Arete

I think it says more about your ego than anything else - or perhaps your communication skills. A famous professor once told me that "If you can't communicate a simple idea to a student of reasonable capability, the problem is not with your student, but with you ability to communicate that idea." Given you consider 75% of the human population "idiots" or "morons" and that you need at least to "dumb things down a bit" for 98% of the population lends itself to the possibility that you are either incredibly poor at communicating, or exaggerating, just a little Additionally - internet tests are not a suitable substitute for an actual IQ test - which is normalized based on the test population - hence of limited applicability to the rest of the population. BTW - I don't think I've ever actually known the IQ of a colleague, or my own for that matter.

The data would suggest that both major US political parties have increased welfare spending. Trying to make it a "liberal" (or otherwise partisan) agenda would seem at best, misinformed, at least according to the data:

Err, pointing out that the author didn't even proof read the title of his video is like saying the Inuit are stupid how, exactly?

It may just be the spelling Nazi in me, but if someone misspells the name Cornell University in their Youtube video entitled "Cornel University "Moon orbit is wrong"" it makes me doubt the judiciousness of their research.

The reason we're pointing out the examples as atypical, is because in both cases the families have financial assets which place them in a position which is not comparable to the majority of people who are below the poverty line. One thing you seem to be overlooking is what happens to a community as a whole when a proportion of the population is destitute - i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slum and the broader societal impacts of inequality - such as crime rate, safety in public spaces, community attitude, etc. To take an extreme example, the impacts of, among other things, extreme inequality in a city like Johannesburg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_South_Africa are going to negatively impact your lifestyle no matter how much money you earn. I think it's perfectly valid to argue over whether or not simply handing out cash vs food stamps vs incentives vs education vs health vs job creation vs raising minimum wage vs etc (e.g. increase welfare spending vs give companies tax breaks to create more jobs) is the best way to invest in the lower end of the socioeconomic scale in order to lift the quality of life for an entire community. A proportion of society will always need some form of support, and with the relationship between interest rates and unemployment (e.g. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/interest-rates-and-jobs-the-fed-watches-unemployment) means that a proportion of people will generally always be unemployed. So it's not a problem that is going to vanish any time soon. On the other hand, arguing that it's unfair for you to have to contribute more than the absolute minimum to that end is somewhat myopic as to the indirect benefits that flow back to the entire community.

Again - the example is atypical. The couple both work and are temporarily living in a smaller house so they can build a much bigger one: "The Tiny House is temporary. The end goal, they say, is to save enough to one day build a bigger home...In the end, it’s going to measure 1,000 square feet and we’re going to build it on the same land." http://finance.yahoo.com/news/living-large-in-a-tiny-house.html Which plenty of people do: e.g http://www.homeimprovementpages.com.au/article/can_i_live_in_a_shed 6.8 million Americans live in small dwellings permanently. They're called trailers. They're generally undesirable places to live. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailer_park http://www.pbs.org/peoplelikeus/resources/stats.html

Yes. http://journals.lww.com/co-obgyn/abstract/1993/12000/child_sexual_abuse.12.aspx http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/99/1/66/ http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J287v02n02_08 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2804%2916771-8/fulltext http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/7/2/189.short

To put a number on extreme poverty in the US (i.e. that is they fall below the UN global threshold for extreme poverty - that is even if they lived in Eritrea their income would deem them to be in poverty) there are approximately 1.5 million people in the US who earn less than $2 a day - and it's a number which is increasing. Contrary to your generalization that welfare most recipients don't generally need welfare, it seems that most (73%) people who receive federal welfare are either elderly or disabled. Are there people on welfare who probably shouldn't be? Of course - and measures to prevent people who don't need welfare getting it should be enforced. Is it a majority? No. The notion that wastage in the welfare system stems largely from people who don't need welfare being given extravagant benefits doesn't seem to ring true, when you look at the data. And despite an overall trend of increasing welfare spending since the 1950's, after 2010, it's actually trending down, post GFC, despite a growing population. The notion that welfare spending is "out of control" also doesn't seem to ring true either, when you look at the data. http://www.usfederalbudget.us/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2014&units=p&chart=40-fed_40-statelocal&title=Total%20Welfare%20Spending Is there waste in the system? There sure is. While US spending on welfare has been trending upwardly, until 2010 after which there has been a reduction, it appears that proportionally less people are actually receiving welfare. So since the mid nineties, it appears that the US welfare system is doing a very poor job of efficiently supporting the people who need it. Rather than generalizing about lazy people stealing from our paychecks so they can have big screen TV's, I would at least posit that the pertinent questions are: 1) Why is it costing more money to support fewer people in poverty, and where is the inefficiency? 2) Why are more Americans slipping into poverty than ever before, and what is the best way to address the issue?

It would be useful for you to define "culture" in this context. Using standard dictionary definitions of culture this statement is nonsensical - unless you do actually mean that the the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group alter gene expression, in which case I'd be interested to know by exactly via what mechanism you think that happens.

Err, yes it would. We know relative shifts in the angle of a given position on the earth changes the observed position of the sun in the sky. That's an observed fact. You may as well be trying to argue that the earth is flat.

