And about evolution, also wrong. We have evolved 100x faster in the past 5000 years than in the Pleistocene.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_10,000_Year_Explosion

People like to believe in falsities like yours because they don't want to admit than ability is mostly innate and there's nothing we can do about it.

A common finding is that if you want to explain data around a trait and you can only know the environment or the gene, the environment is usually the better choice.

The interaction between genes and traits is very counter intuitive for most people. As an example from the lecture, if we asked people how heritabile the number of fingers a person has we would expect the answer would be 100% since it is very rare for a person to be born with 4 fingers. But if we asked if genes or environment is the best method to explain why some people have 4 fingers, genes are a very proof explanation since finger amputation are caused very rarely from genes. The variation of fingers among humans has thus a very low (almost 0%) heritability.

Heritability == the observed variation in the data set that can be explained from genes.

When comparing nature vs nurture it's going to be always nature. When comparing total trait variance, the genetically explained variance is on average 50% (averaged across all traits).

A fraction of the remaining 50% is non shared environment (randomness) and a minute/neglible amount is shared environment (nurture).

You're entirely misunderstanding heritability. Heritability is just the passing of traits to offspring, genetics may play a part in it, but likely a small part. Do children that read lots of books do so because their parents gave them good "book reading genes", or because they nurtured them in an environment where that was encouraged?

Dawson illustrates this well with the heritability of tattoos. People are far more likely to get tattoos if their parents did, thus it is a heritable trait. According to your reasoning, the parents must have passed down a tattoo gene.

Heritibility has as much (or more) to do with nurture than it has to do with nature.

There is fairly well established science outside genetics that establishes that the average distribution of brains in bimodal over female and male sex. An MRI scan can predict your sex better than random choice. There is plenty of people who outright dismiss such results as "bad science" because they interpret the results wrong and draw bad conclusions (mostly that either female or male brains are worse somehow for everyone).

These are averages. Lots of people being measured. Nobody who properly reads the studies for this should conclude that there is a typical female or male brain. There are some features that are more likely to be present in either, some less like to be present or differently expressed. On average. It's perfectly possible for a female to have a brain that would have only features that are more typical for male brains and a male may have features more typical for females while they behave perfectly normal compared to a control.

There are plenty of features that differ between males and females on average and there is no problem when one has a feature being expressed in a way more typical of the other sex (just think of hip size, hair, height, voice, etc).

I'm not saying that there aren't differences, I'm just saying they are practically negligible when they are compared to social differences. I don't doubt an MRI can predict sex relatively well, but a far more accurate prediction can be based off of what type of underwear you wear and whether you carry a purse or a wallet.

The social constructions and stratifications we have made for ourselves are far more powerful than differences in our own genetic code. It's largely this ability to modify ourselves through society that differentiates us from other animals.

Do you base that conclusion on a careful reading of the empirical evidence?

> The social constructions and stratifications we have made for ourselves are far more powerful than differences in our own genetic code. It's largely this ability to modify ourselves through society that differentiates us from other animals.

Tell that to someone with Down syndrome. Genetics are quite powerful.

Since the industrial revolution humanity has changed so quickly to become practically unrecognizable to those who came before it. A "careful reading" of Darwin, Dawkins, or any credible geneticist explains that is not even a blip in the genetic timescale. How could you explain that change with genetics alone?

From Wikipedia: "Early studies of intelligence, which mostly examined young children, found that heritability measured 40–50%. Subsequent developmental genetic analyses found that variance attributable to additive environmental effects is less apparent in older individuals,[45][46][47] with estimated heritability of IQ increasing in adulthood."