IVF couples could be able to choose the ‘smartest’ embryo

We're talking about China, not the West.

 

Exactly. Any law about one must apply to the other.

 

And???

 

Obviously you are ignorant about how things run in China.

Obviously though we're taking this discussion off-topic, so no reason to go there.

 

Well I don't understand why that would be. Of course I'm sure there are deep feelings about it, but I'm frankly not interested in your feelings on that. Just take it up with the Religion or Abortion section.

 

I've noticed "off topic" is the intent.

 

"normal" embryos are blank slates. this is a money spinning con, unless what's really happening is they're simply screening out abnormal embryos.

 

And we never will be, as long as we keep looking for 'facts' to fit the conclusion we've already drawn (that IQ is genetic).

 

They're screening out embryos that would have naturally lower intelligence. It's just a standard part of the bell curve, nothing unusual.

I suspect that the technology isn't all there yet, they're probably only looking at a handful of genes at this point.
But marketing can sell anything to desiring customers, even if the technology is not really ready. (Same thing with standard commercial ancestry testing going on right now, it's more marketing than science)

 

what does that mean?

 

That means one embryo has (or does not have) one or two genes associated with slightly lower (or higher) intelligence.

Though right now the correlation between those identified genes and IQ differences is not very strong.

For example, a certain gene might be correlated with a 40% chance of an IQ level 2 points higher, so they'll terminate the other one without that gene.

 

Both here and in China no permssion would have been given for what this guy did.

And, as far as I know this guy has stayed dissappeared.

Other than his conspicuous dissaperance, I don't see anything about China involved here.

 

"not very strong", aka "non-existent"

 

Like I said, the science is probably not quite there yet, but the concept is viable in theory.

Parents will be willing to do this to give their offspring 8 or 9 more IQ points.
(or I should say have an offspring with 8 or 9 more IQ points)

These tests will be looking at more than one gene, so uncertainties will tend to average out.

 

Not even a little bit. Correlation does not = causation.

 

That's certainly true, but there are multiple genes. At least a few of them are likely to turn out causative.

 

Only if you force the 'science' to fit your preferred conclusion (that IQ is genetic). Remove that preference and all you have is a tenuous correlate. No better than 'dogs drink water, and so do plants. plants must be dogs'.

 

It's one factor.

 

It's no factor

 

The known facts certainly support the hypothesis. To date nothing has been revealed in genetics, or neuroscience or biochemistry that disqualifies it. Is it the sole factor? Obviously not since we know that protein expressions, uptake receptors and neuronic connections can be influenced by environmental factors.

 

The problem is that the hypothesis is heavily informed by indeologies, and is therefore necessarily suspect. But more to the point .. relying on 'nothing has yet been found to disqualify it' is as unscientific as relying on 'nothing has yet been found to disqualify the existence of gods', to support your belief in gods.

And as you point out, we KNOW that neurochemistry is altered by environment.

 

Heavily informed by ideologies? What's that?

There is no possibility of scientific methods falsifying the existence of gods. And, theism holds that there are one or more gods as a fundamental assumption.

Science and religion are fundamentally different. The foundations are very different and the methods are also very different. In fact, they don't even address the same kinds of questions.