I think what you are disagreeing with is reality. Do you understand that the observed position of the sun changes with the seasons? Except, the observed position of the sun, moon and stars all change with the seasons, with the relative shifts in a specific point on earth's surface relative the axis of the earth. People have observed these changes for thousands of years. As such, a 26 degree change in the axis of the earth would cause a significant shift in the observed position of celestial bodies from a given point on earth. As such a shift is not observed, it disproves your test hypothesis conclusively.

Again, changes in the relative angle of the earth to the sun produce substantial changes in the observed angle between the earth and the sun. I.e the angle of the earth's axis produces the seasons - a 26 degree change in that angle would have profound effects on the seasons, and the angle of observation of the sun. Your assertion is trivially proven false. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6h.html

OK - So Macchi Picchu was constructed before the 15th century AD. The temple of the sun was desinged in such a manner so during the June Solstice, the sun shines through a temple window and aligns with both the boulder within and the tip of a nearby mountain peak. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080619-solstice-facts_2.html Still seems to work in 2012: Seems to unequivocally disprove a 26 degree shift int he Earth's axis, at least in the last ~500 years or so. So far, you've only supported them with appeal to ridicule and strawmen, so I'd say your views on evolution are logically devoid. Both components of your argument are not actually a challenge to evolutionary theory, and each are actually encompassed, or even complimentary to its support. a) conserved functional genes across broad organismal groups is actually evidence for common ancestry, not against. b) Intra-population divergence, rather than being contrary to evolutionary theory, is a fundamental component thereof. Variation at the level of the individual is essential to the process.

Another issue is that the "efficiency" of an individual organism to pass its genes on to the next generation is relative to: a) The other organisms in the population. The old adage that you don't need to run faster than the lion, you just have to run faster than the guy next to you applies. If the average contribution of genetic material of an individual to the next generation (fecundity) is F, any value greater than F is going to increase the ratio of your genetic material (and thus you evolutionary potential) relative to the population. As an extreme example, a giant panda will only have 5-8 offspring in its lifetime. Thus, though 8 offspring is relatively extremely low fecundity in comparison with other organisms, it is the level of fecundity that will make you a relatively successful (in evolutionary terms) panda. http://www.wwfchina.org/english/pandacentral/htm/learn_about_giant_panda/panda_q_a/reproduction%20.htm b) The environment. Specialization generally comes at the expense of general application. Becoming extremely efficient in a particular environment generally comes at the expense of being less efficient in other environments - rendering extremely specialized organisms highly vulnerable to environmental changes - and environments constantly change. Thus generalized function, even if it's not optimally adapted to a particular environment is often an extremely successful evolutionary strategy. Specialization and increased adaptation towards a fixed peak fitness or efficiency is only effective if you can be very certain that peak is not currently shifting and will not shift in the future - as once it does a specialized strategy may become highly inefficient. An example is if you're a plant who can highly specialized to live above the treeline on mountains - and thus highly efficient compared to your competitors in such an extreme environment - as the climate warms and the environment changes, the habitat you are optimally efficient in shifts above the top of the mountain, and you are out-competed by less specialized plants in a changed environment - thus going locally extinct. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4096792

I think Ophiolite's point is, that on average, you would have to meet 50 million people - or the equivalent of the entire population of South Korea to meet 100 people with IQ's of 170 or over. This makes the claim that you have met 100 people with IQ's over 170 seem considerably implausible.

"Most people with Robertsonian translocations have only 45 chromosomes in each of their cells, yet all essential genetic material is present, and they appear normal" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertsonian_translocation

You're right - I meant the seals and sea lions (i.e. pinnepeds).

The closest extant relative of the baleen whales is thought to be the hippo - http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1412/2251.short And the toothed whales are most closely related to ursoids (bears) with a semi aquatic mammalian carnivore likely the most common ancestor. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7241/full/nature07985.html

As previously cited, a species evolving into another species has been directly observed. It happens - that's unequivocal. The link doesn't support the assertion. First - organisms exist in multiple states from lethally antagonistic to entirely dependent on each other. Everything about nature is certainly not in symbiosis - http://biology.mcgill.ca/faculty/bell/articles/31.BellMaynardSmith_1987_Nature327.pdf http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2527535?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083 Succession and disturbance are natural forces. The assertion that nature is in "constant equilibrium is trivially proven false - e.g. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2261392?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00001223?LI=true http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/ab/2008/00000058/00000004/art00006 These dynamics are not constant: see trophic cascade http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_cascade This is a strawman argument - fish and whales are very distantly related. Nevertheless - rapid shifts in body size have been observed: A 100% change in body size within human time scale observed in snakes for example: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2409767?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101642105083 Simply untrue. Evolutionary theory makes no such prediction - therefore not only is the argument from incredulity logically flawed in of itself, it's leveled at a strawman.

Wait - so this entire perception of your intellect comes from a single IQ test you did ~20 years ago when you were 8 years old? I think you'll have a tough time justifying why your personal sexual preferences are a) extrapolatable to anyone else, let alone an entire phenotype of humans; and b) driving any diversification through differential selection, let alone any strong enough to drive sympatric speciation.

