Differences in Educational Achievement Owe More to Genetics than Environment

Medical Xpress, December 11, 2013

The degree to which students’ exam scores differ owes more to their genes than to their teachers, schools or family environments, according to new research from King’s College London published today in PLOS ONE.

The study, which took place in the UK, looked at students’ scores for their GCSE’s (General Certificate of Secondary Education), a UK-wide examination at the end of compulsory education at 16 years old.

The authors explain that the findings do not imply that educational achievement is genetically pre-determined, or that environmental interventions are not important, but rather that recognising the importance of children’s natural predispositions may help improve learning.

Researchers compared the GCSE exam scores of over 11,000 identical and non-identical 16 year old twins from the Medical Research Council (MRC) funded Twins Early Development Study (TEDS). Identical twins share 100% of their genes, whereas fraternal (non-identical) twins share on average only half of the genes that vary between people. Therefore, if identical twins’ exam scores are more alike than those of non-identical twins, the difference in exam scores between the two sets of twins is due to genetics, rather than environment.

The researchers found that for compulsory core subjects (English, Mathematics and Science), genetic differences between students explain on average 58% of the differences between GCSE scores. In contrast, 29% of the differences in core subject grades are due to shared environment–such as schools, neighbourhoods or families which twins share. The remaining differences in GCSE scores were explained by non-shared environment, unique to each individual.

Overall, science grades (such as Biology, Chemistry, Physics) were found to be more heritable than Humanities grades (such as Media Studies, Art, Music)–58% vs 42%, respectively.

Nicholas Shakeshaft, PhD student at the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London and lead author of the paper says: “Children differ in how easily they learn at school. Our research shows that differences in students’ educational achievement owe more to nature than nurture. Since we are studying whole populations, this does not mean that genetics explains 60% of an individual’s performance, but rather that genetics explains 60% of the differences between individuals, in the population as it exists at the moment. This means that heritability is not fixed–if environmental influences change, then the influence of genetics on educational achievement may change too.”

{snip}

Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • M.

    And one more slap in the face to the marxists.

    I love it! I love it!

    • WR_the_realist

      The cultural Marxists will ignore this study just like they ignored all the similar studies before it. Most people believe what they want to believe, not what is true. Biblical literalists will ignore the evidence for evolution not matter how much there is and how overwhelming it is. After all, any evidence for evolution must be the work of the devil so must be ignored as one of his deceptions. The left will ignore the evidence for racial differences in cognition no matter how much and how overwhelming it is. After all, any evidence for racial differences in psychology and cognitive ability must be the work of racists so must be ignored as one of their deceptions.

      • Max Krakah

        There is no evidence for evolution, if there was, you could list it in a reply. We have fossils of different species that have come and gone, but we have no fossil evidence for evolution, there is not one fossil o even one “intermediate” species. You obviously do not understand the subject t and think mere fossils prove evolution, they don’t. You also probably do nut understand the difference between adaptation and evolution, they are far from the same thing and even Darwin was quite emphatic about that.

        • Alexandra1973

          I agree.

          If humans evolved from a lower animal, how is it we don’t have a “sixth sense” when danger’s about to strike (animals do) and we lost our “fur coats”?

          How do you explain just about every culture having an account of a huge flood? If anything that fossil record proves a flood.

          • So CAL Snowman

            We do have this “sixth sense” maybe you just have not engaged yours. As humans we can tell when someone is “staring” at us and we feel uneasy when we know we are in a dangerous area (like Detroit or many parts of LA). When us White people are around large groups of non Whites our INSTINCT tells us that we are in danger.

          • Max Krakah

            You have no understanding AT ALL of what you are trying to have a discussion about. I suggest you read the book by BEHE that I mention below. I also suggest you enter the modern world where the is much knowledge of DNA and the internal workings of the cell. I also suggest you stop throwing around words you don’t really understand, such as allele.

          • Sick of it

            Max, evolution as it is taught now was first put forward by the Marxists. The same Marxists who lie about virtually everything.

          • Evelyn Bailey

            my&nbspclassmate’s&nbspmother-in-law&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­K­­­­­­е­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­74&nbspan&nbspհ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ս­­­­­­r&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspі­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­е­­­­­­τ.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbspwithout&nbspW­­­­­­ο­­­­­­r­­­­­­K&nbspfor&nbsp7&nbspΜ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ&nbspher&nbspρ­­­­­­а­­­­У&nbspcheck&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­21848&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­ο­­­­­­r­­­­­­King&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspі­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­е­­­­­­r­­­­­­ո­­­­­­е­­­­­­τ&nbspfor&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­е­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ս­­­­­­rs.&nbspMore&nbspInfo, ….Pe rfe ct2 3 .C o m

            ✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪✪The remaining differences in GCSE scores were explained by non-shared environment, unique to each individual.

          • WR_the_realist

            Darwin was not a Marxist. Neither was Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution through natural selection.

            The mere fact that Marxists accept evolution means nothing. After all, they also accept all of mainstream physics, chemistry, and geology. Just because they advocate a stupid way of organizing society doesn’t mean they are stupid about everything. OTOH, some Nazis, much loved by you Stormfronters, rejected the theory of relativity simply because its chief discoverer was Jewish.

          • Max Krakah

            Michael Behe soundly disproved Darwin’s theory in his 1996 book “Darwin’s Black Box”. Most evolutionists are not intelligent enough to read that book, let alone understand it. Darwin knew nothing about what was inside cells, nor DNA nor anything else that we know about today. The laws of chance say that random mutations would never be able to create a useful change that would make an organism more “fit”. Each random mutation would, by itself either make an organism LESS fit, or at best, have a neutral impact on the survival of the organism and it’s reproductive success. Hundreds or thousands of INDIVIDUAL random mutations would be necessary to create a useful organ such as a limb, and eye, lungs, etc. Without them all happening simultaneously, which is against all laws of chance and presupposes a miracle or an intelligent will, each mutation will NOT provide a survival advantage. People who still think they are enlightened because they believe in “Evolution” are in fact showcasing their ignorance, their ignorance or REAL science that has happened in the past 50 years.

