will develop the mind body and mind. The good diet will help therir bodies function quicker, it will speed up the adaption. The general feel good factor will give a boost, the whole body will accelerate it's ability to adapt generation after generation. IMO.

Life does better when it's given nourishment.

Originally Posted by question for you

I think that every living organism has the potential to make adaptions to itself and to it's seed, in order to better aclimatise itself to it's present environment.

lamarckism has been dead for over a century - it won't come back however much you want to believe in its veracity

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by question for you

I think that every living organism has the potential to make adaptions to itself and to it's seed, in order to better aclimatise itself to it's present environment.

lamarckism has been dead for over a century - it won't come back however much you want to believe in its veracity

No no, it's not Lamarkism! It's Question For Youism. I've been acused of being Lamarkist before. I have no idea what he postulated or why it is apparently dead.

I simply don't beleive that the evolutionary adaptive mechanism is limited to random chance.

Originally Posted by westwind

My favourite Topic/Research/Hypo/Interest/and the possibilities thrown up for furure( future) Genetic manipulation.

Can I ask you why ? is there a proplem ? can you be more specific ?

Originally Posted by westwind

I really was getting at a more gifted, a better wired, group of our early Ancestors.

Are you talking about Neandertals ? They may have bigger brain, but it is just a conjecture...

Originally Posted by westwind

How would this come about? Nature? Nurture? Better opportunities? The need for a more complex problem solving or survival trait, better food resources?
Brain capacity due to development of skills needed to survive, or, having more time, other than food gathering, to organize Games or Religion.?

Random selection, and the survival of the fittest, or more correctly the death of the misfits. I don't think any other criteria exist to decide who fits better.

Originally Posted by westwind

Were Monks and Vatican People more gifted than others? better organized?
And the Marco Polos, Attila the Hun, Sinbad the Sailor, Cleopatra, Julius Ceaser( sic ), Noah, Confusious, Pele??. Where did they spring from. Remember, a smaller Genetic Pool. westwind.

From their mother's womb. I cannot see why you site all these people (some fictional). With the exception of Attila, they seem to me to be misfits because they probably spent to much time letting trace in history, instead of letting they seeds in woman's bely.

Originally Posted by Boing3000

Random selection, and the survival of the fittest, or more correctly the death of the misfits. I don't think any other criteria exist to decide who fits better.

From their mother's womb. I cannot see why you site all these people (some fictional). With the exception of Attila, they seem to me to be misfits because they probably spent to much time letting trace in history, instead of letting they seeds in woman's bely.

There is more to survival of the fittest than merely sowing your seed, you need to make sure it will be nurtured and know how to survive, if you want to be successful.

Originally Posted by question for you

I simply don't beleive that the evolutionary adaptive mechanism is limited to random chance.

natural selection is mutation, which is random to the needs of the organism followed by the utterly non-random selection process of survival and success of leaving offspring

the total of the 2 does not amount to random chance
it's just not as warm and fuzzy a feeling of getting what you want just because you happen to want it

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by question for you

I simply don't beleive that the evolutionary adaptive mechanism is limited to random chance.

natural selection is mutation, which is random to the needs of the organism

Mutation, yes that's what i'd call it too. 'Random to the needs of the organism' is a figure of speech I can't quite comprehend. Why do you call it a random process? what's that based on?

Originally Posted by marnixR

the total of the 2 does not amount to random chance
it's just not as warm and fuzzy a feeling of getting what you want just because you happen to want it

Sorry but i'm not sure what you mean here.

What's wrong with the hypothesis of 'Evolution Through Autonomous Self ReDesign?

Originally Posted by question for you

There is more to survival of the fittest than merely sowing your seed, you need to make sure it will be nurtured and know how to survive, if you want to be successful.

