text:
Racial IQ Differences- Social or Genetic?
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|7 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|6,205 times
|Debate No:
IQ differences between races are more likely to be the result of social factors than of genetic factors.
Being that this resolution is a comparative resolution between social factors and genetic factors, the burden of proof shall be shared between my opponent and me. My opponent and I both agree that both genetics and environmental factors effect differences, but we differ in which factors have MORE effect. I shall endeavor to prove that IQ differences between races are more likely to be because of social factors. My opponent shall endeavor to prove that those IQ differences are more likely the result of the genes of the different races.
1. Race- 1. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, some being "Asian," "White," "African-American," "Native-American," "Latino," etc. characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: (modified from Dictionary.com)
2. Social factors- any action of another person or type of social influence on a person from conception until death. This includes the influence of drugs, alchohol, and nicotine consumed by the mother during pregnancy, the home environment during childhhood, the social climate of the child's neighborhood, the socio-economic status of the family, the school the child attends and historical/anthropological influences such as slavery.
3. Genetic factors- any traits inherited from parents and a child's ancestry through genes or any other biological factor.
Debate Organization:
1. Acceptance only- no arguments
2. Opening Arguments
3. Rebuttals and Summary/Conclusions
I was about to post my argument, but I saw the rules again.
Please try to keep your next round short, given that I have to present my case AND respond to your case. Thank you.
I look forward to proving that genetics have more to do with IQ differences than social factors.
I would like to extend a warm thanks to my opponent for taking this debate. Being that I was not familiar with bluesteel prior to this debate, I looked at his debating record on ddo and found it quite impressive. It is quite an honor to debate someone of his caliber.
Before I go any further, I have an item of business. In the comments section of this debate, there was some confusion about the contender addressing 16000 characters of text with 8000. My opponent may have been swayed by those comments because he stated, "Please try to keep your next round short, given that I have to present my case AND respond to your case." In all fairness, I would like to remind the reader and my opponent that I have two remaining rounds (including this one) and so does my opponent. My opponent has the last round and final say in this debate, so he will certainly have adequate and equal debate space. I hope that clarifies the issue.
Opening Argument for Pro:
My debate resolution was rather broad in scope, so for the sake of this debate, I will narrow our discussion to Black/White IQ scores. I have material to discuss the broader topic; however, I feel we will not be able to adequately discuss more because of character limitations. If my opponent wishes to discuss more than the Black/White comparison, perhaps we can expand this discussion to other debates.
The topic of our debate has been debated in the psychological community for years. My opponents point of view has been the prevailing viewpoint until recent years. Newer research is proving quite the opposite.
Genetics effect much concerning the appearance and physical characteristics of people. At birth, one's hair color, eye color, skin color, hair texture, facial features, bone structure, eventual height, etc. are determined by genes. The distinguishing characteristic of genetic features is that they are immutable (unchangeable). They may be malleable (capable of being altered by outside forces or influences), but they are not mutable (changeable). One may alter some genetic features temporarily, but not permanently. Even if one altered facial features through plastic surgery, one still passes the genes for those facial features to one's posterity. Hair color is malleable in that it can be dyed, but it is immutable because when it grows out the roots are colored by genetics not by chemicals.
Intelligence on the other hand is both mutable and malleable, which I shall prove in this round. Intelligence can be improved and altered permanently. If I my evidence proves this, then I shall have proved that genetics has a minimal role in intelligence and that social factors play a major role in one's intelligence. That being the case I will have proven my resolution, " IQ differences between races are more likely to be the result of social factors than of genetic factors," and have won the debate.
Statistical Data:
I will be giving statistical data in the following examples and studies. In order for the reader to understand the data, I would like to explain in layman's terms what that data means. The term "mean" refers to the average. A standard deviation (SD) is a statistically significant amount. What is meant by "statistical significance" is an amount that is enough to have meaning to research. For example, if hot dog sales at a concession stand amount to $578 and nacho sales amount to $581; one cannot truly say that nachos are a better seller than hot dogs. In other words the difference is not statistically significant. If, however, the hot dog sales amount was $579 and the nacho sales were $392, there would be enough difference to say that hot dogs were a better selling item than nachos.
An IQ of 100 is average and is considered the "mean" for IQ statistics. In studies of intelligence, a standard deviation is 15 IQ points. On a bell curve graph, an IQ of 100 would be in the middle at the 50th percentile, and 84% of all people would fall within one SD above or below the mean. In other words 84% of all people have IQs between 85 and 115. When one goes to the second standard deviation above and below (IQs of 70- 130) one encompasses 98% of the population. One standard deviation is a very significant amount of difference. .50 SD is still significant enough to make a difference. .20 SD and less is considered too small by researchers to make a difference.
Adoption Studies:
A well-designed study [1] done in 2005 determined that children whose parents were from the lower-class (and had low intelligence), and who were adopted into middle- to upper-middle-class families had an 18-point IQ advantage over their biological siblings who remained in lower-class homes. That is an SD of 1.17! What this study implies is that children who would be expected to have lower intelligence due to socio-economic factors can have their IQs increased significantly if their cognitive environment is changed. Richard E. Nisbett, Ph.D. who has had a long career as a psychology professor and psychological researcher says in his recent (2010) book, Intelligence and How to Get It, "the degree of heritability of IQ places NO CONSTRAINT on the degree of modifiability that is possible." (p. 38) In other words, genetics have little effect on the mutability of intelligence.