          • WR_the_realist

            Our eye is an engineering botch. The retinal cells point backwards. The light sensitive portion points back into your brain, the connections to the neurons are in the front. This has several drawbacks. There is an extra layer of capillaries and retinal cells that the light has to get through, so our eyes are less sensitive than they could be. (Some animals have a reflective layer behind the retina that gives the photons a second chance at being detected, which is why cat’s eyes shine in the dark. But we primates don’t even have that.) Also, it is necessary for the nerves from retinal cells to gather together and plunge through a hole in the retina to get to the brain. This results in two large blind spots, one in each eye. We all have them, although our brains are wired to ignore their existence most of the time. Finally, this backwards design results in a retina that is not very well attached to the back of the eye. So we are more susceptible to retinal detachment than we should be.

            Humans and other organisms show ample evidence of local optimization but little evidence of global optimization. This is what we would expect from evolution, but not from intelligent design.

          • Max Krakah

            pure nonsense, a post using many words that says absolutely nothing.

          • WR_the_realist

            This is funny, because the gist of Behe’s argument is that living organisms include systems that could only have come about through global optimization, essentially, getting everything right all at once. So it is entirely relevant to show how these systems could come about through local optimizations instead.

            The terms “local optimization” and “global optimization” were not invented by me. Anybody who works with evolving systems, whether natural or artificial, is familiar with these concepts.

          • Brian

            even the evolutionists, the one who are not armchair scientists like
            yourself, concede they have no counter argument for his book.
            ===
            No, they don’t concede that. Quit lying.

          • Brian

            Don’t forget the nictitating membrane in the inner corner of our eyes, a remnant of the third eyelid that birds of prey, dogs, and some fish have.

          • Brian

            We know all the steps of eye evolution, and have animals of different species right now who exhibit the various stages. Evolution works through ratcheting step by step, where each stage provides utility beyond what came before. You don’t have to go from nothing to a full bird wing all at once to gain utility from intermediate stages. There is no requirement for hundreds of mutations simultaneously. And natural selection is not random at all. Most mutations are negative, some are neutral, and a few are positive. The positive ones get kept, and the negative ones are killed off. Mutation is not even the only grist for the mill anyway…ever heard of epigenetics?

            You are embarrassing yourself.

          • Max Krakah

            ” Evolution works through ratcheting step by step”….. EXCEPT THAT THAT IS NOT THE WAY IT HAPPENED ACCORDING TO THE FOSSIL RECORD! In the Cambrian period, known as the Cambrian explosion, all the phyla of animal life just appeared, in the fossils from the outset of the Cambrian era are small worms and sponges. Then suddenly we have an abundance of life, with fully formed organs, eyes etc. There were no light sensitive pits that evolved. It all just sprang into being, and that is according to the fossil record. BUT if you are NOT a scientist and operate on FAITH, then you will still believe in evolution, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

          • Brian

            If you can’t even be bothered to read the wikipedia page and get some basic facts right (all phyla of animal life just appeared– BZZT) I don’t know what to tell you. Creationism is in the same territory as flat-earthism. Wishing otherwise doesn’t make it so.

          • Max Krakah

            just because Darwin’s theory is wrong does not mean that that proves the Bible’s version is correct. Evolutionists NEED the bible to be wrong, creationists, intelligent designists and all others who see the Darwin theory as cheap pseudoscientists do not need the bible to be true.

          • So CAL Snowman

            Evolution and God are not mutually exclusive. Darwin himself was a firm believer in God.

          • WR_the_realist

            And so was evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky. who was Russian Orthodox. He wrote an essay, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution”. He argued that refusing to accept evolution is tantamount to claiming that God deliberately created thousands of deceptions in both rocks and genes, and so is blasphemous.

          • robinbishop34

            I’m jumping into an debate here but I’m in no way participating in it. As I read through it just brings up something that I thought of when I was about 15 years old while staying at my grandparents house about 60 miles outside of the city where I lived.

            Being in an rural area I was fascinated at how the sky was lit up with stars. I laid on the top of a retaining wall that ran along side their house and just began wondering about the origins of everything (not in a religious or spiritual way).

            Eventually my mind began trying to reconcile the concept of ‘nothing.’ I’m not speaking in philosophical abstractions but in the literal idea of ‘nothing.’ No air, no elements, no planets, no space, no temperature, no energy, no void, and finally no God.

            If one just tries to drill down what we actually know it’s just as impossible to understand how even the simplest organism was spontaneously created as was the concept of a complex universe that is admittedly beyond human comprehension.

          • saxonsun

            Quite so. In fact, maybe God works through evolution.

          • Brian

            That is possible. But it would be hard to reconcile with the idea of a benevolent God, at least as we understand the idea. I suppose God can allow all sorts of wicked things, suffering and death, if it serves some larger plan of goodness…but the direct evidence seems unnecessarily cruel. Think of all the short-necked giraffes who must have starved from not quite being able to reach that extra tree leaf. And the one lucky sibling with the slightly longer neck barely lives…rinse and repeat, millions of times. If God could just snap his fingers and make the current giraffe as is, it would seem to be ‘nicer’.

          • saxonsun

            The Bible is just a mishmash of stupid tales no sane person would believe. Anyone who is credulous enough to buy it is clinically insane. And evolution is fact, not theory. Just go to the Museum of Natural History in NYC and look at the evolution of the horse. You cannot deny what your eyes tell you. Although I have no doubt that the bible nuts on this board would do so. You people do our cause no favors whatsoever.

          • WhiteGuyInJapan

            1.We do have a “sixth sense” of danger, coming from the amygdala which deals with fight or flight responses to danger. It is found in both simple and complex animals and it is sometimes referred to as the “lizard brain” (largely in literary portrayals).
            2. Why we lost our fur? Some evidence indicates that milions of years ago, proto-hominids were semi-aquatic mammals and fur gets in the way. The second theory is that in the African savannahs, furry upright hominids would get too hot and die. Our ancestors gradually “lost” most of their over successive generations.
            3. Do all human culture have an account of a great flood? I am aware of most of the Middle Eastern societies having a myth/story of a flood, but I have not heard anything similar from South American groups. Not challenging you at all, honest question.