Here's where your story begins to become particularly implausible. One in several tens of millions of people will have an IQ score this high. The chances of encountering not one, but many in a lifetime as to have had asked such individuals the same question on numerous occasions and formed a generalization as to the reply to that question - unless you frequent global consortiums of geniuses on a regular basis - is far fetched.

If you're looking to gel purify a DNA fragment, using a higher percentage agarose gel will make the DNA run slower. Therefore you can run the gel longer and get more physical separation of different size fragments, making cutting out the target band easier. tldr: Yes, it will work.

While I empathize with your lack of employment, it remains that empirical study demonstrates the opposite to what you are stating and your experience is anecdotal. We have only your personal, subjective perception that your ability to perform well on a standardized analytical intelligence test was the reason you were deemed unacceptable for employment. My anectdotal experience is contrary to yours - I work in a well known, private university in the US where, while no one ever discusses IQ scores, intelligence is celebrated. I have however seen people be unsuccessful at interview, or fail to get tenure due to being perceived as abrasive, a "poor fit" for the department, arrogant, or otherwise unable to easily integrate socially into the department. No one wants to work with someone who will be difficult to get along with - and in my experience, even at a university which demands the highest level of academic achievement, IQ means naught if you can't interact well with the rest of the people you work with. Humans have it way easier than what? People with high IQ's are not a different species. China has over a billion people. Why are you extrapolating your personal preference for partners based on IQ applies to everyone in your position? IQ tests are normalized. They can't be abnormally distributed, by definition. Not by any standard definition of species. This statement is simply biologically false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species#Definitions_of_species Any decent experimental design would control for the IQ of the test population and specifically not test special cases. IQ can be affected by nutrition, peer association, exposure to toxins like lead, educational environment, social stability, etc. The high environmental quotient, and temporal variability of IQ are a couple of the many factors that make the premise of this entire thread fundamentally flawed. The rest of your post discusses the variability in IQ - which in turn makes it a poor indicator of what is likely a multigenic, complex trait in any case.

False. IQ positively correlates with increased job performance and employment. You are more likely to have a job if you have a high IQ score. http://www.iq-tests.eu/iq-test-Practical-validity-800.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289609001226 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01786.x/abstract Actually, speciation is less likely in populations with high effective population sizes. The large human population size, in concert with extremely high migration rates makes speciation in humans under current circumstances extremely unlikely. Speciation is not "running" at all in humans, who are clinally differentiated. http://www.pnas.org/content/78/6/3721.short http://www.sciencedi...002929709001578 IQ is highly plastic and enviromentally influenced. The IQ of the parents is not necessarily a predictor of the offspring, e.g. "The models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero" http://pss.sagepub.c.../14/6/623.short Err, nope. The distribution of IQ scores is normalized and therefore normal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient For a given IQ test, 1 in 500,000 people will score 160. One in several million will score 180. I gave you an example in the previous post of house mice, which are the same species and range between 2n=22 and 2n=60. Whether or not a chromosomal rearrangement will reduced is reduced hybrid fitness or inviability is dependent on the type of rearrangement. It's not currently a seriously considered possibility because there is simply no evidence for it. Speciation due to assortative mating based on IQ is flawed on many levels. For starters, as I stated before it's a normalized measurement specific to a given test population and hence a poor indicator. It's significantly environmentally determined. It's a continuous trait. Finally, if your "cut off" for a mate is shared by only 0.00002% of the population, the most likely outcome for such individuals is removal from the gene pool - given the extreme unlikelihood of finding a mate.

Speciation is a population process. Divergent mate preference will only lead to speciation if the divergent selection pressure is strong enough to cause a sufficient break down of gene flow to allow for the accumulation of fixed differences between populations. Taking your numbers to be IQ scores, the notion is flawed on many levels. A) IQ is normalized. Therefore the average in a given test population is always 100. If you tested MENSA members the mean would be 100. If you test a group of mentally handicapped people, the mean is 100. They aren't globally applicable - even if your test group is large and broadly representative of the global human population, there will be variance between tests. IQ is also variable for an individual - you might score 110 one day and 96 the next if you are tired. B) IQ tests generally have a standard deviation of 15. Using a standard Z table, the probability of a person having an IQ of 170 is 0.000002, or one in 500,000. I would seriously doubt that 1) a dispersed population that small would be able to maintain a significant level of genetic isolation as to become distinct and that 2) you or anyone else can "easily tell" another person is in the top 0.000002% of the population based on IQ. So, the whole concept of mate preference due to IQ driving diversification is implausible. C) The human karyotype is fixed at 2n=46. Chromosomal rearrangements in humans can result in reduced fitness, and thus will be selected against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_abnormalities . Changes in karyotype do not necessarily produce reproductive isolation e.g. mus musculus has karyotypes ranging from 2n=22 to 2n=60. http://www.academia.edu/560026/Staggered_Chromosomal_Hybrid_Zones_in_the_House_Mouse_Relevance_to_Reticulate_Evolution_and_Speciation