Born intelligent or Gradually become smart?

[Dyndrilliac]

You aren't exactly proving your case.

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_brain#Brain_size

The balance of findings, which have been largely on participants of European ancestry, indicate an average adult brain volume of 1130 cubic centimetres (cc) for women and 1260 cc for men. There is substantial variation however;[5] a study of 46 adults aged 22-49 years and of mainly European descent, found an average brain volume of 1273.6cc for men, ranging from 1052.9 to 1498.5cc, and 1131.1cc for women, ranging from 974.9 to 1398.1cc.[6] The right cerebral hemisphere is typically larger than the left, whereas the cerebellar hemispheres are typically of more similar size. There is evidence of an increase in average brain size over the course of the last centuries, estimated to have been around 0.5% per decade.[7]

While the above quote does in fact support the gradual increase in the size of the brain, it does not mention the degree of change over time as to the genetic code of humans. Also, brain size does not correlate to a certain degree of intelligence. Having a larger brain does not necessarily mean that you will be smarter (in fact, the evidence suggests that the opposite is true, and that brain size has no tangible effect of intelligence whatsoever.) For example, this table compares the brain volumes of specific species of the homo genus, and it shows that the closest comparison to the size of modern human's brains are the Neanderthals, the traditionally primitive and heavily built ape like humanoids that rose to their peak at the end of the last ice age. Neurologists and paleontologists have noted that there is little to no notable difference between the brains of modern humans and more primitive species of humans on the genetic level, other than a slight change in size.

Furthermore, according to this link (a site owned and operated by the San Diego Museum of Man, and sponsored by the National Science Foundation), modern humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, 90% with mice, 97.7% with gorillas, 98.4% with chimps, and 99.9% with other humans. It is highly unlikely that the .1% difference in genetic code represents the primary attributable reason why people are smarter than other people.

The fact of the matter is while having "good genes" helps, there is absolutely no evidence to support that anyone is genetically "gimped" by their parents, and that just the opposite is true; Everyone has the same potential for intelligence, some may simply have a slightly easier path to get there, and this too is influenced by the nurturing doctrines put in place by parental figures and their willingness to responsibly sponsor the growth of intellect.

Your position is riddled with logical fallacies and assumptions which not only can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but also that you have not provided a shred of reasonable scientific data to support.

[Eppie]

Originally Posted by Dyndrilliac

Furthermore, according to this link (a site owned and operated by the San Diego Museum of Man, and sponsored by the National Science Foundation), modern humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, 90% with mice, 97.7% with gorillas, 98.4% with chimps, and 99.9% with other humans. It is highly unlikely that the .1% difference in genetic code represents the primary attributable reason why people are smarter than other people.

Scientists have been puzzled by how there are such differences between species, with such small variations in genes. However, there are much higher differences in the non-coding regions found in between genes, which make up about 98.5% of a human's genetic code. It has recently been discovered that these regions contain "enhancers", which tell the genes when and where to activate. While we contain extremely similar genes, it is the enhancers that can vary when those genes are activated. I don't have an online source, but this information can be found in the May 2008 issue of Scientific American, pg 60-68.

[Dyndrilliac]

Unfortunately for the topic at hand, that doesn't give credence to either position (that intelligence is genetically inherent, or developed from infancy to adult-hood). Like I said, there is no evidence to suggest that people are born intelligent or not intelligent; there is however evidence to support that children born from two stupid people can be very smart, and that two smart people can bear unintelligent offspring. This is counter-intuitive to the idea that intelligence is based solely on one's genetic material.

[Eppie]

I was just countering your one point.

[ap0litist0s]

Inteligence can be increased by lerning thinks and learn how to learn and ofcource if a persson is huppy with his life, and likes lerning. My opinion is that when a smart person get's borned you can see that.
Im a tipical example of this who has done nothing with his life :D
I dunno if i agree with this i wright here but who cares.

[Dr. Silence]

Did a very difficult and anxiety related report on this which extended in the 20k+ words and because this isn't SD I'm not going to try but let me just say both correlate but it's mainly the gradual accent into higher education through social factors which ultimately create what is known as intelligence. Don't listen to that behavioral neuroscience jargon, vast majority of it is unsupported hypotheses and will remain that way.

[CrazyGerbilEater]

Originally Posted by Dyndrilliac

You aren't exactly proving your case.

While the above quote does in fact support the gradual increase in the size of the brain, it does not mention the degree of change over time as to the genetic code of humans. Also, brain size does not correlate to a certain degree of intelligence. Having a larger brain does not necessarily mean that you will be smarter (in fact, the evidence suggests that the opposite is true, and that brain size has no tangible effect of intelligence whatsoever.) For example, this table compares the brain volumes of specific species of the homo genus, and it shows that the closest comparison to the size of modern human's brains are the Neanderthals, the traditionally primitive and heavily built ape like humanoids that rose to their peak at the end of the last ice age. Neurologists and paleontologists have noted that there is little to no notable difference between the brains of modern humans and more primitive species of humans on the genetic level, other than a slight change in size.

Yes i agree with that, just was an interesting fact it increased by .05% every decade. And it shows we ARE different from people thousands of years ago. we have bigger brains, it may not really affect our intelligence, but it proves a physical difference.

Furthermore, according to this link (a site owned and operated by the San Diego Museum of Man, and sponsored by the National Science Foundation), modern humans share about 50% of their DNA with bananas, 90% with mice, 97.7% with gorillas, 98.4% with chimps, and 99.9% with other humans. It is highly unlikely that the .1% difference in genetic code represents the primary attributable reason why people are smarter than other people.

That agrees with my argument more than it agrees with yours. It shows that small differences greatly affect living things. only a small 10% difference between us and mice, which is a huge difference really. Not only in size, but intelligence. A mouse cannot gain the intelligence of a human, even though theres a small percent difference between us. Also, only a 1.6% difference between us and chimps, yet they also cannot gain the intelligence of a human. that .1% difference may be a small number, but as you see above it can change a living organism drasticly

The fact of the matter is while having "good genes" helps, there is absolutely no evidence to support that anyone is genetically "gimped" by their parents, and that just the opposite is true; Everyone has the same potential for intelligence, some may simply have a slightly easier path to get there, and this too is influenced by the nurturing doctrines put in place by parental figures and their willingness to responsibly sponsor the growth of intellect.

Your position is riddled with logical fallacies and assumptions which not only can't be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but also that you have not provided a shred of reasonable scientific data to support.

your logic seems to have more holes than mine. you did more to prove my point than i did. and you just gave me the reasonable scientific data.