          • Brian

            Good, but small nitpick. The amygdala is not technically a ‘sense’, as it’s part of the brain and not an organ that captures data from the world for the brain to process. It is part of the processing of what comes in from the other senses.

          • Brian

            Every culture has an account of a huge flood, because huge floods occur periodically. However, floods that cover the entire world 20 feet above the highest mountains, 6 miles of water above sea level, do not ever occur.

            If humans evolved from a lower animal, how is it we don’t have a “sixth sense” when danger’s about to strike (animals do) and we lost our “fur coats”?
            ===
            Animals do not have a sixth sense of danger. They merely use their normal senses in a different way than we do. I know danger’s afoot when I see a group of young black men with sagging pants, but that only involves my eyes.

            We lost most of the fur because we have the ability to sweat.

        • So CAL Snowman

          I think it is YOU that does not understand the subject. First of all, the conditions for fossilization are very explicit. An animal that collapses and dies doesn’t just become a fossil, the vast majority of fossilized animals must become trapped in sediment. Therefore an extremely small amount of all of the life on Earth that has ever lived is recorded in the fossil record. Furthermore your insistence on “intermediate species” is nonsense. There are no “intermediate species” only species. There are no half fish half frog creatures or half man half ape creature because they NEVER existed.

          Evolution is simply a change in allele frequencies over a period of time in a POPULATION.

          • Max Krakah

            So I am correct, you have no evidence of an intermediary species. All you have is the laughable suggestion that intermediary species are magically incapable of being fossilized the same as all other species have been fossilize.

          • M.

            There’s no intermediate species because animals don’t evolve from one species to another, but branch off.
            Humans didn’t evolve directly from apes, but rather apes and humans evolved apart from a single human/ape-like species.

            When two groups of a single stock go each their own way, and become isolated geographically, they both respond to different environmental pressures, and evolve apart differently. Until they become genetically far enough to no interbreed, thus becoming different species. The process is called the speciation.
            If blacks and whites remained segregated for another, say 30,000 years, chances are we would become completely different species, and interbreeding would probably become impossible.

          • Max Krakah

            You too do not seem understand the issue and confuse many things. Adaptation is not evolution, and it does not create a new “Species”. A pit bull and a chihuahua are still part of the same SPECIES. Intermediate species are absolutely FUNDAMENTAL to Darwinism. To deny that they ever existed is to deny evolution. You too contradict yourself in your first paragraph “animals don’t evolve into different species” and then the next sentence “apes and humans evolved from….”
            You make no sense.

          • M.

            The longer stocks remain isolated, the more pronounced their phenotypical and genetic differences become. If they remain isolated long enough, there won’t share enough genetic material to interbreed, thus becoming two different species. That’s how the speciation process works. And that’s how humans became different from apes.
            The ape-like species didn’t transform into another species by itself, but rather saw two stocks of its offspring separate and evolve apart. These two stocks (or descendants thereof) became more and more different. Different environmental pressures selected for different traits. One became human, and one an ape. This happened gradually over millions of years.
            The speciation process is succinctly explained here: http://youtu(dot)be/zNwHXpGZA9g?t=26m46s

            Pitbull and chihuahuas are still part of the same species because they haven’t evolved apart far enough to become two distinct species. They still share enough genetic material to interbreed. They’re just different races.

          • Brian

            The concept of an ‘intermediate species’ is completely arbitrary. There is no clean break when one species ‘transforms’ into another. It’s a continuous, gradual progression. Your confusion stems from not understanding that we only have periodic snapshots of the progression.

          • Max Krakah

            except, it isn’t a continuous gradual progression, not according to the fossil record. There are periods where suddenly many new species just appear, and then there are periods when many of them disappear , There is NO GRADUAL progression from one species to another in the fossil record. There are no intermediate species and that is what the theory of evolution is all about. One can not say that some amphibians seem like fish and that makes them an intermediate species. There is no reason why some species can not have some similarities.

          • Brian

            _EVERY_ species is intermediary to what came after it and before it. As for the fossil record, what exactly do you expect? To dig in the ground and find one fossil crammed right on top of another, going three miles down? Do you expect to find a representative skeleton preserved for every single generation? That is not remotely how it works. Fossils are formed only rarely. It’s hard for something to be preserved for millions of years. And we don’t dig most places. Have you dug up every square inch of your backyard? The evidence we find left behind is scattered and sparse, because of the nature of the search and the nature of the fossil formation. We take snapshots, and use deduction to connect the dots. Can you see a picture of George Bush at 20, and another at 30, and gain some notion of what happened in between, or not? Uh oh, there’s no ‘intermediate photo’, so I guess GB20 died and was replaced miraculously by GB30. Is this your actual ‘logic’ here?

          • Max Krakah

            Pure nonsense. You can not just claim all species are intermediary species. The fossil record is CLEAR. Many species suddenly appear, remain unchanged for millennia, then disappear. There is never any gradual change from one to another or towards one of the new species that emerge in the next period. They simply appear, endure for awhile remaining the same the whole time, then they disappear. THAT IS THE FOSSIL RECORD! Ignorance such as you voiced should be kept to oneself.

          • Brian

            …C-D-E-F-G-H… everything has something before and after– that means they’re all intermediary. You do realize the fossil record is not the only evidence for evolution, right? There’s a little old thing called molecular biology for example.

          • WR_the_realist

            There are usually no currently living intermediate species. But over a long time line we would certainly see intermediate species, and the fossil record supports this.

          • Sick of it

            Explain that to one of my former professors, who has studied the fossil record all over the world, rather than wasting his time listening to Marxist lectures based on hot air.

          • Max Krakah

            No, it doesn’t there has never been an intermediate species, ever, in the fossil record.