Academic intervention:
An extremely ambitious academic intervention, called the Milwaukee Project, was performed on African-American children in who were at high risk for mental retardation because their mothers lived in poverty and had IQs of 75 or less. The intervention was so successful that at the end of the treatment, the children had an average IQ of 124! Although after the intervention, the 124 score was not maintained; these children averaged 101 in their teens, which is much better than the 75 or less of their mothers. [2]
Historical Considerations:
In recent times, studies of IQ have shown a difference in IQ scores of 15 points (1 SD) between Whites and Blacks with Whites averaging 100 and Blacks 85 on IQ scores; [3] however, this has not always been the case. In the US North during the early19th century, many Blacks were free and were integrated with White society. In Washington DC, some of these Blacks formed their own schools staring in 1807 which their children attended until 1862 when they were admitted to the public schools. In 1870, they founded the first Black high school. Three quarters of those high school students went on to college from then until the middle of the 20th century. Students at this Black high school scored higher on city-wide standardized type tests than did their White counterparts. After IQ tests were invented, students of that school scored higher than the national average. [4] This ideal situation for Blacks in the North ended when many freed slaves moved north after reconstruction.
My documentation shows that intelligence can be altered by adoption, and by intervention. My documentation also shows that the current IQ gap between Whites and Blacks has not always been there. Since social factors such as adoption, academic intervention and education can alter IQ significantly, obviously, social factors have a greater bearing on intelligence than do genetic factors.
[1] van IJzendoorn, M. H., Juffer, F., and Klein Poelhuis, C. W. (2005) Adoption and cognitive development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children's IQ and school performance, Psychological Bulletin, 131, pp. 301-316.
[2] Garber, H. L. (1988). The Milwaukee Project: Preventing mental retardation in children at risk. Washington DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
[3] Nisbett, R. E. (2010). Intelligence and how to get it: Why schools and cultures count. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 93
[4] Sowell, T. (1978) Three black histories. In T. Sowell (Ed.), Essays and data on American ethnic groups. New York: Urban Institute
==My case==
According to News Medical, "A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world." [1]
According to Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, one of the studies authors, "Race differences [in IQ] show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables [like income level]. Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect." [2] If you control for maternal education and income level, and test the individual before they enter society/school, the racial differences MUST be genetic.
The study finds that, "The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races." [3]
In addition, the study finds that, "Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks." [4] This explains the average IQ of 106 for East Asians, 100 for whites, and 85 for blacks (in the US).
The study debunks a number of environmental explanations. It says, "[In] Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents." [5]
The study explains racial differences in IQ through natural selection: "Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes." [6]
Cultural theories fail. The study finds that, "No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict." [7] If culture mattered, you'd expect the end of segregation ot have improved IQ's for blacks.
A meta-study by TJ Bouchard of 111 different studies found that genetics explains 85% of the variance in IQ between 18 year olds. [8] According to the NY Times, "A century's worth of quantitative-genetics literature concludes that a person's I.Q. is remarkably stable and that about three-quarters of I.Q. differences between individuals are attributable to heredity." [9] Prefer these meta-studies to individual studies.
The ultimate studies for heritability are of identical twins, raised apart. The 2006 edition of "Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence" by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger reports correlations of 0.86 for identical twins raised together compared to 0.76 for those raised apart. So 76% of IQ variability in identical twins, raised apart, is explained by genetics, and altering an identical twin's environment only alters their IQ by a marginal amount from what would be expected.
In The Bell Curve, Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein documents why hereditary factors affect IQ and concludes that the following factors are genetic: frequency of alpha brain waves, latency and amplitude of evoked brain potentials, and rate of brain glucose metabolism. People with higher IQ's have brains that are not only bigger, but more efficient and can process data more quickly.
R1) Opening statement
My opponent says that all genetic traits are immutable. This is silly, since genetic diseases, like schizophrenia, only have correlations of 0.5 in identical twin studies. Many genes can be turned on or off by environmental factors, but the underlying cause is still genetic. My opponent admits this himself when he says in Round 1 that I don't have to prove that IQ is 100% genetic, just that it is influenced MORE by genes than by environment.
My opponent claims he wins by showing that IQ can improve. This is silly because it ignores the *baseline* and the *capacity for improvement.* Both of these are influenced by genes. I agree 100% that anyone can improve their IQ with enough hard work. However, some people start at an IQ of 100 and some people start at 150, and where they start is influenced almost entirely by genes, which I've shown in hundreds of studies referenced above (meta-studies). In addition, capacity for improvement is different. One person might put in 100 hours of studying to improve one IQ basis point, while another person might improve 10 basis points, for the same amount of work; the capacity for improvement is also genetic. Some learners are just more gifted than others.
R2) Statistical data/adoption studies
I read my opponent's study, found here. [10] On page 308, "Results," you'll find my opponent's quote, but it says, "Comparison of adopted children's IQ with IQ of siblings or peers who stayed behind." The study mostly compares kids that are adopted out of foster care with kids that stay behind in foster care, and mostly compares kids with their "peers" rather than someone related to them.
So two problems with the study:
1) Selection Bias
Adoptive parents are picky when they go to a foster home; they often meet multiple children and specifically try to select the ones that are most engaging and most intelligent. The really dumb ones get left behind in foster care, vastly dragging down the IQ average for the kids left behind. This completely ruins the study.
2) Uses non-related "peers"
Self-explanatory. The best studies use identical twins who are separated, such as the Kaufman (2006) study I cited above. Identical twins can sometimes improve their IQ when adopted, but only marginally; 76% of IQ variation is still explained by genetics in cases of identical twins, raised apart.
Also, remember the Rushton 60-page meta-study that reviewed "Trans-Racial Adoption Studies" and found that "Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents."
