IQ tests
Well, it's been used to study the Flynn Effect, whereby IQ's gradually increase over time. It's been shown that certain racial demographics have lower IQs but probably owing to social rather than genetic factors. And they're made over many observations, so like a medical trial saying that homeopathy is bunk while paracetamol isn't so much, it's definitely a real effect. If the tests were random and useless, such effects wouldn't be seen at all.
Of course, the Flynn effect is most interesting in that certain US states can't execute people if they're retarded - i.e., below a certain IQ. Now, putting aside the fact that one individual's performance isn't indicative of actual intelligence (because we have a hard-and-fast law using this as its foundation, we can "assume" it's real), the Flynn effect means that the level needed to meet such "retarded" criteria changes over time. So a person killed 30-40 years ago might be considered under the retard threshold to be killed today.
Serious question for all of you then.
Do you think we are getting more intelligent as a culture over time? or that our experiences are greater, more numerous (and our exposure to reading and, you know, test taking) is greater and therefore we appear more intelligent on these tests.
If you took 1000 fetuses from 1000 years ago, and planted them in women today, would they be "less intelligent".
(or am I misunderstanding the flynn effect).

It's probable more of a cultural thing than an outright genetic thing, but like off this nature vs nurture crap the answer is undoubtedly both. If you did take humans from 1000 years ago and made them grow up today, I'm sure you'd probably see a statistical tendency for them to be less intelligent, but not by the amount you'd expect it to drop if they were actually 1000 years ago.
wiki did mention an increase in nutrition, especially in utero, so I guess i can buy that. But i just have a hard time buying that we are becoming more intelligent, and that it isn't simply that we have significant more experience at our hands.
I mean, how much mental activity could you do, when you didn't read, and you spent all day tending your fields. The potential might be there, but you aren't using your brain so you aren't pushing it to learn more.

Well, if you accept evolution you must accept a genetic basis for intelligence. Secondly, if you accept evolutionary principles, you'll be aware that there's no way to stop it working. Only if a) we reproduce exactly through cloning and b) do not die before we reproduce, would evolution be stopped. So while we've come down from the physical trees and climbed up the tree of intelligence we should continue to do so as long as there's descent with modification and a driving force to select for higher intelligence. That local factors in development outstrip this effect by an order of magnitude at least doesn't automatically make it negligible or non-existent, though. So while our wider experiences, better diet and improved access to culture and technology will improve intelligence significantly (i.e., we could pluck a baby from the bronze age and I'm pretty sure they'd be up to speed with our computer technology just as fast as any modern child) there will most certainly be a small genetic factor visible on a statistical level.
Usually the most accepted idea of nature-vs-nurture is that genetics enable you to do it, but your environment allows you to reach that potential. I think it's slightly more complex than that, though, and certainly isn't a case that you wouldn't be merely limited by genes. They determine not so much how far we can go, but how easy we find it to get there. You can have the best potential genes on the planet but unless your parents instill a work ethic into you, you're not going to Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, you can come from "poor stock" but for only a marginally greater amount of effort you could equal or better anyone from "good stock". Even then, it's important not to make a rule out of this or platonify it. Variation is what drives evolution, so we're undoubtedly going to find a high amount of variation in intelligence's genetic factors - thus manifesting in the anecdotes of "oh, Joe Blogs had dumb parents and grand parents but he ended up with a PhD!" and "Sally Sue had everything, but still flunked out and failed everything!" - actually, even then that's an cartoonish exaggeration, genetic variance may be great, but it's also subtle.
The thing is, while both nature and nurture might improve our intelligence, the real interesting thing is whether they conspire and feed back on each other. Do we improve intelligence selection criteria at the genetic level because of our more nurtured abilities?
Yeah, I get the evo thing, but i remain dubious that evo happens in 100 years. At least in this case, where there's no real environmental pull to cause us to evolve. Evo requires a pressure, and i don't see that. we are not selecting for the more intelligent - sighs - if only cause statistically more intelligent / successful people tend to have LESS kids.
"The thing is, while both nature and nurture might improve our intelligence, the real interesting thing is whether they conspire and feed back on each other. Do we improve intelligence selection criteria at the genetic level because of our more nurtured abilities?" -- Ohh, ahhh... ;-) So you are saying that it's possibly (likely?) that the biology the actual genetics can/might/does changes because of non genetic things like nutrition or the opposite say - malnutrition, poision in the water, etc?

I'm saying that to claim it doesn't happen is a bigger stretch. But the effect will be small, and only visible at the population level. But the sheer number of confounding factors make it difficult to fully quantify. Undoubtedly I think we will be selecting for more intelligence, just not in the obvious ways you might expect. Idiocracy was an interesting concept, but not really a documentary, I think.
Ugh, Idiocracy, don't even get me started on that.
Oh, i wasn't thinking it was a documentary. It is statically provable that the more successful (again, not "intelligent", as i have a super hard time quantifying that term) individuals have less (even 0) kids. My own dyslexia will be out of the gene pool, but so will my smarts.
What isn't considered is that just cause someone hasn't had a historical connection to things that allow him or her material success (like a good education) doesn't mean their genes are not equally "smart" when given the same chance.
But again, i'm a big believer in nurture more than nature.

The thing is, while both nature and nurture might improve our intelligence, the real interesting thing is whether they conspire and feed back on each other. Do we improve intelligence selection criteria at the genetic level because of our more nurtured abilities? -- I made a comment to this, and it got eaten (or i didn't hit SAVE... which is more likely).
So you are saying that it's possible/likely/proven that what happens to an individual in the here an now, can/does actually change their genetics? (ie., nutrition or malnutirion; exposure to environmental pollutants, etc)

It's not the only factor, but I'd put my money on nutrition and health care. People are getting taller as well, most likely thanks to that.
Ok, see that part i can accept and understand. I know we see it in menstrual changes in girls (age of onset), and age we live to be. So it could well make you smarter. make your brain fire better. Conversely, the chemicals around us, and lack of variety in food, and light at night make us more prone to depression, autism, etc.
I'm just really stumbling at accepting any idea that we can evolve in 100 years, without serious pressure on it.