          • WR_the_realist

            There are plenty of “intermediary species”. But the anti-evolutionists play a game akin to Zeno’s paradox. Remember that Zeno “proved” that a hare could never overtake a tortoise if the tortoise was given a small head start. After all, by the time the hare got to the tortoise’s starting point A, the tortoise will have moved further so some point B, and by the time the hare gets to point B, the tortoise has moved further to some point C, etc. When paleontologists discover some new species B that clearly lies between species A and C in the evolutionary chain, the anti-evolutionists point out that there is no species D between A and B, and no species E between B and C. If paleontologists come up with such a D and E, the anti-evolutionists point out that they’re now missing four species — between A and D, D and B, B and E, and E and C. And so on. So the anti-evolutionists have rigged a game they can’t lose. But one that convinces no one but themselves.

          • Brian

            Do you have a photograph of yourself from every single day of your life, or only every so often? How do we know you actually grew smoothly from a baby to an adult, instead of these photos being of various babies, children, teens and adults mysteriously dying and new ones being created from thin air? Show us the missing link photos!

          • Max Krakah

            sophistry, the last refuge of the moron

          • Max Krakah

            you do not even seem to understand what Darwin’s theory of evolution is. Intermediate species are FUNDAMENTAL to his theory. YOU are at the same time defending and refuting his theory. You are like a bull in a china shop

          • Non Humans

            I happen to disagree with one of your statements. Half-man Half-ape creatures do exist. They are often the topic here at AmRen, and also in the crime section of your local news source.

          • Guest

            The way I think of it is that I have a photo of myself as a baby, then one from 5 years old, 10 years, 15, and so forth, and it’s pretty easy to accept that they are all of me getting older in a smooth progression. I wouldn’t think that because there’s no photo of 12 yrs, that that other person died and was replaced by a 15-y-o who mysteriously appeared from thin air.

        • WR_the_realist

          I suspect I understand the subject a whole lot better than you do.

          • Max Krakah

            You have proved that you don’t. I suspect the BEHE understands it much better than you THINK you do.

          • WR_the_realist

            Wow. You read one book. I’ve read dozens on the subject.

          • Max Krakah

            and they all were refuted by that one book :). I could read a dozen books on how the earth is flat, that doesn’t make it flat.

          • WR_the_realist

            Actually, you read the one book that “proved” the earth is flat.

          • Max Krakah

            childish

          • WR_the_realist

            I have found that it is as pointless to argue with the anti-evolutionists as it is to argue with the absolute believers in equality among humans in all cognitive matters. Their minds are made up, and impervious to argument.

          • hopeis4losers

            “amen” – i recommended shubin’s “your inner fish” above, then read the rest of the comment string to my horror – yikes – scary! no wonder dawkins & coyne are so rude about it. shubin is nice, matter of fact, & RIGHT (based on science, peer reviewed evidence, etc.)

          • Sick of it

            The egalitarians are 100% pro-evolution…because they made it up.

          • Max Krakah

            yes, yours is

          • Non Humans

            Says the one who starts nearly every response with an insult, tort, or otherwise sharp tongue. There is another group who does that because their very own debate skills are poor…Liberals!
            .
            Thing is Max Krakah, I havent seen you provide any evidence to support your argument. What proof do you have.

          • Max Krakah

            you are the ones who wish to prove the theory of evolution, and it has not been able to do that, not in the fossil record, not in the proposed mechanisms of action. It offers nothing but, “Yeah, but ii COULD happen this way” To which I say, no it could not, the laws of chance rule it out completely. The burden of proof is on the evolutionists. They have failed. Evolutionists have never had one shred of proof. AS our understanding of molecular biology has grown we see now how utterly impossible and ridiculous the whole idea is. As tyne fossil record shows, there is no record of it at all.Now you ask me to prove a negative, you ask me to prove that evolution is “not” true. Come on now, be a little bit honest here and admit you are asking me to prove a negative, and that shows a really low IQ.

          • Brian

            Proving a negative is possible. Can’t you prove there is no elephant in the room with you now?

          • Non Humans

            You’re trying to express belief in one theory, while others another. Why do you feel it wholly unnecessary to provide anything supporting your beliefs, while demanding it of others? (Even though their minds are already made up regardless of any proof or evidence submitted) That is very much what liberals do.
            .
            How is it that you are so adamant about a theory that cannot be proven?

        • hopeis4losers

          you might try reading neil shubin’s “your inner fish” & then get back to me. YOU do NOT understand the concept of evolution correctly – that’s the problem. shubin’s book is the clearest most concise in that field, & has no axe to grind like Dawkins & Coyne, etc. try it – you might (as i did) find yourself saying “holey moley!” & having more awe from reading that than from reading the Bible (which i’ve also read). read shubin – see what you think. the evidence is actually INSIDE you!

          • Max Krakah

            well, you might try reading Behe’s book, and you might go “holly molly” and trash shubin’s book. As long as we are giving each other reading lists here, read it.

      • Erasmus

        As I was growing up attitudes, behavior and lack of intelligence that would have made me think of any white kid as retarded had he exhibited them, seen in the few black kids I knew, I just dismissed as part of being black. While there are a few bright ones, most really are not very bright, and wasting scarce resources trying to bring up to the level of achievement of their white counterparts is downright irresponsible.

  • Spartacus

    Ok. Now – where’s the comparison by race ?

    • M.

      The racial aspect is implicit. If it’s genetic than it has to do with ancestry. With the stock. And if you say “stock”, you ultimately say “race”.

      • Spartacus

        I know. But they’re not saying it…

        • Lt_Greyman_NVA

          Yes, because they don’t want to appear “racist!”

  • Talltrees

    “It means that educational systems which are sensitive to children’s individual abilities and needs, which are derived in part from their genetic predispositions, might improve educational achievement.”
    We know what that means. If schools are dumbed down enough to accommodate those deficient in intellectual ability in the name of egalitarianism, all students will make A’s. See…everyone is Menza qualified. Liberals win.

