thompsonx -> RE: Another Bigot Leaves Heritage Foundation..... (5/13/2013 3:31:49 PM)
|
quote:
Let's just take last 2 sentences and see what they say: Children’s genetic ancestry, then, is hardly a surefire predictor of what their own potential is likely to be. Genetic ancestry is not a surefire predictor. By stating that it is hardly a surefire predictor actually says it is a predictor, just not a surefire one. Only to someone who cannot speak english. quote:
Which, not surprisingly, does say that genetic ancestry does play a role. Imagine that. But, let's go on to the next sentence... No that is the interpretation put on it by the poster. If the article had ment that they woould have said that. They would have said that genetic ancestry is a predictor at this %...they did not say that but the post seems to believe othewise. Environment also makes an appreciable difference, as we shall now see. The article started off with hereditary factors and then goes on to environment. So, when they state "[e]nvironment also makes an appreciable difference," the key word there is "also." So, what it's saying is that environment makes an appreciable difference, as well as the other factors discussed. And, let's see, what did they already discuss? Oh, yeah, that's right, heredity. Huh. This post is saying that iq( which has yet to be defined )is affectd by both genetics and environment. This post has an almost uncanny grasp of the obvious. The question remains how does this truism relate to the bigoted document listed in the op? Does the disertation say that genetics and environment have an effect on iq or does the dissertation point out that these inferior mexicans will never achieve paraty with anglos because of their inferior genetic make up?
|
|
|
|