IQ tests
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)