    • So CAL Snowman

      OR it could be interpreted to mean that we need more teachers “of color” and more non White history and culture in our classrooms in order to cater to the wonderful world of diversity (even though we are all the same and race is a social construct).

  • Lord_Steven_Regal

    People that already recognize this obvious truth don’t need a study to confirm it, and people that refuse to accept this obvious truth will either not apply it to race since their is no mention of race or they will denounce it as racist pseudo-science of they recognize that this study identifies the root cause of the racial academic gap.

  • Luca

    The studies of identical twins separated at birth, give a far more convincing argument for genetics being a dominant factor in many things, including intelligence.

    I think the findings in this study were purposely lowered for political reasons. I would suggest a ratio of 75% nature and 25% nurture.

    • Max Krakah

      Read the last paragraph and see how they cling to the idea that genetics can be somehow overcome.

      • robinbishop34

        There always has to be an escape valve in these studies.

        • Max Krakah

          It’s like a public works project that will never be completed. IT is about continuing the stream of money. What could be better than convincing people to fund an impossible endeavor until the day it is completed, which is never.

  • Daniel Schmuhl

    I grew up in a middle class white family that never really put much emphasis on education. I went to majority black schools and constantly got into trouble because of my Asperger Syndrome. After a few years in college however, I was speaking 3 languages and solving differential equations.

    Bad parenting can make someone’s life worse, but if you can’t master high school math and English then you’re probably just dumb.

  • Strike_Team

    Even with the best genetics, you will need the correct motivation at home to do well, to initiate the habits that will lead to success. However, if you don’t have much to start with…

    This is news? We see the real world results of Darwinism every day, all around us. At least those who are fully aware of what they’re looking at do. The real news is that this saw the light of day in print.

    We all know that there are growing segments of the “American” population that are ineducable as groups. And there are other segments that maximize their potential. Learn from the later, adopt some of their habits. And cut the rest loose.

    • Max Krakah

      I work in a field for which universities and colleges make up one of the three main classifications of clients. I have been to universities all over this country and have had much direct contact with the students. I would say that most blacks in college function at a grade school level when it comes to English and Math. Many do not even make an effort to speak anything other than ebonics and look to get offended if anyone criticizes them for it. On many occasions I have had to have a black person repeat something to me five times, and I STILL could not understand what they were saying. I have seen words such as “handkerchief” written out as “hankerscrif”. These were people who were ADMITTED to the school, so it is obvious they were held to a much lower standard than all other groups admitted. They also almost always major in one of the ridiculous “humanities”. I can only imagine what their papers and other work are like and can only believe that they are given a complete pass. Even then, MOST of them do not graduate. This country has totally wasted a huge amount of wealth on these worthless creatures.

      • Romulus

        The federal government is loaded with that of what you speak. Still, I’d prefer them shining my shoes than taking control of our country, Even if a substantial percentage of their population had the brains of Benjamin Carson.

      • IstvanIN

        Blacks seem to have a problem with “th”, pronouncing it as if it were an “f” or “d”: dey for they or teef for teeth.

        • Brian

          Is that because of the fat lips? They would have more trouble separating the lips to produce the ‘th’ I think.

        • Max Krakah

          They have a problem with consonants in general, and I chalk it up to sheer laziness. One one was saying the word “geyng”. I asked him numerous times to repeat the sentence. It was supposed to be the word “getting”. I didn’t know if he was talking about a “gang” or if he was saying “ging” and that was supposed to mean some ghetto thing. Can you imagine this guy working anywhere? At a McDonalds counter, such miscommunications do not lead to life threatening circumstances, but what if he becones an Affirmative Action Air Traffic Control officer, or a surgeon, or a 911 operator?

  • Ragehol .

    Twin studies showed this for the past century. The new thing is to call this scientific tool that has yielded reliable and consistent results for a century “controversial” and attack the methodology of it.

    It is only controversial because it goes against the One World Government people who through race, ethnicity and nation away to make the world’s population their Science Fair Project with predictably disastrous results every time!

    • IstvanIN

      The most amazing twin studies are those of twins separated at birth and raised by different adoptive families. It is amazing how similar their lives turn out.

  • JohnEngelman

    I hope the people who did this research and came to these findings keep their jobs as a result.

    • Luca

      I believe they diluted their findings enough to make them tolerable to the liberal elite.

      Very shortly however, some academic blow hard will produce a report “disputing” some fine points of the study whereby the authors forgot a punctuation mark and then from that point forward the liberal elite will be able to claim that this study has been “thoroughly discredited and refuted.”

  • Alexandra1973

    It seems to me that the pro-gay crowd claims a so-called “gay gene” (which has never been proven to exist) makes people gay, but most if not all of this same crowd will scream “racism!” at the suggestion of genetic differences amongst the races.

    • Max Krakah

      No, only the negative differences. One is allowed to think blacks are superior athletes, and dancers, and singers, one is not allowed to think whites are in any way superior to blacks or that blacks are in any way inferior. The irony is that while those who claims race is just a “social construct” also believe that there is a race called blacks, and they are mistreated by a race called whites.

      • Alexandra1973

        Basically they’re trying to have their cake and eat it too, is what it boils down to.

        • Max Krakah

          Yes, but it is disgusting how thoroughly the negro worship is these days and how they are even inserted into new productions, by the BBC, of Agatha Christie stories.

          • Katherine McChesney

            Speaking of that the producers of the new “Sound of Music” hired a black woman to play a RCC nun in 1940’s Austria.

            Furthermore, David Suchet hired blacks to play characters in Poirot. Roles blacks would never have held in the Art Deco Period.
            Downton Abbey has jumped that negro shark this coming season.

          • Sick of it

            Surely not a black Poirot? That would ruin one of my favorite detectives.

          • WR_the_realist

            WR’s Axiom: For any classic movie, play, or television show that has a white person in an important positive role, there will eventually be a remake in which the positive role goes to a black person. OTOH, white villians always remain white villians.

          • Max Krakah

            NO, not Poirot, but characters in the series.

