5 ms·
From a genetic standpoint, all humans are 99.9% identical beasts. There is of course some genetic components in potential abilities. But I strongly believe th
by stephc_int13 6y ago
From a genetic standpoint, all humans are 99.9% identical beasts.
There is of course some genetic components in potential abilities.
But I strongly believe that most of the differences we are seeing are built on compounded interest of environmental factors, starting from a very young age.
- internetslave 6y agoZero chance it’s environmental
- stephc_int13 6y agoWhy not?
- ZephyrBlu 6y agoI'm not sure this is a viable argument considering that we also share much of our DNA with apes/monkeys. It seems like minor genetic differences can create large disparities. I definitely think environmental factors can compound on a genetic baseline though, and of course the earlier you start compounding the greater the returns.
- stephc_int13 6y agoThe differences between apes and humans is much larger than between humans, by at least an order of magnitude.
- KMag 6y agoBut that's not a sufficient counter-argument that the GGP post's reasoning is sound. Even single base pair mutations can have huge impacts. A surprising percentage of the human genome is retroviral in origin. As far as I know, "Genetic clock" analysis is the only sound application of counting base pair differences. I don't think the GP is arguing one way or the other. They seem to be mostly questioning how wide the error bars should be on these statements. It looks like a Socratic twist on "citation needed" without an implication that statements are necessarily wrong.
- Koshkin 6y agoIndeed, some cognitive disabilities are based in genetics; but those are usually quite obvious. The rest of us humans are pretty much the same. Young child’s brain is, by nature, like a sponge, and impressions received at an early age are extremely critical.
- astrange 6y agoChildrens' growth and development is also seriously affected by things that happened before they were born, like their mother's diet and exposure to local pollutants, that causes effects that could be mistaken for genetic differences. This is why twin studies and such things don't actually prove anything.
- hntrader 6y agoYou strongly believe this based on what? Being "99.9 percent identical" doesn't necessarily preclude substantial genetic variation in intelligence just like it doesn't preclude such variation in height or skin tone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ
- stephc_int13 6y agoHeritability of traits is not always directly genetic.
- hntrader 6y agoCorrect. I was asking what the basis is for your confidence that it positively isn't substantially genetic. We know that intelligence is highly heritable, which leaves a few possible explanations, genetics being one of them (along with prenatal nutrition, prenatal lead exposure, etc). If you're going to claim that genetics is only a small part of the reason that it's heritable, then that has its own burden of proof that needs to be met.
- vixen99 6y agoBy now we should have some unequivocal evidence to support your conjecture. I think it would be nice if we did but we don't.
- kaba0 6y agoWell, one amino acid change can render someone’s whole life into a suffering, so I don’t see how the 99.9% mean anything. If the difference is only in a few genes, it can already have a huge effect.