> so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false I'm saying that were there a dearth of evidence either way,

> so you are admitting your ideas are fact-less, mere assumptions that can easily be true or false I'm saying that were there a dearth of evidence either way, the argument for a genetic basis would still be valid based on the premise that the brain is a physical structure (among other things). In actuality, there's a good bit of evidence that its at least partially, and perhaps mostly, genetic. > Again, what's that evidence? Is it a genome? some sort of better brain capacity? Its polygenetic and at least partially influenced by the environment. Its unlikely that higher brain capacity plays a large role (in the difference between humans). Identical twins separated at birth provide the best evidence > yet you're down voting my comment Wasn't me :)