          • Max Krakah

            Yes, I have noticed all of those instances.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        Who says Whites can’t dance? Or that White men can’t Jump?

    • Evette Coutier

      There is no gay gene. Gay occurs during the development embryonic stages of development. The body and the brain do not differentiate into gender at the same time. Hormonal and genetic factors can cause a body to remain female while the brain becomes male and visa versa. Also, the buffons who say race is not genetic are liars or fools. Your genetic material is so specific by race tests can be done that tell you specifically the percent of what race you are genetically. We live in a world were fact is racist and politically incorrect, and lies and political fiction has replaced the academic search for an understanding of the natural world.

      • Max Krakah

        female brains are about 10% smaller than male brains, but the brains of gay male’s are not smaller, as female brains are. What evidence do you have, other than sheer conjecture, that the brains of gay males are actually female brains? I remember reading about this years ago and in some respects, gay males show behavior that is hyper masculine while in other respects they show behavior that may be more feminine. For instance, women are much more likely to form emotional attachments regarding sex, and they are much less likely than men to engage in anonymous sex. Contrast that with gay male sexual behavior which is extremely impersonal and anonymous and promiscuous. Women are very verbal while gay men often do not have any verbal communication with sexual partners.

        • Evette Coutier

          This came from a friend of mine at University who was a professor of neurological medicine. The brain size is not pertinent to dimorphic differentiation. Behavioral traits such as sexual behavior may be a result of greater levels of androgens in conjunction with the female brain. There have been studies on female body builders sexuality who used testosterone and the resultant effects on their sexuality, and those studies support this hypothesis.

          I don’t appreciate you condescending comments considering by your statements it is evident you don’t have any real background in the subject.

  • IstvanIN

    Someone with an innate IQ of 85 will never be turned into a Thomas Edison or Marie Curie. The basic building blocks are simply not there. I will concur with the environmental factor in that a child can be helped to achieve his or her best if provided with a good environment. Two parents who take an active interest in their child’s education, provide a stable, loving home life, with appropriate discipline, will no doubt do better in school than the child with no father, a mother who is uninvolved and running around with assorted boyfriends, or is traded off from family member to family member.

    Sure, some people can overcome tremendous adversity to succeed in life, but even that drive is probably largely genetically determined.

    As for the seemingly equal results in “media studies” (film or radio?), art and music, I don’t believe that for the simple fact that grades in those subjects are much more subjective. 2+2 will eternally equal 4 but what is considered fine art has evolved with society in many people’s minds.

  • withcaution

    Even a few of the less think socialists have been realizing this for years. It’s why they’ve changed their tune from “equality” to “embracing diversity”. The point being nothings really changed, just a different name.

  • Anna Tree

    Atheist don’t hate god, they don’t believe he exists, why would you hate something that doesn’t exist?

    Darwin was actually first a believer, he even wanted to be a clergyman, his wife was the very devote one. He just lost faith gradually studying nature: suffer bothered him (why god would create a wasp who put its eggs in a caterpillar eating it slowly alive) and he accepted that there was no need for a deity/design with the laws of natural selection. He therefor viewed himself as an agnostic. (The death of his daughter also really shake his faith.)

  • WR_the_realist

    One of the most famous is Archeopteryx, a very early bird with a skeleton so like Maniraptoran dinosaurs that had the fossils not had clear impressions of fully formed feathers it would have been classified as a dinosaur. Of course the anti-evolutionists insist that Archeopteryx isn’t an intermediate species. it’s a full fledged bird. Never mind that it had teeth and a long bony tail, as well as other features shared with dinosaurs. Recently a number of early dinosaur like birds and bird like dinosaurs have been discovered, including some feathered dinosaurs that couldn’t fly. The anti-evolutionists would have us believe that each of these species was an independent act of creation with no relationship to each other.

    America has so many anti-evolutionists that its become the laughingstock of the educated world.

    • Max Krakah

      IT is now agreed by ALL in the scientific community that archaeopteryx is NOT a transition to nor relation of modern birds. it was a dead end. That is the ONLY example evolutionists have EVER come up with that wasn’t an outright fraud such as putdown man, and it turns out it is NOT an intermediary species as it did not intermediate to anything. IT also had NO predecessors. IT is a rare creation that appeared out of nowhere and went nowhere.

  • Ragehol .

    So lemme get this straight…

    The study says education is…

    58 percent biological
    29 percent environment

    What? That is only 87 percent. What is the other stuff?
    Unique to each individual how?

    But even discounting giving any of the Mystery 13 to genes or environment,
    did this study really mean to say genes were 2 times as potent in their education
    impact than environment? A full 100 percent stronger?

    Oh boy. Hope they had tenure when they published that one. They did try to sugar coat it, but still.

    • WR_the_realist

      In these studies there is always a distinction made between shared environment, which is the part of the environment that two members of the same family have in common, versus unshared environment, which consists of the particular occurrances in your life that made it different from everybody else’s, including your siblings. This can include the books you read, the friends you had, etc. Shared environment, which includes thinks like schools and neighborhoods, are the things leftists believe they can control. Typically shared environment accounts for 30% of the variance in IQ in studies of this sort, while the remaining 70% is split in some way between genes and unshared environment.

      So grand social programs can at best tweak the 30% of IQ variation that is due to shared environment.

    • dwpittelli

      1) The numbers don’t have to total 100%, even if we were to define the two terms such that everything we know about the child belongs in one of the two categories. There could also be a random factor.

      2) Note that the 58/29 (2/1) ratio is not a fixed attribute of mankind, but rather reflects wherever they did the study (presumably seen by the researchers as a “normal” environment. Where kids have similar environments — such as within a socioeconomically homogeneous village — environmental factors will be less important. Where kids have widely varying environments — say, a town where half the kids have bourgeois parents, and half live on the Manson commune — environmental factors will be much more important.

      • Ragehol .

        I’m not buying it. We see in the 21st century United States the huge difference race and genes play. Whites from single parent families and divorced families, with the mother making less than 20 grand a year who barely scrounged up a high school diploma achieve comparable SAT scores to blacks from married households making 200 grand a year or more with both parents having at least a bachelor’s degree and one of them having a MASTERS.