R3) Historical considerations
My opponent cites one black high school in Washington D.C. that scored higher than the national average on IQ tests. This is just cherry picking data; the author of the book he cites, T. Sowell, OF COURSE didn't think it was noteworthy to mention all the black high schools that were scoring below the national average, but there were many (obviously, since blacks scored lower than the average as a group). When we want to look at trends, we have to look to averages, not cherry picked data.
Once again, there is selection bias. Many of the free blacks had either escaped, which meant they were more resourceful than their compatriots, had been a house slave (who were selected for intelligence) and had gained their master's sympathy (since master's did not interact sympathetically with field slaves), or had bought their freedom, again meaning they were more intelligent than the average.
There was additional selection bias since school attendance was not mandatory in those days, so the bad students dropped out much earlier than high school (when they were tested for IQ) and took up a trade or manual labor.
Both of my opponent's sources are fatally flawed and thus I urge a Con vote.
[1] http://www.news-medical.net...
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Ibid
[7] Ibid
[8] Bouchard, TJ (2004). "Genetic influence on human psychological traits - A survey". Current Directions in Psychological Science
[9] http://tinyurl.com...
[10] http://tinyurl.com...
I would like to thank my opponent for his opening argument and his rebuttal.
In my opening argument, I stated, "The topic of our debate has been debated in the psychological community for years." In other words, the experts are going to disagree with each other. This debate is a comparison. Basically, I am arguing "Racial IQ differences are because A is greater than B"; and, my opponent is arguing "Racial IQ differences are because B is greater than A."
Let me sum up my opponents opening argument: "B>A because my experts say B>A." Well, of course, that is a given, being that the experts disagree. My experts happen to disagree with his experts, what's the big deal? The difference in my opening arguement is that I actually gave logical EVIDENCE for my position using actual case studies while my opponent merely told you that what his experts concluded. Sure, my opponent said that there were studies done with identical twins; but did these studies include variables of socio-economic status(SES), IQs of the biological parents and the adoptive/foster parents, or other variables between the families to which the twins went? My opponent did not include any of this in his argument. His documentation is merely a surface research.
The biggest problem with my opponent's argument is that he failed to check out the credibility of his sources. Now concerning his number one expert, J. Phillipe Rushton, please take a look at the following:
"Philippe Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, has taken over the leadership of the Pioneer Fund following the recent death of its former administrator, Harry F. Weyher.
The Pioneer Fund was established in 1937 by the American white supremacist multimillionaire Wickliffe Draper and others who were supportive of Nazi race policies in Germany. The incorporation papers of the Fund states its policy to support the 'procreation of the white colonial stock' and to finance research into 'problems of race betterment' and 'problems of heredity and eugenics in the human race.'" [1]
"Rushton (who's gotten more than $770,000 from Pioneer) has transformed the Victorian science of cranial measurement into a sexual fetish--measuring not only head and brain size, but also the size of breasts, buttocks and genitals. 'It's a trade-off: More brain or more penis. You can't have everything,' he told Rolling Stone's Adam Miller (10/20/94), explaining his philosophy of evolution.
Rushton was reprimanded by his school, the University of Western Ontario, for accosting people in a local shopping mall and asking them how big their penises were and how far they could ejaculate. 'A zoologist doesn't need permission to study squirrels in his backyard,' he groused (Rolling Stone, 10/20/94)." [2]
"J. Philippe Rushton is best known for his dubious work as a race scientist, proposing such theories as an inverse relationship between brain and penis size and the general notion that blacks are not as smart as whites. Recently, the venomous psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario in Canada -- a man who heads up and also is subsidized by the racist Pioneer Fund -- unleashed yet another attack, saying 'Toronto the Good' had been wrecked by 'black people.'"
At this point, I feel it would be fair to say that my opponent has based his argument on biased research. Of course, Ruston is going to conclude that Whites are smarter than Blacks in his research, that is the whole purpose of his research! Rushton is not a scientist, he is a bigot with an agenda.
Response to Rebuttals:
"My opponent claims he wins by showing that IQ can improve. This is silly because it ignores the *baseline* and the *capacity for improvement.* Both of these are influenced by genes. I agree 100% that anyone can improve their IQ with enough hard work. However, some people start at an IQ of 100 and some people start at 150, and where they start is influenced almost entirely by genes, which I've shown in hundreds of studies referenced above (meta-studies). In addition, capacity for improvement is different. One person might put in 100 hours of studying to improve one IQ basis point, while another person might improve 10 basis points, for the same amount of work; the capacity for improvement is also genetic. Some learners are just more gifted than others."
My opponent's position here is pure conjecture. My opponent has not proven that there is a baseline or that there are differences in the capacity for improvement, that is an assumption (influenced by Rushton?). If one's IQ can improve by 18 points (van IJzendoorn, et. al. study) or by 49 points (IQ 75 or less improved to IQ 124 in Garber study), then social factors have had a much greater influence on IQ than genetics.
"I read my opponent's study, found here. [10] On page 308, "Results," you'll find my opponent's quote, but it says, "Comparison of adopted children's IQ with IQ of siblings or peers who stayed behind." The study mostly compares kids that are adopted out of foster care with kids that stay behind in foster care, and mostly compares kids with their "peers" rather than someone related to them."
Well, did my opponent read this when he was reading my study?:
"The influence of the adoption experience may become larger when the change of environment becomes more drastic. Scarr and Weinberg (1976) studied the IQ and school achievement of 130 Black children adopted before the age of 12 months by advantaged White families. The adoptees from educationally average families scored above the average level of IQ and school achievement of the White population. The high IQ scores of the Black adoptees suggests that IQ is malleable under rearing conditions that are relevant to the tests and the schools and that deviate drastically from the preadoption social background."
