Re: Gene supremacy (Was: Re: Meme supremacy)
Fri, 1 Aug 1997 12:24:09 -0400 (EDT)

In a message dated 8/1/97 6:12:28 AM, (den Otter) wrote:

>Sure, prenatal conditions and upbringing will have their effect on things
>like intelligence (again: in the *broadest* sense of the word), but the
>original genetic programming is almost certainly the most important
>factor (by far).

Almost certainly? By what standard?

The study Kennita referred to actually did measure the contribution of
post-natal environment, genes, and pre-natal environment on IQ (not
intelligence in general, which is a more complex thing). This showed that
the genes were #2 on the list; less important that post-natal environment.

Do you have any evidence to back up your contention?