Evolution of Intelligence in Jews

You can establish a correlation of zero in exactly the same way you can establish any other correlation. There's nothing special about a correlation co-efficent of zero. A correlation factor of 0.5 means that 50% of the variation in IQ scores is down to genetic variation. I'd call 50% significant, wouldn't you?If you want a specific figure, I would call 0.15 or above significant. No, it's not synonymous with it; but it does logically imply it. Think about it for a moment. Evolution works because variations in genetics produce variations in fitness and variations in fitness in turn produce variations in the distribution of genes; if the variations in ability that are produced by genetics are not significant then the variations in fitness can't be (since fitness is, itself, determined by ability in suitable areas). So a (broad) claim that genetics is not significant in ability logically implies that evolution can't work, and a specific claim that genetics is not significant in a specific area implies that area is not subject to evolution.I consider that a pretty incredible claim. What point did you feel was trivially obvious?

Now you're just being nonsensical. You really don't see a problem with this? Are you going to support your assertion of significance? I asked you to do so. Doesn't that suggest that the answer to your question is that I don't know if I would call 50% significant or not?Why are you just repeating yourself instead of supporting your assertions? Fascinating, but the above bears absolutely no relationship to my position. Might that have not been your first clue that it wasn't the claim I was making? That if f(x) is defined as non-constant, obviously both f and x are going to be variables.On other other hand, if f(x) is not defined as either constant or non-constant, then there's no immediate basis on which to discard the positions that either f or x are non-varying.You're the one with the math background. You mean you didn't see that as an immediate disqualification of your analogy?

No. The statistical techniques to determine a confidence interval work just as well with a corelation coefficent of 0 as the they do with 0.7 or -0.7. You don't know whether 50% is significant or not? What? I pity your accountant. Wonderful. Explain why not. Why would that count as a disqualification? I chose it because of that property.

Unrelated issue. The odds that you were going to actually have a coefficient of 0 are astronomically low.Imagine flipping two coins. The corellation between heads or tails, we know, should be exactly zero. But the odds that that's the corellation you'll derive experimentally, it should go without saying, are astronomically low. If you repeated the experiment, you should have a cluster of scores with a mean of around zero, but like any continuous distribution, the odds that you'll arrive at exactly zero - or any exact real number - are infinitesimal.Are you sure you have a math background? I mean this is freshman statistics stuff. For the third time, I ask you to support your assertions with argument instead of ad hominem. It's beginning to reflect on your position that you cannot. Briefly - suppose for a moment that I'm 10% smarter than you, or 10% stronger. Is it really the case that I'm going to have, statistically, 10% more children? Not likely.There are some levels of variation that simply do not have an effect on fitness. The majority of intelligence difference, just like the majority of physical variation, falls into this category. The fact that these variations continue to exist is evidence of this position. If there were a profound fitness effect from slight variations in intelligence, or strength, we should very rapidly find ourselves, as a species, with nothing but the strongest or smartest members. Rather, scores on these tests are all over the map, indicating that the source of the variation is not genetic, but rather behavioral. Yes, obviously. There is no doubt that you chose that analogy purposefully to mislead.

Congratulations, you answered your own question.It is no more, or less, difficult to experimentally determine that the correlation is 0 (or within a confidence interval of 0, more precisely) than it is to experimentally determine that the correlation is 0.48, or 0.76 or any other value. In fact, one of the studies you cited claims to do this within a specific group. Why isn't anyone finding these results on a greater scale. If I had any idea what it is you want, I'd perhaps know what kind of answer you are looking for. As it is it seems you're making the utterly insane claim that you don't know whether half of something is a significant portion of that something. I agree. But that's exactly what we do have. Try playing 'Go' with a chimp. Intelligence has, quite clearly, been strongly selected for in humans. How exactly - use small words - is it about the analogy can possibly mislead? It clearly explains what it was supposed to explain because you get the frickin' point I was making. Did you actually read your own point I was responding to?Edited by Mr Jack, : No reason given.

I can see, at last, that you have no interest in discussing this honestly. Why I've gone this far with you I have no idea.It would have been nice to see you support your claims with evidence, or see you address the evidence that I brought to the table. Claims that I'm somehow denying evolution or that I can't provide an infinitesimally likely correlation value are neither of those things.Feel free to post again when you have something constructive to bring to the table. I notice that every single point I've made has essentially gone unrebutted. It's obvious that a test that includes "Knowledge" as a subheading is testing education and practice, not any inherent physical value.

I'd like you to meet my good friend, Kettle. I'd like you to meet my good friend, Kettle. I'd like you to meet my good friend, Kettle. Nothing like repeating emprically wrong claims in closing, is ther?