        The White children from broken homes with mothers who barely graduated high school outdo those blacks!

        • Alexandra1973

          Sadly I’m divorced (and praying for reconciliation). I have a high school diploma and I went through a vocational school way back in 1991. I took an SAT in the 7th grade (while sick) and got a high score.

          My son is on the autism spectrum but he’s an outgoing, friendly child, he’ll be 1

        • Brian

          You’re not buying what? What you say about the poor white vs. rich black SAT is caused by genes mostly, but the previous post was saying that these blacks and whites are living in similar conditions in the same country. If you stuck the blacks in Africa and left the whites here, the difference in SAT would be even greater, but that extra difference would be caused by environment.

    • Brian

      The remaining differences in GCSE scores were explained by non-shared environment, unique to each individual.

  • WR_the_realist

    The tetrapod lung evolved from swim bladders. Modern day lungfish have both gills and lungs, and can use the lungs for air breathing. Lungfish are ancient (they first appeared in the Devonian) so this invention has been around for a long time. Tetrapods did not evolve directly from lungfish, but they and lungfish both belong to the Sarcopterygii, the lobe finned fishes, so tetrapods evolved from fish related to lungfish.

    It is not hard to see how lungs would evolve. Fish in oxygen depleted waters will gulp air into their swim bladders in order to supplement their oxygen supply. Fish that happened to have more convolutions within their swim bladders (increasing the surface area) would be able to absorb more oxygen. This is a clear example of where each incremental improvement would have an evolutionary advantage in the right sort of environment (namely, oxygen depleted waters).

    Also, can the anti-evolutionists explain why amphibians are such fishy creatures? Their young swim in the water and have gills. A few species retain gills into adulthood.

  • WR_the_realist

    Nonsense. An eye spot that can simply distinguish light from dark has an evolutionary advantage over no sight at all. All sorts of half assed eye designs can be found in nature. The nautilus eye lacks a lens. It has a tiny opening so acts like a pinhole camera. While that gives it a usable amount of resolution, it is at a cost of a drastic reduction in light gathering capacity. It seems our intelligent designer is always botching the job of making eyes.

    • Max Krakah

      what people who say such things do not understand is that an “eyespot” itself requires thousands of mutations. One genetic mutation does not make an eyespot. It is much more compacted than even a simple flagellum. There are many cells that make up the spot and there are never cells that connect it to a nervous system and there are brain cells that must be able receive and process the stimuli. Posts like yours show immense ignorance. You think ONE mutation will create a useful organ. Never. Not even a flagelum.

      • WR_the_realist

        Golly, thanks for pointing out that eyes have to be hooked up to a nervous system! I hadn’t though of that! Good thing you rescued me from my immense ignorance. Oops – except that some protozoans have light sensitive spots, Euglena have a light sensitive spot at the base of their flagellum. It is used to make the creature move toward the light. No nervous system necessary. So all sorts of eye spot genes could have been lying around before the first nervous system came along to hook them up.

        • Max Krakah

          well, sarcasm does not save your argument. You can not explain where light sensitive cells come from and what makes them an advantage. In order for them to be an advantage, they need to be hooked up to a nervous system. Hundreds of mutations necessary for all of this. You say they all happened at once. You thnk by making the eye a simpler structure with less necessary mutations, it explains it all away. Such paucity of intellect is not really worth my time.Well, so we don’t have to have mutations for an eye socket, lenses to focus, all that stuff.STILL, the number of mutations is not just ONE, that will randomly happen and make something useful. You can’t even explain what mutation is needed to make a cell light sensitive. You have NOTHING but sophistry.

          • WR_the_realist

            I didn’t say anything all happened at once. You’re the one saying that. Tell me, where did all these living things come from? Did your intelligent designer make them, sometimes remembering to put lenses into eyes and sometimes not?

          • Max Krakah

            you are contradicting your own argument. for any of the “mutations” to be useful, and to provide an “advantage” then they would all have to be present at the same time. A mutation that is NOT useful, would NOT provide an advantage, and by DAWIN’S OWN THEORY it would NOT survive long enough for the happy accident that it appear in an organism with hundreds or thousands of other happy accidents that only become useful when they all coexists at the same time. You do not even understand the theory that you are arguing and you are contradicting your own argument. GOOD DAY!

          • WR_the_realist

            As has been made abundantly clear all the changes do not have to come about at the same time. This is a false assumption that you keep insisting on. You get an enormously complicated system by adding one simple little change to another, for a long, long time.

            And BTW, when you call me “immensely ignorant” on evolution don’t be surprised if I start getting sarcastic. And I note that you can’t even begin to offer an alternative to evolution.

  • WR_the_realist

    Please provide us with a reference to one of Darwin’s writings where he expresses his hatred of God.

  • hopeis4losers

    thank you for that link – excellent article. glad to see Gabrieli looking into things like that. He’s done some outstanding research on dyslexia in the past. I’m glad he’s willing to branch out into less comfortable areas!

  • saxonsun

    No, he just understood when he “discovered” evolution that the traditional God stories were crap.

  • Brian

    Additional funding could close the achievement gap…if you used the money to pay for napalm to drop on Detroit.

  • Max Krakah

    hint, no, they don’t

  • Max Krakah

    no proof, of that, each “stage” would offer no survival advantage, and by Darwin’s own theory, would not pass the test of time. It would have to happen all at once.

    • WR_the_realist

      But each stage does have survival value. Jeesh.

      • Max Krakah

        NO, if they are not functional they do not have value. You keep trying to make the intermediate structures with some function , but you still need many mutations for this to happen. Your argument is nothing more than “yeah, but it COULD have happened this way. You only think that because you do not understand the subject. The reality is that the fossil record says quite CLEARLY, it did NOT happen that way! In the Cambrian period, all of the phyla of animal life suddenly appeared, WITH FULLY FORMED EYES AND OTHER ORGANS! There were no animals before that other than simple sponges and worms, there are no fossils of anything gradually changing from one thing into another. The fossils from the precambrian period are of microscopic organisms, found in China. There is no fossil record of “evolution” sir. There were no light pits that suddenly appeared( which is an argument of “creationism” even if you are not able to see it as such). There suddenly appeared animals, fully formed, and they never changed much through the fossil record, some died out, none transitioned. THAT IS THE RECORD!