My opponent goes on to say: "My opponent cites one black high school in Washington D.C. that scored higher than the national average on IQ tests. This is just cherry picking data"
I wonder if my opponent actually read the account? The high school was founded in 1870 and had a standard of excellence until the middle of the 20th century. That is approximately 80 years of excellence. If I'm cherry picking, my cherry tree is quite prolific! My example proves that social elements do make a difference!
I have shown that intelligence is both mallable and mutable. My evidence shows that Black, children from lower SES familes achieve significantly higher (by 18 points) intellectually than their siblings when adopted by White, higher SES families. I have shown that academic intervention can make significant differences in intelligence (up to 49 points); and I have shown that history has not always seen disparities in IQ scores between Blacks and Whites.
My opponent has used the work of a biased researcher to validate his claims. I recommend the reader disregard my opponent's dubious evidence.
If intelligence can be altered by one's social environment, then the notion that one is born with a certain level of intelligence is certainly questionable. The fact that intelligence can be altered over 1 standard deviation through altering different social factors, then IQ differences between races are more likely to be the result of social factors than of genetic factors!
I won't tell you how to vote, but it should be quite obvious who the winner of this debate is.
[1] http://www.bethuneinstitute.org...
[2] http://www.fair.org...
[3] http://www.splcenter.org...
==Burden of proof==
To prove that IQ is mostly genetic, I only need to prove that more than 50% of IQ comes from genetics.
==My case==
Literally, the ONLY response to my case that my opponent makes is to indict Rushton. Let's start by looking to all the sources that aren't Rushton that my opponent DROPS and thus concedes to:
1. A meta-study by TJ Bouchard of 111 different studies found that genetics explains 85% of the variance in IQ of 18 years olds.
2. The NY Times does a review of all the quantitative research on IQ for the past 100 years and concludes that the literature finds that three-quarters of IQ is genetic and IQ, for the most part, cannot be changed.
-These meta-studies include my opponent's singular studies, but look at a broader literature to get rid of problems in individual studies like selection bias.
3. The Kaufman & Lichtenberger (2006) study of identical twins, raised apart, finds that 76% of their IQ variability is explained by genetics. Since identical twin studies are the most accurate, I should win the debate right here.
4. Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein explains that people who have more gifted genetics have more frequent alpha brain waves, have better latency and amplitude of brain potentials, and have a greater rate of glucose metabolism, meaning that their brains are more efficient at processing information. You can't improve on tests designed to measure how fast you can think, UNLESS you are "taught to the test."
Now lets look at the Rushton study. My opponent is merely doing an ad hominem attack on my author, who I now agree sounds kind of racist and weird. But it is still fallacious to reject a study without an opposing debater explaining why anything he said is wrong. [This would be like him arguing Thomas Jefferson said X and my only response being, "yeah, well Thomas Jefferson owned slaves."] My opponent's only response is "yeah, well X is racist." Yeah, well he can be racist and RIGHT.
Problems with this attack:
1. No reasons given to doubt his findings.
2. His co-author is LEGIT. Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, is the author of over 400 scientific papers published in refereed journals and currently sits on the editorial boards of the scientific journals Intelligence and Personality and Individual Differences.
3. This is a literature REVIEW, so besides the cranial size study, which belongs to Rushton, he is just reviewing all the literature on the topic.
I tracked down the actual study; let's see where each claim I made before comes from.
[Paragraph 2 from Round 2]
1. Race differences in IQ appear at age 3, controlling for maternal education and income level. Since the child has yet to enter society or school, the only possible factor affecting these race differences is genetics. This is from a study by (Peoples, Fagan, & Drotar, 1995). [1]
[Paragraph 3 from Round 2]
2. Blacks score worse on tasks that are more genetically determined.
Blacks score MUCH worse than whites on g-loaded tasks, which are tasks that measure "brain evoked potentials, brain pH levels, brain glucose metabolism, as well as nerve conduction velocity, reaction time, and other physiological factors," meaning tasks that are the "best predictor . . . of that test's correlation with scholastic and workplace performance," and g-loaded tasks are also the most heritable, based on twin studies. This is from Jensen (1998). [1]
Nichols (1972) looked at 13 factors in IQ and found that on heritable factors, there was a .67 correlation with the black-white gap in IQ, but on environmental factors, there was a negative correlation, meaning that genetics explains the gap greatly but environment COMPLETELY fails to explain the gap, meaning there IS NO GAP for factors that are environmentally determined; the gap only exists for genetic factors. [1]
[Paragraph 3 from Round 2]
3. Twin studies find that in ALL races, heritability of IQ is above 50%. This is from (Bouchard, 1996; Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; Deary, 2000; Plomin et al., 2001). [1]
[Paragraph 5 from Round 2]
4. Trans-racial adoption studies show that race differences remain after adoption
This actually uses the Scarr and Weinberg (1976) study that my opponent himself cites in his previous round. At age 7, the adopted black children scored a 105, but when re-tested at 17 (with a more standardized IQ test – tests for children are far less accurate), the black children scored an 89. Jensen explains that although this is higher than the national average for blacks of 85, it is NOT higher than the average IQ score for blacks in Minnesota, where the study was conducted. [1]
[Paragraph 7 Round 2]
5. Ending segregation and other interventions did not improve black IQ, as you would expect if IQ was culturally determined.
