May I suggest you spend less time on word gymnastics (i.e. setting up your own definitions of genetic determinism) and more on comprehending other's perspectives with a research, not ideological, hat (and, yes, that includes Gould's book), and focusing on implications.

Perhaps, by having a more meaningful conversation, we would both be closer to reaching the 100% of our potential.

2) What you seem to be doubting is the influence of the environment. Why?"

I know I'm really late to this, but you've got it backwards: there are literally no scientists who think/argue/hypothesize that intelligence is 100% genetic or hereditary. Being a "genetic determinist" in practice means that you think that somewhere between 1% and 99% (and, on average, more like 40% and 80%) of intelligence is hereditary.

There are, on the other hand, quite a few who argue that intelligence is 0% genetic.

As for Crick, it seems he was saved from being burnt at the stake by going off the scene early. " In brief I think it likely that more than half the difference between the average I.Q. of American whites and Negroes is due to genetic reasons, and will not be eliminated by any foreseeable change in the environment" would have gotten him the Watson treatment in 2007, to be sure.

Anyway, it's rather amusing to read this and realize that, by Gould's definition, Alvaro is a genetic determinist.

All that aside, we'd be better off if people stopped reading a 28 year old book by a paleontologist who wanted to advance the blank slate theory, creating a book that essentially everyone in the relevant field thinks is a pile of garbage.

Go argue about twins studies, trans-racial adoption studies, etc, but leave Mr. "IQ tests 80 years ago were biased, so the entire field is junk!" out of it.

Thanks for adding that angle, but I think it confuses things more than clarifies them.

1) No one is doubting the influence of genes. I agree with "Humans are not exempt from the fundamental rules of biology"

2) What you seem to be doubting is the influence of the environment. Why?

3) The statement "Dog breeds and human races are directly analogous as sub-groups within the respective species." is highly suspicious

4) Even if it were, humans and dogs are different species, correct? and it is humans who domesticate dogs, not the other way, right? so perhaps, no matter what you say about dogs, that is not the most relevant in our debate regarding the human species

5) Can you please explain the Flynn effect?

6) Malcolm Gladwell just published a great article on this,
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2007/12/17/071217crbo_books_gladwell

All domestic dogs, from Chihuahua to Great Dane, are species canis familiaris; breed genetic differences result from enforced separations by breeders/trainers for the last 800 years. Domestic dogs are all one species. Similarly, all humans are species homo sapiens with race differences resulting from separation over thousands of years by geographic barriers. Dog breeds and human races are directly analogous as sub-groups within the respective species.
Much can be learned from studying dogs; medical science does a great deal of this to avoid experimentation on humans. The brain is no exception, as dog brain structure and information flow processes are quite similar to that in humans. Numerous dog brain studies to analyze human brain diseases/conditions are in the medical literature.

Any experienced dog breeder will acknowledge the profound influence of genetics on intelligence and behavior. Traits such as trainability, aggression, prey drive, docility, bite inhibition are highly heritable and difficult to modify. Extensive evaluations of dog intelligence have developed breed rankings according to ease of training (number of repetitions needed to learn a command) and reliability (percent of time) of correct response to learned commands. Instinctive ability to to take correct action in complex situations is also recognized to vary with breed (there is a valid reason police K-9 units use German Shepherds instead of Pit Bulls). Among dog breeds, there is a huge Achievement_Gap, and it is GENETIC. This is all easily Googled…

Humans are not exempt from the fundamental rules of biology. Rushton’s publications (and James Watson’s recent comments) are heavily-supported with mountains of peer-reviewed research by well-credentialed scholars; numerous key citations are available in two recent books: Hart "Understanding Human History" and Lynn "Race Differences in Intelligence."

"Regarding Crick I think that this triggers my racist bells “He went on to say that although he hopes all races are equally intelligent, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."”

You meant Watson.

(I have the same problem with Abbott and Costello.)

Clearly it is a mixture of things. What appears to happen, though, is that someone will propose that a certain group has a higher average intelligence (Let us say, 'philosophers' have a higher average intelligence than 'ditch diggers' or 'people in Manhattan' have a higher average IQ than 'people in the middle of Texas'). Those groups that are maligned then kick back and insist that one can’t say that. Rather less an argument that it isn’t true and more one that you “just can’t say it” because then you might try to use it for somthing. And one side debates with logic and the other with more of a ‘aren’t they disgusting and mean” sort of approach.

(having siad that sometimes they are jsut plain racist ofcourse)

Regarding the Flynn effect, I guess it depends on what you call intelligence. I read the Flynn effect according Flynn was explained by how we organize information - i.e. it didn’t refer to a change in processing speed - just a change in the way the information being processed was organized. That’s one theory anyway.

It would seem however that as IQ tests get better it gets more constant (Of course we would discard a IQ methodology that got a less constant result!). But if for some reason one had to discard ‘IQ” and instead use a new measure for ‘g’ I don’t think people would be very worried.

I note that I had an IQ test at a very young age and another reasonably recently both under proper test conditions – and got an identical result (yes not a single point of difference). Apparently the vast majority of my life and all that education made no difference at all.

Regarding Crick I think that this triggers my racist bells “He went on to say that although he hopes all races are equally intelligent, "people who have to deal with black employees find this is not true."” But there could be a valuable piece of truth in “he is "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” (although the truth might be dangerous, and if someone honestly says so I can respect that)

Even if our intelligence happens to be absolutely identical across races – it won’t be 'the same' on average (ie of exactly the same type). One model that seems to have some relation to reality is that people are most able to deal with capitalism in places where they have (as a genealogical line) had the longest exposure to money (again potentially dangerous but also implies that changes happen over 'short' period of time).

Thanks for the Wikipedia link.

No one doubts genetics has an influence. Even an strong influence. The point is that that factor is way less deterministic than the other examples you mention, like skin and eye colour. Our point is not that genes have no influence. It is that intelligence is not fixed, innate.

Have you read about the Flynn effect? do you think our genes have changed so much in 50 years to make us all now, on average, 15-20 points more "intelligent" (IQ) than 50 years ago?