Originally posted by Preacher
1) Road rage *stems* from a survival behavior: the old "fight or flight" adrenaline response to provocation or percieved danger. As to intelligence (and thus IQ) being genetically determined, yer probably right that we haven't yet *identified* specific genes that code for this trait. However, it is *inferred* to be genetically determined, because of its link to various genetic anomalies (such as Down's syndrome), where low intelligence is a result of said anomaly.
Well, Down's Syndrome is a *chromosomal* abnormality, not a genetic one. There is an extra copy of chromosome 13, IIRC, usually from the mother. The addition of such a huge amount of extra genetic material (over 2% of our normal chromosome number, very significant when you consider that there is only about 2% genetic differance between humans and chimpanzees) and the effect it has on the cells would retard all forms of mental and physical development, but it's a leap to extrapolate that to intelligence in normal people. Severe foetal alchol syndrome also retards mental development in the womb and produces people of sub-normal intellignce in a similar way to those who suffer from Down's Syndrome, but I have yet to see anyone suggest that intelligence is alcoholic.
On your last point, it won't necessarily "breed true" in families because of how the mechanisms of dominant/ recessive traits, cross-linking, sex-linking, etc., flesh out regarding this particular trait. Basically, until we *do* identify the gene(s) responsible for the trait, we won't be able to understand the inheritance pattern of it.
This is on the assumption that there is such a gene, of course. That is the point I always keep coming back to. There are three ways that a trait can be shown to be gentically linked. The first is the identification of a gene that codes for that trait. The second is the identification of specific bio-chemical (protiens, hormones, blood constituents) that always correlate to that trait. The third is to show that the trait breeds true. If none of those conditions can be satisfied, then
scientifically speaking, that trait can't be said to be genetic.
As far as intelligence goes, none of those *have* been satisfied. All you have presented so far is possibilities and speculations, and that doesn't satisfy the burden of scientific proof. Not only that, in science, if someone postulates the existence of something (i.e a gene that codes for higher intelligence) then the burden of proving that falls on that person, rather than on others to disprove it. It's a little ludicrous to say "This exists, and the reason that we haven't found any proof for it such and such, and we *will* eventually find the proof that supports my viewpoint." That relies on taking things on faith, which just doesn't fit the scientific methord. You always go with the evidence that you *have*, not the evidence that *might* exist.
Now, you're certainly entitled to say that it's your *belief* that intelligence is genetic, and I have no problem with that. However, without the evidence to support that belief, it remains just that, a belief or a hypothesis, and not a scientific fact. Similarly, you can say that the scietific methord isn't the only way of looking at things (or even the best way) and again, I would have absolutely no problem with that. However, you can't simultaneously claim that trying to select for traits such as intelligence is scientifically sound, and then try to prove the existence of genes that code for intelligence in a way that goes against the scientific methord.
Also, as you point out, humans (unlike animals) are not too successful at inbreeding, whereas such happens all the time in the animal kingdom, with no prob's. Seems yet another genetic distinction from the beasts we've been given by the Creator.
I think I'll just leave the Creator out of it, if it's all the same to you. Debating theology definitely isn't the way I want to go. The differances could just as easily be explained by natural means (i.e the small starting population of African women that I talked about earlier) as by divine ones. As I said though, that's an area of debate that I have no intent of getting into.
2) You took a wrong turn there, and are driving up the wrong street: What I said was that *behavioral factors* (and thus the "free will" deal) influence what we express of our genetic heritage, as it relates to these areas. Thus, your whole argument about skin color may be correct, but it's irrelevant to the issue (since we can't "choose" our skin tone, etc.). My statement "works" not ONLY in theory, but also in FACT, as I've illustrated elsewhere.
Actually, it would be more correct to say that after having taken a few side-roads in our debate, I was returning to the original topic of our discussion. I was replying to a point that you raised in the first post you made, which admitedly was a while back. To be specific:
"Natural selection, if it is to be believed in the first place, applies to "closed systems" (i.e., the "natural world"), not to human systems. The very things that set us apart from the animals are the things that doom this comparison. We have morals (well, some of us anyway...), intellect, reasoning, intelligence, free will, consciences, etc., and the animals do not. Therefore, we make free choices about with whom to mate and produce offspring, etc. This alters the equation considerably, and largely renders the comparison null & void."
The example of skin pigmentation (the differant adapation to hot and cold climatess) shows that natural selection does in fact apply to human systems as well as natural ones. If our free choice about who to mate with and so on could in fact render natural selection null and void, then these adpations could not have taken place. The fact that they have shows that free choice doesn't over-ride the basic proccesses of nature.
3) It's not being brushed aside. My statement was quite specific, and we humans indeed are NOT bound by the rules that apply to the rest of nature, as it relates to the examples I gave. Case in point, the example you give above: Animals, after all, don't operate on altruism, thus that mechanism wouldn't occur in the natural world, "only" with us humans. That's the diff 'twixt being driven solely by instinct, and being driven primarily by intelligence/conscience. That's what sets us apart from the beasties, both genetically and morally. So, yes, we ARE "special".
Again, the Dawkins theory is that "alturism" is only a disguised methord of gaining advantage for yourself. If you have help someone out, you leave him in debt to you, and give yourself a future ally. His theory is that our behaviour is driven by the "selfish" genes, which are interested only in their own perpetuation. In other words, we're no differant from any other animal in that we act in ways that will contibute to the survival of our genes, we just have a much less straight forward way of doing that. Like I said, it's not a theory that I like very much, but he supports his theory very well with examples of how even the most seemingly alturistic behaviour can be explained in terms of personal advantage. I would certainly reccomend reading it if you can get hold of a copy.
::watches as Raptor's self-esteem grows exponentially::
My self esteem is just fine, thank you. But it's nice to know that you care.
Best, Raptor