4 ms·
Ok I understand you now. You are simply defining "baseline" to be "free of negative mutations". But this is not a useful definition for these purposes. Given
by JesperRavn 11y ago
Ok I understand you now. You are simply defining "baseline" to be "free of negative mutations". But this is not a useful definition for these purposes. Given that you have stated that genes account for 50% of variability in intelligence (whether this variability stems from positive or negative mutations doesn't matter), you would actually disagree with the claim that "we are all born basically with equal potential"
Your definition of "normal" in this context is not relevant and distracts from the actual issue of genetic variability vs environment. Imagine a teacher saying "no, you didn't miss out on the intelligence gene. You just have a lot of bad genes that make you less intelligent."
- Retric 11y agoClearly down's syndrome demonstrates we are not all exactly equal. But, where on the surface a negative model seems similar, you would expect all populations to end up fairly similar on average. However if there where a few major improvements spreading you would expect to see significant differences at the population level (Because positive mutations would not show up randomly in equal proportion in every population.) Further, where 50% of the difference is inheritable less than 50% of that is from DNA with things like mothers nutrition playing a major role. Also, a chunk of the remainder is eaten up by the Major Defects, so if your look at 'normal' people DNA is going to play a smaller role than enviorment.