Coleman (1991) found that integrating schools did not improve black IQ scores. [1]
Currie and Thomas (1995) did a study of 4,000 children in Head Start-style programs (to give disadvantaged students a good pre-school education) and found that blacks failed to make lasting gains in IQ from the programs. [1]
The only two arguments that I cited that are Rushton's are the out-of-Africa theory, that whites evolved higher IQ to deal with harsher and colder climates and the brain size study, which found that East Asians have 1 cubic inch more brain mass than whites, and whites have 5 cubic inches more than blacks, explaining their IQ scores of 106, 100, and 85 respectively. This study is still valid and unrefuted.
Ultimately, not a single one of my studies was refuted by my opponent.
My opponent now has 4 sources, which I'll refute.
1. van IJzendoorn, et. al. study (18 point boost)
This was the study with the massive selection bias, since adoptive parents CHOOSE children that appear smarter and more engaged at the adoption center. The child building a tower out of blocks is going to be more intelligent than the children eating play-dough, and the smarter child is much more likely to be adopted.
This was ALSO the study that compared adopted kids to their NON-RELATED "peers." Studying non-relatives is no way to study genetics.
2. Scarr and Weinberg (1976)
This is the same adoption study that Jensen uses in my study to show that trans-racial adoption, ultimately, does NOT increase IQ. The initial IQ boost measured at 7 years of age disappears with more accurate IQ testing at age 17. They use different and less accurate tests for kids. When I was initially tested in elementary school for IQ, they thought I was mentally retarded.
Ultimately, the adopted black kids had a slightly lower IQ than the average IQ for blacks in their state.
3. Garber study
My opponent didn't initially source his Milwaukee Project evidence so I didn't respond to it yet. However, in this study as well, the gains seen in childhood completely disappeared in adulthood. [2] The 49-point IQ boost is FAR too good to be believed! Arthur Jensen explains that the Milwaukee Project is a classic example of "teaching to the test," since the "education" these children received through the program was designed to teach them all the answers to the IQ test, without actually permanently raising their IQ's. [2]
Ultimately, there was ZERO gain when they were tested again at age 17.
4. One black high school in Washington D.C.
My opponent's only response to my arguments is that this is a really GOOD cherry picked example. Of course, all cherry picked examples are really good. I could go find the black man in the US with the highest IQ and claim that this proves black people all have amazingly high IQ's. We have to look at averages, not singular examples.
In addition, my opponent doesn't respond to my two selection bias arguments. Free blacks at the time were already smarter than non-free ones because they were usually former house slaves, who were selected by their masters for intelligence. This is just selection bias; the ones who were naturally gifted in terms of IQ (through GENETICS) were disproportionately the ones who escaped to the North.
There's also selection bias because the stupid students dropped out of school before high school. So the students tested at this high school were all the gifted ones, but the national average my opponent then compares this to was an average of ALL people in the US (including the high school dropouts).
My opponent still claims that because IQ can improve, it is solely environmental. However, again, my NY Times evidence and TJ Bouchard meta-study of 111 different studies show that IQ is genetically determined – between 75% and 85% due to genetics. The Kaufman & Lichtenberger (2006) twin study also proves that IQ is 76% genetic in identical twins, raised apart. So the baseline IQ is determined genetically.
In addition, the NY Times evidence says that improvement is nearly impossible, and we see from my opponent's own studies that improvements are temporary and often a result of teaching to the test. Even if improvement is possible, my Rushton and Hernstein analysis shows that some people have bigger and more efficient brains than others, so capacity to learn is larger for the genetically gifted as well.
Because I refuted all of my opponent's studies and he refutes NONE of mine (except for one ad hominem), you should clearly vote Con in this debate. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that IQ is determined FAR more than 50% by genetics AND that interventions in environmental factors are either temporary (and disappear by adulthood) or don't do anything (ending segregation, Head Start).
[1] http://psychology.uwo.ca...
[2] Jensen 1998, pp. 340–342
Genetic features are immutable ("genetic features" here, is a suspiciously vague word. Perhaps he meant phenotype?) while also maintaining malleability. Intelligence has shown to be mutable (altered permanently) therefore intelligence is, at best, minimally determined by genetics.
The problem is is that this sets up a false dichotomy that is bred from a plain falsehood. The dichotomy is of the form "If intelligence is mutable then it isn't genetic, if it's immutable then more evidence is needed to make any determination about its character." The falsehood is, plainly, that genetic features are immutable: (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
I conjecture that this difficulty is predicated out of the vague terminology pro is using, viz., genetic features. The argument seems to dismiss gene expression as irrelevant. In fact, though the actual gene isn't changed in that none of nucleosides are rearranged or omitted, gene expression, itself, can be permanently altered by environmental factors and these changes in gene expression can be passed on to future generations, even if those future generations aren't exposed to the same environmental factors.
Therefore, permanently altering ones intelligence by environmental factors may be just an elaborate hoax, for the environment may be playing an epigenetic trick, altering the way an individual's genes are expressed, activating and deactivating specific codons, and ultimately altering the individuals intellectual capacities.
And yeah the 3-year-olds study wasn't the best, although the Nichols (1972) study, which broke apart the 13 different factors by being influenced by genetics or environment, I found really really interesting.
And thanks again for the debate VMTM. It was a lot of fun.
1) (Since this was brought up in the last round and not able to be refuted I want to comment on it) Bluesteel says that 7 year old IQs are not very accurate (the younger the less accurate the study), however he uses an IQ study of 3 year olds.
2) 3 year old IQs are not just genetic, since parents can, from the moment of birth, have environmental effects on their IQs
3) A study of "peers" is sufficient (while "twins" are good too) because this was only about racial genes, and not genes in general.
