anyhoo, hope all is well. gearing up for your next semester?
I should be, I'll start cramming all the things I've forgotten starting tommorow. How's things going w/your learning?
thanks for the link. if it's established as scientific, peer reviewed fact, then i would say it is not bigotry at all. of course, this theory would have to explain previous data better than it has up to this point so far. it would also have to explain the observed nurture/environmental phenomenon of embryonic mutation. while i can see that it is possible, i will have to wait for it without holding my breath.
As I only dabble in science, but if we take some examples of genuises, like the guy in Good Will Hunting, nuture and nature aren't there. It would seem, then, that genetics, perhaps a defective gene that produces more proteins that some how makes people smarter, do play a part. Of course, there seems to be little we know about how the brain works in terms of intelligence.
Of course, for the argument against a genetic involvement is that intellectual gifts do not seem to pass on from generation to generation. I mean, look at Einstein's son. He was a professor in engineering, but not a genius.
On the other hand, look at Bach. His children all (3/4ths) became accomplished musicians, but it can be argued that they did not have the same genius of composition that Bach had and that the play of music is a skill to be learned whereas composition is an art that comes naturally.