Comments on: Why We Will Never See Another Einstein

By: Genetic Tests: When No Means Maybe (Part 2) | QUEST Community Science Blog - KQED

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:07:17 +0000

[...] The other 99.2% of my DNA is a lot trickier to look at from an ancestry perspective because it has changed a lot from generation to generation over time. For example, the chromosomes I inherited from my parents are not the same as the ones they have. I got a mix of their chromosomes [...]

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 01:21:47 +0000

There is an error in your thinking here…. Genius is not a function of biology. Geniuses are continuing to appear on earth and the "average" intelligence of all humans will continue to increase. If a recent graduate of Stanford University — a person with an approximate IQ of, for example 125 — (far from genius as measured in 2009) — could appear on earth as it was circa 1700, he/she would certainly be the most intelligent person on the planet.
Remember … parents of average intelligence (I.Q.~ 100) are just as likely, from a biological perspective, to produce a genius as parents of unusually high intelligence (I.Q.~ 145).
Also, defining genius is tricky…. but we do know that it is more than mere intelligence. Very high awareness is a vital component and is difficult to describe in finite terms.

By: Randall Cook

Randall Cook — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 05:24:17 +0000

No, this is not too bad. While we'll never get another Galileo, we did get an Einstein. While we'll never get another Da Vinci, we did get an Edison. While we'll never get another Bach, we did get a Mozart. Etc. We're doing all right.