[1] source
[2] Ibid
[3] Ibid
[4] Ibid
Just say... alhdsk[1] akldaklj[1] asklalda[1] lkhaeh[1].
[1] source
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:


text:
Quick Reference
Statesman. Nicholas Bacon, a great work-horse of Elizabeth's government, owed his rise in part to college friendship. He came from Suffolk and was at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, with ...
Subjects: British History.
Related content in Oxford Index
Reference entries
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
With the weather cooling down and the Holidays fast approaching, gay men across the country say goodbye (for now) to their skimpy swimsuits and hello to their warm winter sweaters. Worse yet, the Holidays mean lots of get-togethers and lots of eating, which can devastate the waistline. But our AC boys are always looking their best...and their secret for staying trim during the chilly winter months is Hot "Yoga for Bros". And of course, when we mean "hot" yoga, we of course mean the guys. But that doesn't mean that we don't also turn up the heat, forcing our boys to strip down and get wet in order to try and cool down.
This is Andrew Christian's tribute to a gay house music classic anthem, "Call On Me" by Eric Prydz. If the outfits and dance in this video look vaguely familiar, then you've probably seen the music video that helped make the original song famous! Of course, we've taken it upon ourselves to give the original concept a gender flip-flop. Now, one lucky lady (played by the lovely Shangela of RuPaul's Drag Race fame) gets to sweat it out with a room full of half-naked AC boys.
Thanks in part to a great soundtrack by Pump Audio, "Yoga for Bros" is sure to get your toe tapping and your head bobbing. So sit back, and enjoy the banging bods and infectious beats! Watch it after the jump!


text:
The Instigator
11 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points
God exist, Bible is right
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
|Voting Style:
|Point System:
|7 Point
|5 years ago
|Post Voting Period
|3,325 times
|Debate No:
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (25)
Votes (2)
I'll use this first round as a round to give guidelines, giving my opponent an extra round to post up arguments.
BoP will go to Pro. To prove the bible is right, and God exist.
Sources: will be anything used to prove evidence, from videos, text, websites, verses, etc....
Rule: the only rule I ask for, is logic reasoning, meaning do not base all arguments through words of the bible. If you do use nothing, but verses, add a description of explanation, and meaning.
When using the bible, please state the version of the bible, you got your verse from. Meaning by version is KJ, NKJ, NLT, ect.....
Those are the only rules.
Now coming into this debate, make sure to keep a clear mind, of what your saying, because knowing the difference from hear say, and evidence is different. These are simple terms. Later on in this debate, my opponent will know what I meant by hear say and evidence.
Good luck to my opponent. His first round he can start his argument to gain that extra round. Or he can use the first argument as he please, but be advice the debate will officially start in round 2.
Remember we are debating two topics in one, both leading to the same thing, the bible is the main cause and only main reason, to show of a god. What I mean is once I show you the wrong of the bible, the lies, once the bible is shown to be wrong then that destroys of a god existing.
Put it like this to destroy a weed, you have to take out the root, to take out the weed. So to show that god does not exist, I'll have to take out Gods root, which is the bible.
There that should get you, your start of your argument, I'll let you choose the mini topics. Where you want to prove, that's why I am letting you start the argument debate. Keep in mind the main topic of this debate.
Well Good luck to my Opponent.
he shall begin
2. The bible is a Hebrew document! Reading Hebrew in your native language will result, in that person babbling lies babbled out of ignorance! Example: in the USA BAD = GOOD? Same in Hebrew! (Example Formed is not created)
3. Adam was not created in any version of the bible! Formed is always used! Why? Check the Hebrew: Strongs # 3335= Squeezed into, the Potter. Notice another witness God claiming to have formed Himself. " Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me. "
Word Origin:
probably identical with (03334) (through the squeezing into shape), ([compare (03331)])
Parts of Speech:
Word Definition [ Brown-Drivers-Briggs' | Strong's ]
Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition
to form, fashion, frame
(Qal) to form, fashion
of human activity
of divine activity 1a
of creation 1a
4. Why does the genealogies of Adam and Cain form a message/acrotic relating to Jesus or Satan?
Adam = Man the God Man
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = A mortal man of
Kenan = of sorrows is born
Mahalalel = the glory of God
Jared = shall come down
Enoch = instructing/teaching
Methuselah = his death shall bring (relates to the flood as well, when Methuselah died the flood came)
Lamech = desparing or those in despair
Noah = rest
The God Man's, appointed sorrow is born, the glory of God shall come down, teaching His death shall bring, despairing rest!
Cain = Possession
Enoch = dedicated
Irad = Fleet
Mehujael = smitten by God
Methusalel = man of God
Lamech = Powerful
Adah = ornament
Jubal = streaming
Jabal = stream
Zillah = shade or shadow
Possessed dedicated fleet, (How do you eat trucks shipping world market controlled by transportation = oil.) smitten by God man of God (= Satan is a son of God =) Antichrist will be a man!) Powerful ornament streaming streams of shadows (darkness).
5. Adam was formed to til the ground not plowing, but to control the weather! Can man successfully control the weather today. No! Not forgetting Man efforts and successes in that area. Man still can not control the weather.
6. Adam is/was the Root of David! Rev_5:5, And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.
Rev_22:16, I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
7. Christ is a literal son of David! Meaning: The Christ who hung on the cross had a great great.............grandfather named Adam! Mat_1:1, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.
Mat_1:20, But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mat_9:27, And when Jesus departed thence, two blind men followed him, crying, and saying, Thou Son of David, have mercy on us.
