I suspect the only reason people concede athletic differences is that they are far easier to spot. The actual amount of evidence isn't that different than it i

I suspect the only reason people concede athletic differences is that they are far easier to spot. The actual amount of evidence isn't that different than it is for some other pursuits. The link about art wasn't talking about other species. It was about the development of our species. Genetic shift doesn't happen to an entire species at once, it's a gradual shifting of allele frequencies. If you admit that genetic differences make us more capable artists than our ancestors, it's difficult to defend the claim that all current and ongoing variation in people is irrelevant to artistic skill. >"Far, far more important to being a successful musician are three components (which the article cites): support from parents and mentors, instruction by experts, and dedicated practice. Variation between ability in people comes overwhelmingly from those three things and genetics plays a tiny role, if any at all." This is just utter bullshit and it convinces me you have no direct experience with the field. I grew up in a family of professional musicians and have seen overwhelming evidence that nurture and nature both have significant effects. For a heartbreaking personal example see my comment on another thread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2291295