/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10486045
>For thousands of years, breeders have been selectively breeding the smartest dogs in their liters. This method is probably better than cloning in many ways.
Not what humans have done. They've bred dogs that they liked and did the job they wanted them to do, which would be why dogs bred for difficult, cognitively demanding jobs are the smart ones. We haven't been explicitly choosing the smartest.
>Cloning will surely produce results that are comparable to inbreeding.
Inbreeding increases the number of homozygous runs. Cloning doesn't do that.
>What they should have done is taken the award winning dog and mated it with another award winning dog.
I wouldn't be surprised if they're doing that, but if you want to replicate an anomaly this is the surest way to do it. Good practice for when they want to clone the CCP leadership.
(There's probably some DNA floating around of Einstein, von Neumann, Newton, Leibniz... just imagine the Chinese agents going out and grave robbing to steal it..)

>>10437824
You wouldn't exist without genes, so of course it is genetic. Likewise you wouldn't exist without a suitable environment, so it's also environmental.
The question you want to ask is "What proportion of the variance in IQ in x population is caused by genes as opposed to the enviroment" and the answer for white adult americans is somewhere around 0.7-0.8, with the remainder caused by measurement error and non-shared environment factors (probably random developmental fluctuations in utero).