Mat_12:23, And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Mat_15:22, And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
Mat_20:30, And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
Mat_20:31, And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.
Mat_21:9, And the multitudes that went before, and that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest.
Mat_21:15, And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; they were sore displeased,
Mar_10:47, And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mar_10:48, And many charged him that he should hold his peace: but he cried the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Mar_12:35, And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the Son of David?
Luk_18:38, And he cried, saying, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
Luk_18:39, And they which went before rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried so much the more, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.
3) Adam was not created in any version of the bible! Formed is always used! Why? Check the Hebrew: Strongs # 3335= Squeezed into, the Potter. Notice another witness God claiming to have formed Himself. " Isa 43:10 Ye are my witnesses saith the LORD and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed neither shall there be after me
RE: Well as for Adam was not created in non of the versions, that would mean, that KJV, NKJV, NLT versions of the bible are wrong. Lets take a look at the word Formed. This is were my opponent will show a contradiction, in his text. Also in his next reply to this.
he shape and structure of an object.
b. The body or outward appearance of a person or an animal considered separately from the face or head; figure.
That is the definition of Formed, now since formed does not mean create, and adam was not created, but formed, then my opponent has failed to show us any proof of existance, you cannot exist then exist at the same time. As for my opponent proving of a god through this non created, but formed argument is invalid, which I would be nice enough to disregard his first assumption, from the record book. If I was my opponent, I would not bring that back into play, you will contradict yourself.
My opponent then speaks of Genealogies of a formed man, not created man of Adam and Cain.
Well last time I checked on this debate, the title stated if god exist, and the bible is wrong. My opponent is for that God exist, and the bible is right, in all genology provides no evidence of a god. My opponent fails to realise that all names have a meaning to them. It can take any MAN TO CREATE A MEANING OF A NAME.
Now if my opponent has any sucess to prove there is a God, he going to have to stay away from genology, my opponent is trying to prove of a god through human names, just because there mention in a book, there are many people name Adam today, or seth, but why were they not mention in the bible. Only one man was mention, not the hundreds of men was mention.
As for 7. you still shown no evidence, and there is no DNA proof that, your accusation is true, like I said: Just because a book tells you, that does not show no proof. Then my opponent shows verses, when he stated from the beginning that Adam was not created in no versions of the bible, making the bible false, when NKJ, KJ, spoke that create was involved. As for any of his verses, they are invalid. He has shown to us in the beginning that the bibles are false, When the bible does speak of create, not form.
My opponent has made his arguments with no true thought of the outcome, speaks of a book, plagarized, with no source. Also has shown no truth, just a hear say. I shall now present some arguments.
My opponent believes that this god created all, that evolution is wrong: (a very good mini topic):
A) Evolution means:
B) Evolution is taking place as we speak, giving more explicid proof of evolution.
Example: Baby in a mother womb, now before my opponent says, god creates the babies, let me remind you of the reproduction system, man and woman creation. Now a baby in a mother womb evolves, creating evolution: the gradual development of something. My opponent of course will say, no its wrong, when it actual proof.
Now my opponent will start bring up verses from the this book, must I remind him and the voters, that this is a book. Let me say, with out proof, and actual DNA, also something speaking in ones ears to write, all his arguments coming from the bible will be false. In my next round, I will show proof, actual proof the bible is not right, when such proof is given, then God would prove to be non existance, and created by MAN.
I as my opponent to very clearly be adviced to what he writes, or evidence he will show. I will let him know now, anything you write from any bible will be avoided, as we are not looking for hear say but evidence, proof. If my opponent speaks from the bible, I will then in my next round show flaws, and contradictions of the bible. Why you ask? with only hear say, and words in a book, a book that has flaws, and contradictions. We are looking for my opponent to show us BoP. Not words in a book, for there are many books in this world today as we speak. Stories, but of course, you wouldn't believe them but a book as well written by man, only stating that a being spoke, with no actual proof that a being did speak.
Also remember during them times as these were created, order back then was limited, havac, chaios was badly, so why not a group of people get to gether write stories, and create a god, to put fear in the people around them, explaining what happens if you disobey, explaining that if you do not listen, this being will get you, strike you down. Society had to have some kind of order.
Now as time went on, people started to realize, opening there minds, now the concept of this so called god does not apply, as a nation now, we have evolved our minds, as science grew, as technology grew, we open our minds, not keeping a closed mind. Once time passed, and we hit today, we always question, how such a pure being, a lovable being if you search you will find, the being that cures all, how come children that have no understanding such as first borns, have cancer, were was this being to cure the non knowing. If he truly has the power, and is lovable, there is not a being, and we realized that.
Now you all speak of this being knowing all, when something knows all, such thing knows future, past, present. If something existed before, all was created, knowing all, he created evil. But now my opponent will give the argument of free will, or men created evil, or the devil. which is all invalid still. For if this being is true, he knew of free will, he knew of men, he knew of the devil before all was created. KEEP IN MIND, you all SPEAK that this so called BEING CREATED ALL. there is no exeptions, or any way to get out of that statement. CREATED ALL.
Now lets get to this time. IF this being did exist, he had all this power, almighty, who loves, and cares, who is pure, HE KNOWS ALL, why would he then let the children at Sandy Elementry School get killed, if he knew all, then he knew of it before it happen, if he all powerful, and cares, and loves then he would of stopped it before it happen.
Now my opponent will then say Do not Blame this God. Why not, you all make this so call god loving, and caring, and knowing of all before and after, all powerful, these kids were young, but yet he did not save them, from this guy. Well then that shows that this so called God, doesn't exist. When this thing could of done anything, ANYTHING to prevent it.