        • WR_the_realist

          But they are functional. A primitive eye spot is functional. An eye spot in a cup is a bit more functional. An array of light sensitive cells in a cup is more functional still. An array of light sensitive cells in an enclosed ball with a small opening (crude pin hole camera) is even more functional. Throw in a lens and you have a vertebrate eye.

          There are examples of living organisms today with eyes at each of those levels of development, proving that crude, half baked eye designs do have survival value.

  • Max Krakah

    Sorry, you have nothing but sophistry

  • Max Krakah

    UH no, Darwin was quite clear in stating adaptation is NOT evolution.

  • Max Krakah

    you sir, are the ignorant one.

  • Max Krakah

    the missing link is trying to join the conversation with grammar school material?

  • Max Krakah

    anyone can make a list and declare it to be so. They aren’t intermediary species.

  • Max Krakah

    many people have made specious arguments against it, and many people with limited understanding will be waged by those arguments.

  • Max Krakah

    Except, they did not win any points. When it was pointed out how the laws of chance make the theory impossible, they just brush that aside and say it doesn’t matter. That is not winning a point. When they are told there are no fossil records of intermediate species, they claim that some species can be seen as intermediate, even though they are not, by definition intermediate in that they did not lead to a new species that lead to a new species that lead to a new species. They are merely species that existed for a wile and then vanished. Evolutionist lose on all counts and are left saying “yeah, but it COULD happen”, showing their true lack of understanding and true thick headedness.

  • Max Krakah

    so, the catholic church also wants us to grant amnesty to all of the illegal aliens, and the pope has just advanced communism and denounced capitalism. So what is your point? You offer that sophistry as proof of something?

  • Max Krakah

    oh well, if wikipedia says so then it must be

  • Max Krakah

    Neither you, nor the author of the wiki article, understand the concept of an intermediate specifies. In order for it to be a “transitional” species, it must have transitioned into something, and if it is not the ancestor of anything then it was a dead end. The fossil record is CLEAR!. During the cambrian period, an abundance of animal life appeared, and there is no fossil record of any of them changing into something else over time, there is no fossil record of anything existing BEFORE that time except sponges and worms. IT is sad when one offers SHEER conjecture as proof, and shows that you really have nothing.

  • Max Krakah

    None of them are true transitional fossils. They were curious creatures that died out. To be a “transitional species, one needs to transition into something, and if they did so, the fossils would be existent.

  • Max Krakah

    you offer adaptation as an example of evolution, fail!

  • IstvanIN

    There is a difference between how a certain letter or symbol is pronounced in that particular language, for instance we pronounce “ph” as an “f”, and just being unable to speak one’s native and only language correctly. Never ceases to amaze me.

  • Brian

    Tiktaalik roseae. What hoax is still in what textbook? An ISBN number will suffice.

  • Talltrees

    In my
    secondary schools, students were sorted/categorized by IQ, grades, and state
    test scores, into sections A through F. Mostly, classmates remained in the same
    throughout high school with few students moving up to A or B, and few moving
    down. All blacks, except one, remained
    in D and F.

    High school lesson difficulty decreased from section A to F, F as the least
    difficult, so ‘dumbing’ down was used. Students
    had the opportunity to prove the school was wrong for placing them in certain
    sections. If so, they were moved to a
    higher section. I remember a White
    student with a well above average IQ moved from C to A in one school year,
    staying there from 8th through 12th grades and was #3 of
    the top ten receiving the highest grades of all 12th graders. She said she didn’t listen in class or study in
    6th grade because school had been so boring and most of the teachers uninspiring.

    Looking
    back at it, she explains she would have learned much more by reading and
    studying books outside of a school setting than attending cut and dry classes
    using cut and dry textbooks taught by idiot teachers speaking in monotone
    voices, periodically sneaking Reese’s Peanut Butter cups throughout the class,
    and making classes uninteresting and unchallenging. The humiliation of being placed in section C
    inspired her to show all of them that she didn’t belong there. This particular school was considered one of
    the two best; located in a White middle to upper class area.

    As far as reading, you are correct. Boys
    had more difficulty in my elementary school, but only a few, one dyslexic. Haven’t done much research on male/female
    aptitudes, but, again in my school and college classes, intelligent females
    were generally on par with males in the skill sets you mention, excelling in
    the sciences, biology and medical, for example; however, there are more male
    engineers and surgeons. But, then don’t
    we gravitate to what we are good at…talents we inherited whether they came
    from mother and/or father or is it because we are conditioned to follow traditional
    female/male roles?

    As for separating males and females, I think some of us compare ourselves to
    the best; therefore working harder to do better. If that is removed, initiative
    might suffer. Didn’t we want to know who that person was, male or female, the
    one receiving the highest grade? Do we
    become competitive in the classroom?

    An
    exception, blacks with lower IQ’s become frustrated and angry when unable to do
    as well as others. They should be
    comparing themselves to blacks who do well; therefore, in an all black learning
    environment.

    I wonder if it’s not more racial (inherited) rather than male/female.
    Increasingly, females excel in traditional male occupations and vice-versa, female
    engineers, male nurses and male executive assistants, for example.

    Although, my school may not represent all other schools, of the top ten
    receiving the highest grades from 7th to 12th, seven were
    White females. There were seven Jews, four females, three males in my section.
    One Jewish male, no females, made the top ten, and he was in the bottom five. Two
    White males in the top ten, one in the top five. No blacks.
    Seven females, three males in the top ten all in section A. What is known, at this school, females
    performed better than males, whether they studied harder, had higher IQ’s, etc.,
    we don’t know.