...Did you hear about that book by V Serbarikoff "Test Your Own I.Q, You Know More Than the internet, no 78's or 45's to buy the internet is much rounder!" In research, with lab mice smart mice were bred with the other smart mice and the dumber were bred with the dumber. The dumb mice stayed about the same and the smart mice got smart but then got no wiser, so this was considered to be proof being smart always has a basis in genes. According to Serbariakoff, with just so many combinations of genes allowed genes would act as a ceiling, so the most we would be able to achieve would be limited by inheritance.

Consider however our own genes which haven't changed much in hundreds of thousands of years. We have the same genes we evolved in evolution so may be just as limited in opportunity if this causology was so. So either civilization is just a diva who yells, "Author!" when the mime act is golden and calm or genes may be of reduced import other than a foundation because they may have little to do with how much we achieve with how much genes. If genes were the roof we would have been compressed in a real sense as we go higher, if we improved civilization just a bit, and it would make us feel more bad than good. (I'm not saying civilization is necessarily good with the harm it's causing, just that our genes being the same as in prehistoric times with civilization so different is evidence that genes are not a limit like a roof.)

Serberiakoff says you can take an infant primate and educate the chimp in diapers by a human child, and the person will be slower in smartness for a while with the chimp out ahead is smartness. While we must arrive in the world with some advantage (they now find that chldren are able to recognize many sounds and more many months before they can talk) if our life is inherited and this were the use of it like to say we're a number that's all, inherited facility is of reduced value when weighed beside the influence of environment because in the wild millions of years passed with no domination of humans over evolution, and it was more of a golden age for humans than here in the 21st century. We lived in the tropics with no fire yet invented, so our ancestors had not too much hot or cold, because they lived necessarily by the river and the ocean like most people now. The social forces that make our laws were the same, except the behaviour's actual meanness and kind ways were also more present. But just in the rarer than would seem event of combat (the American Indians had no war before about 1000 years ago) it's been proven by anthropology that disease is virtually absent in Living Evolution, and so on. Life for most was often allowed. This is because one animal wasn't opposite all the rest and evolution is how we are. Like authors you read in a store, almost all life's contributors are of at least some value. In evolution if animals are in competition for the same resource, instead of war, they evolve away from conflict and use somewhat other resources. This is a good way via the complex flow of evolution. Life for most was often allowed. While IQ Tests Measure Something Or What, This is Not Proof It's Something Important, Just What! Author Serbariakoff's says that even if inherited savvy is of value and no doubt it has some worth, IQ tests are mostly a guaranteed measure of inherited smartness. When Binet devised the first main Binet test, he used an empirical method of just that what was measured was more over time and that the bright had more of if what was measured. But there's no real proof it measures inherited value, just that it measures some behaviour. Since what it measures may just be some behaviour related to smart behavior what is actually measured is unproven, this no proof it's the floor of civilization or the roof, or even that it's anything of worth. Some of the inherited wisdom would be found by this method, just as in life all sorts of genes and action both are involved in most complex events, my explanation of the constant change in how much what they say is what's "measured by IQ tests". They've found that the scores go up when you go college and down during summer days of passing out in the heat and they've been up about 20 points through the 20th century. Life is more like a competition than a guarantee. We win with more effort and lose with talent. In the Book Serbarikoff says they've found how the top 20% in the creativity scores were the low 20% of IQ and with opposite also, the low 20% of creativity people were at the high 20% of the more memory based Termer and Binet. He believes this sort of intelligence is necessary to be creative, "This teacher says about one of his students, "Dull, Yes, But so creative"! Implying that you or I must have high Termer or Binet score in order to be savvy about the web. I think what a real teacher wouldn't say would be, "A highly creative memory is like watching reruns of Hee Haw!" The boss favors memory like the Binet measures (of the same sort of convergent motifs as ads on TV). The boss has the advantage so he likes emphasis on the general frame of the business, much like determinism, versus control by way of adapting and making the most via creativity for most others. Life seems about the the doers and do nots rather than haves and have nots. Most are employees, so since they have less power, they would achieve the best by the opposite method of the boss. They say what won't make us ill will make us strong. (I'm so fit I don't have to jog to see the ER! For visits I just jog in elevators with wings, so the second safest way to travel.) While you may say about all this, gene engineering is the answer, disproof of the above, if you change one gene you know about, five more are changed in unknown ways. One important distinction between machines and life is that when you go to higher and higher resolutions with the zoom you see complexity at most levels. With machines you see complexity at the low resolutions but not at the higher. Life is not a machine, life if alive is much more complex, so there may be no real way to have much more good than bad we would receive from Bioengineering. A vitamin like a B complex vitamin is strong when it's in it's embedded "matrix" of other B vitamins (from Latin "mother") of surrounding compounds found in evolution. Though there are some genes that are not in multiple combinations, a natural lunch is much more munchy and sweet than a vitamin, a life of ease without a real health miracle, (or even a blurb for the Des Moins visitors beauro, "Santa Fe, second oldest city of the NW!") Whatever makes evolution fail in the long run is of reduced worth to us. If evolution loses because of our inherited smartness instead of us being great to evolution, this vision of intelligence would thus be of insubstantial value compared to the evolution advantage. Most life contributes to evolution. If a plant is lost from the rain forest, it may take away a herb for health forever. A herb from the Yew bark is a million times as powerful as some prescriptions to reduce tissues that metastasize since it shuts down the cells powerhouse, the ATP. Life is more general than just a physical frame. It's believed by many all is information and there is no sharp line between life and sleep. I'm an optimist. For Sherry It's Web Site Available Online, not Web Site Unavailable Offline!

...You may say about genes and environment, which is more of worth has no real meaning, they seem much the same, or reflections of each other because you can't change the complexity of the links. They've found "E.G.G" in ornithology there is no distinction between Environment and Genes."Form and function are just two forms of the same motif." This is an oversimplified picture like saying that because a space vehicle will go by the star A Sirus in the year AD 27,987 it will, and the time will pass, but the product of huge amounts of time is not the same as a guarantee we'll reach it without labor with each day by day struggle of life.. (No problem. I've paid my mother-in-law to wash my toupee with a suds machine so the weather always rains in swirls above me in the heat!) To say environment and genes are the same is to reduce the worth of what makes us special, because what we receive makes us what we have and what we create and achieve for glory beyond what we receive makes us what we are. Life science, unlike physics has resisted being summed up with just math and numbers. Life and the world are of worth, life means so much.

I think belief in determinism is of worth just in another sort of way, if genes are a sort of treasure, and creativity is what life is allowed to like. If you find a treasure, you don't try to hurt it, you conserve it, perhaps set aside a sanctuary to store it. (What I'm allowed to like and change like creativity, by all means I make the most of and I'll whoop it up, when I go to Arizona, I'll sing with the Mormons in the swimming pools! )

So I think it may be bad if we make life like a machine, and they're saving old herbs and how they re cultivated for our health. GE foods are not sanctioned by Europe. If you study all the words in the intelligence tests, it's an old saying of the ancients like so often they were, "We learn not for 257 stations in college by the dish, but for life!"

-