Did you seriously think that I was speaking only about the intercourse Of course offspring survival is required. That is why killing offspring of other is a tactic very common in a lot of species. That is a proven path to success. Gene drives you, it is not the other way around.
Meme may build other forces, maybe some ethical concept, but don't trust them, they are also there to drive you and to make space for your cibling, and not the other way round.
Given the records of sapiens genome and memome, we may be the less successful nature random experiment ever. Time will tell.

epigenetics
and epigenetic changes to the genetic code
see bateson

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by marnixR

Originally Posted by question for you

I simply don't beleive that the evolutionary adaptive mechanism is limited to random chance.

natural selection is mutation, which is random to the needs of the organism

Mutation, yes that's what i'd call it too. 'Random to the needs of the organism' is a figure of speech I can't quite comprehend. Why do you call it a random process? what's that based on?

mutations are defects in the transcription of DNA - in essence they happen for a variety of reason but the totality of them can be summarised as a random defect generator
these defect may or may not contribute to the survival chances of the organism in which it happens, that's why i'm saying that the changes happen without any direction towards an improved organism, or random when you consider its needs

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by marnixR

the total of the 2 does not amount to random chance
it's just not as warm and fuzzy a feeling of getting what you want just because you happen to want it

Sorry but i'm not sure what you mean here.

What's wrong with the hypothesis of 'Evolution Through Autonomous Self ReDesign?

it just hasn't been observed - whenever biologists look at how blundering and jury-rigged the process of evolution is, it's just impossible to maintain that someone sits behind the controls when it comes to achieving the appearance of design

Originally Posted by marnixR

mutations are defects in the transcription of DNA - in essence they happen for a variety of reason but the totality of them can be summarised as a random defect generator.

I'm not a mollecular biologist, so I can't answer that. You say defect and you reckon there is evidence for that, but I haven't seen it or heard about it.

All I can say is I would not be suprised if some of these mutations were programmed into the DNA by a process that is found in all adaptive biological organisms. Until I see evidence against this I have no reason to dismiss the notion.

When an organisms progresses on the evolutionary path becuase it's DNA mutates... you can call that a defect, but I wouldn't agree. I do agree DNA can aquire defects, and i'm sure geneologists must have evidence of defective DNA mutations.

Originally Posted by marnixR

it just hasn't been observed - whenever biologists look at how blundering and jury-rigged the process of evolution is, it's just impossible to maintain that someone sits behind the controls when it comes to achieving the appearance of design

It really has nothing to do with 'somebody' sitting behind the wheel designing. It's 'something', some mechanism which can interpret the environmental factors and program adaptions into the DNA which suit the environment. There could be a mechanism which takes note of the conscious or subconscious desires of the organism, such as somebody who has to lift a lot, has a lot of pride in being able to lift a lot and real really wants to be able to lift even more. When he wills for that to happen, and when he puts in the physical work to make that happen, then quite probably IMO programing his DNA.

This could well be a hit and miss process in itself... It makes more sense than pure chance and fluke.

When a person sits and imagnes doing an activity, they create neural pathways from the required muscle to the brain, you can literally train your body with your mind. Thats scientifically known. It's logical that DNA, or what ever the body's code is, and the body it builds has a two way relationship. Which explains the amazing synchonisations between species and there habitats more satisfactorally than random chance alone.

Certain genes build certain body parts we think? certain body parts will be constantly controlled by certain genes, they have a life long connection. When the body parts are exposed to certain environmental conditions including climate, as well as things like physichal habits, the genes must know that the thing they built has been developed to do this activity, they are building the muscle bigger, they are co-ordinating what proteins do, and all of that... the genes must evolves as the body evolves?

Are their any visible differences between childrens DNA and then later in life with the same person? If the 'code' within the DNA changed, would we even notice it? would it be visible?

Tests could eventually be done on comparing how the DNA of a person at birth, changes throughout life according to a specific set of cultural practices. Although it's not easy because of the ethical aspect.

Can we not take the genes of two baby monkeys... Find a gene which we know is connected to a certain body part or function, train the monkeys to practice this new thing and see what effects it has on that specific gene. Then get the two to breed and see if the babies gene is different from the mothers and fathers at birth.

Thats obviously a back of a beer mat experiment. But we haven't had enough time to observe these things yet have we?

*Edit see sculptors post about epigenics.
The Theory of Evolution through Autonomous Self Redesign has been observed!!!
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/su...vepi/index.cfm

"Environmental health scientists are most concerned with studying how environmental factors can cause negative epigenetic changes."

