2 ms·
I'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 lar
by ZephyrBlu 6y ago
I'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.