the difference between a person with a high iq and a person with low iq is about that much

meaning that there isn't much difference they both tend to be crazy one generally and the other more specific

remember einstien couldn't do simple math or tie his own shoes

He couldnt tie his shoes cause it was relative   

Enough with the bad puns. A person who has high IQ is a deviant, same as a person with low IQ. They arent normal, are they bad?

no

What does an IQ test measure anyway?? How much you have learnt, and how fast you can think!

So somone who might be a slow thinker = low IQ, may easily be smarter and no one would ever know until he invented somthing remarkable.

Although he may never invent somthing remarkable because he never got into university and never got the right job... all because he wasn't 'fast' enough.

iq=how much you can reason without learning

in 'x' amount of time. Which is really testing how fast you are not how smart.

Quick thinkers are good in the commercial environment i guess,,, but not the methodical labratory environment.

i have taken three of them one in school one from a phsycolgest and i think the other was in the army

on the one in school i scored 129 on the other two i scored 131

I have no idea if that is good or not?

Personally i would imagine getting a below average score if i ever did the test.
Firstly, i am a slow thinker, secondly, i don't follow other peoples logic all that well. 'other people' being the people who created the questions.

I cannot do crossword puzzles very well. The clues just confuse me.
I'm very good at predicting future events... not magically, but based on current information. This makes me a good chess player and good at avoiding making descisions in life that will eventually bring trouble... cause i know what will happen if i do this or that etc etc.

danielost, I really wish you'd try for more complete thoughts in your posts. I thought you were a creationist of some sort, but sometimes you seem to try arguing pop science about evolution as if you value "mainstream" science.

I have little doubt that if we have any biologists reading this wildly long thread, they are pretty vexed by our layfolks abuse of their formal language and research. To start Homo is a genus, not a species, and the whole nomenclature thing is and always has been a work in progress.

Some other pushback:

Wrong. Leafcutter ants farm a fungi and other species "ranch" aphids.


Again, Cro-Magnon people were *the same species as us,* and we have genetic data to verify that.


I beieve this is about the "Neanderathal" stuff. There is ongoing debate about species names, but recent mitochondrial DNA evidence tends to support the hypothesis that they were a separate Homo species, not a fellow Homo sapiens subspecies.

The Wikipedia's certainly a debatable "authority" for information like this, but at least it's a place to start learning the terms of the debate.

i wish you would ask for specifics before calling me a lier

what i mean is that the aztecs and mayans turned a stock of wheat into an ear of corn

which is that the origanil corn plant looked like wheat and through crossbreadings the indian tribes turned it into popcorn and we finished it into sweet corn and i mean americans on this one

and your right it is genius but its meaning is man thus you have homo sapians, hono neanderthals, homo cro magnum

so now then what i meant by all of the homo species are what scientists think of as man whether or not the term homo is normally associated with the name


The Cro-Magnons (IPA: [kʀomaɲõ] or anglicised IPA: [kɹəʊ'mægnən]) form the earliest known European examples of Homo sapiens sapiens, from ca. 40,000 years ago, chromosomally descending from Y haplogroup F / mt haplogroup N populations of the Middle East.

The term falls outside the usual naming conventions for early humans and is used in a general sense to describe the oldest modern people in Europe.

which means there were no cro-magnons outside of europe

which also means that the last of them maybe the irish and scotts

and the group in the paranise mountains between spain and france and i might be wrong



as for me i am a creatinist who believes in parts of evolution

sometimes i leave things vague to make others think

I didn't call you a liar, I just claimed you have your facts wrong. As I believe you do here. Corn (maize) is not at all closely related to wheat. Illustrations of possible wild ancestors of domesticated maize could look a bit like wheat to some folks, but the chemistry is very different.



This describes a very broad range of thought and my request for specifics from you was aimed at helping me figure out where in that ideological sprawl you might fit. A bipolar axis is probably a poor way to map that sprawl, but where you would you put yourself along a range where one pole staunchly supported the "intelligent design" movement and the other pole staunchly defended the notion that "God" caused the Big Bang and all else since has been physics and biology at work?

i was talking about looks

intelligent design also allowing for evolution from that design

as i said in another post there is no way noah could have taken 2 of every type of large animal on the planet and feed them for a year

i do not even think that our biggest tankers could do it today

but he could take two of every large animal that represented a family

for instance the polar bear and the kodak and other bears are all grizzlies

and thanks for putting in the maize part europeons still call wheat and the other grains there corn

and the next incornation for corn is tree form

I believe most people would think you were talking about more than just looks when you said "what i mean is that the aztecs and mayans turned a stock of wheat into an ear of corn."

I surely appreciate your impulse to try to make people think, but why not simply ask questions?

Assuming this is true, then it is quite fascinating?



I am a Christian who believes in Christ and his sacrifice to save us. I consider highly everything written in the bible but i do not blindly cling to it. Whatever else is proven to be true is what i believe, The rest is all debatable! Of course i have viewpoints but their flexible based on any new information i discover.