Same old story, always studying how we can harm things, instead of how we can make it flourish. Wrong emphasis, Imo.

perhaps misunderstandings arise because the prefix "epi" is poorly understood
it has to do with expression, not just DNA and most likely(?) will not alter the underlying DNA in the 1st, 2nd, nor 3rd generation
few studies have looked at longer periods of time
(in part due to the trashing the word took from the anti lamarkians)
(and in part due to the fact that much of genetics is still a relatively new science)

only recently have scientist become aware that the sequence of expression is as powerful(if not more so)than the underlying genetic structure

it's a beautiful warm sunny december day in Iowa, and I'm headed up on the roof
.............wish me luck and soft landings-----?------

Originally Posted by question for you

Originally Posted by marnixR

mutations are defects in the transcription of DNA - in essence they happen for a variety of reason but the totality of them can be summarised as a random defect generator.

When an organisms progresses on the evolutionary path becuase it's DNA mutates... you can call that a defect, but I wouldn't agree. I do agree DNA can aquire defects, and i'm sure geneologists must have evidence of defective DNA mutations.

maybe i should have used the word "error" instead of "defect" - transcriptions errors can have a negative, neutral or positive effect, whereas the word "defect" seems to imply something detrimental on all occasions

as for not having seen or heard about it, what i just posted is pretty much standard genetics, so you should be able to find it in most standard texts on genetics, embryology or epigenetics

Originally Posted by question for you

When an organisms progresses on the evolutionary path becuase it's DNA mutates...

If you keep stopping at the suspension mark, you'll never grasp the simplicity of that "selection theory". Following ... is : and some environmental condition validate the mutation.

The problem is in the evolution word that imply some kind of progress. There is no progress, only survival.
The more evolution'ed/progress'ed killing machine was the T-Rex (I may have choose Sapiens, or another Virus, but...). Apparently those incredibly numerous random mutations and selections was after all not so great an idea. Especially the size and the lack of variety of the diet.
Or maybe the wrong planet which cannot take an asteroid impact without making all that fuss about it.

You may not believe it. It is a theory. Yours about the 'wishing' being mysteriously absorbed by DNA is, let's say, more easy to test. There are few species that sits and imagine, and even carry weight (and feel bad about it).
You can wish all you want being able to see other wavelengths, or to grow wings, it will never happens.
But imagine that some people already caries some mutation that allows them to feebly sense gamma rays. You won't ever notice it in the current environment. But if a nuclear holocaust strikes, suddenly, you'll see some families avoiding radioactive places, while other not. And slowly the selection will take care of the (now suddenly become) unfit.

Sapiens has no preferential role, and all this occurs on so many events in time and places, and species intercourses, that I am afraid you must give-up your idea to be special, and designed. If you don't, try to explain me why we are so badly designed.
Maybe you should start to feel lucky, and embrace this cosmic size roulette, because you appears to be the winner !

Originally Posted by westwind

A dictionary consultation will give you the precise pathway I wish to discuss.Suffice to say I am coming around to believing that general useful intelligence is in short supply. Limited to the really clever among us. I would suggest, as an estimate, that no more than 5% of our present population would be in this category.

Where does this Gourmet Intelligence come from? Originally I mean?

The Genuine Intelligence that we are aware of when we hear of Noble Prize winners, of Surgeons sailing through their exams, of NASA R&D People, of Computer Programmers working on original concepts, all in this group rise to the top of their profession by clear perception and solutions to occurring problems.

Look at the way you're defining the category. In order for a computer programmer to be working on an original concept that concept has to have not been thought of by their predecessors. If their predecessors were extremely bright, then they must be brighter still. That forces the number of potential candidates to be small.

Exams likewise are often intended to narrow the list of candidates. If you sail through, that's only because the other candidates couldn't. If too few people were passing the exams, they would have made them easier by now.

If we are lucky as ordinary people one or two of these Intellectuals could be elected to Government, bringing about change that enhances our wellbeing.

This is a good question. Why do idiots get elected, even when the public knows full well they are idiots? How did GW Bush win the presidency?

My best guess, is the majority of people are insecure about their intellectual gifts because they didn't sail through their exams, or haven't yet managed to devise an original programming concept.... or maybe didn't manage to pass High School Algebra after numerous attempts, and tutors.

Maybe those people want a leader in place who will advocate their needs. Start programs like "no child left behind".

Having, I think, established that their is, indeed, brain power out there, I would now like to ask the question, are we seeing the remnants of an original pool of intelligence that came into existance, by whatever means, several thousand years ago? westwind.

To an alien, even our greatest geniuses may seem trivially simple minded.