Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat
Quite the opposite, because it is an hypothesis it needs further testing. |
Yes, but a hypothesis, especially one that is in as early of a developmental stage as this one, is about as far from a "confirmation" as you can get. It's literally in the "I think this could be interesting if true, maybe I'll do some tests on it one day" stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogon_bat
I am surprised (for a lack of a better word) that Professor Steve Jones said "... I have no idea how the idea could be tested.”, I mean, really? Nowadays we can sequence DNA and we have the well preserved cadaver of Otzi the iceman, who is about 5000 years old (albeit he looks like he died a year ago) so it is quite feasible to sequence that DNA and compare it with that of modern man. If am no geneticist but I came with this idea in seconds. |
Sequencing DNA means little if you don't know what it does, and therein lies the problem - while we have sequenced the human genome (you can get yours done for around $10k these days), we still don't have a clue as to what many of them do, much less how they all interact together. This is especially so when you try to nail down something as esoteric as intellectual capability in the DNA.
In other words, we're probably about as close to be able to pin down the DNAs responsible for human intelligence as we are to making a functional matter/anti-matter reactor.