I would love to see what my opponent argument on that is, and what excuse he would speak of. Could his excuse be free will, But like i stated this so call being knew all before it was.
" Psa 19:1 To the chief Musician A Psalm of David. The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech and night unto night sheweth knowledge. Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard. Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun Psa 19:5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. Psa 19:6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof. Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure making wise the simple. "
I see my opponent it a higher criticizer babbling logical nonsense! I am a simple man not stupid enough to think that the world was not designed so their is a designer! The bible is a Hebrew document. Formed means squeezed into, the Potter.
If there is no God then why do smart people waste their life disproving a silly child's bedtime story! I never challenged the existence of Mother Goose? Unlike You!
Well I would like to expand my past argument to this round, my opponent totally did not give us nothing to go off of, besides a verse, from a book that was truly written by man, thereof my opponent has shown no evidence according to the existence of this god.
Now I think I know my opponents game plan here, to post a strong argument in his final round, avoiding questions, avoiding actual logical common sense. I will advice my opponent now to regard his failure to post a argument that actually, has logic, instead of quoting a book. That I shall continue on, there for my opponent will be one move behind me, so any argument he brings up will be invalid, for the case of not counter-arguing my previous round.
I will reply to his round 2 argument, then continue my final characters to throw more information on this debate.
We look at a verse that means absolutly nothing of no evidence, just litature, like William Shakespear uses for his books, basically bringing no evidence, only a hear say, a story.
My opponent states: I am a simple man not stupid enough to think that the world was not designed so their is a designer!.
RE: Well with no proof of a designer, only hear say, no evidence, of this god, then how can one exist, also, like you said "the world was not designed so their is a designer" 1. to create, you first have to be created, thats common sense, to make, you first have to have a maker of the makee, commone sense. 2. To believe in a god there has to show evidence, that there is a god beyond a book, visual evidence, even mythology showed visual evidence, of what there god looked like, even buddah has a physical apparence, thats the chinese god.
Now my opponent will say, well god is Jesus, wrong, how can god be jesus, if jesus yelled of a god in the sky, but this God never came to help him. Why not? simple answer for a simple man, because god does not exist, god was no were to be found.
Then my opponent clearly states this "If there is no God then why do smart people waste their life disproving a silly child's bedtime story! I never challenged the existence of Mother Goose? Unlike You!".
No but my opponent has accepted the challenge by wanting to show proof as he claims a silly childs bedtime story.
Like all christians, we always get asked the questions by a christian, but never get answers from a christain.
Before I post anything new up, lets talk about evolution, now we common sense people know the definition of evolution; thats basically evolving.
Evolution has actual physical, visual, existance proof, still living amongst us in todays society. Christians only want to speak of big bang theory, as an evolution theory, wrong, big bang theory and evolution are two totally different things. Evolution is when something evolves into something else, or something different, or evolution is develoment growth. Now let me tell you the physical, visual, existance of evolution in todays society, evolution has been in society ever since time. What would this be? What would the actual proof be?
Women hold the key, to evolution; always been right infront of our eyes, all the era's, the time of times, the days of days, women hold the key to the truth of evolution.
Now my opponent is thinking "how can that be"? I shall tell you, and since common sense will tell you all is true, its happening today, it happen with you.
Preganancy: the devolpment of a fetus, to a child, to an adult, to the elderly. "how can that be the key to evolution being true".
As we all know, as proven facts, and actual people today, shows you cannot get pregnant without the reproduction system of the male and female. Yes it is possible to get pregnant without having sex, as long as the males sperm, still lives, swimming to the egg, a female can get pregnant. But however, a female, as proof is all around you, a female cannot get pregnant without the sperm of a male. Now how does that prove evolution?
As the egg, truly gets fertilized by the male sperm, evolution starts to take place, you see when, a female is a couple weeks pregnant, the baby is a tadpole, with no eyes, no mouth, just a micro organism, which then develops into a baby, going through transformations, developing webbed feet and hands, growing a heart, growing lungs, able to breath under water consistantly, growing a tale. As the transformations take place, the baby will then lose the tail, thats why we have a tail bone, when the baby comes out of the mothers womb, it loses its ability to breathe underwater.
Now look at them traits, able to breath under water, and able to create its self lungs, etc.. now if a baby is able to do all that, as they even show development videos, pictures, and the fetus creating its own body, you can not say god is, then we would see his hands inside the mothers womb. Then that holds the key to how we came to be humans, developing our own brains, all starts in the water, theres actual visual proof, of this still happening today. With out water we can not exist. What created us, as its shown and still happening today, we created us, the proof and evidence is a fetus, With water being our boost of life, as shown a fetus is first a micro organism, the develops, on its own. With the right nutrients, and of course something in water provides the fetus the ability to create its self organs, brain, heart, legs, lungs etc.. now if you took a fetus out early, it will not survive out side the womb, even though there are pre mature, happens 2 to 3 months before 9 months, but with the technology given, the babys chances of surving out side the womb during those times greatly increases.
We can go on and on about that, but that is actually logical, with proof, and evidence, because even my opponent went through it, shows evolution is real, that we did not come from a god, as fetus shows us the truth, of life. if we came from a god, then we would be able to see this god hands inside the mother womb, but since we are only given two hands, there are millions of women pregnant, or becoming pregnant, god could not have form or created life, reproduction system. Since Adam and eve was created or formed from dust and man rib, its impossible they even exist, without any type of water, as the fetus shows us proof.
Oh by the way, I would not do a verse this time, you will not prove any point, and instead of asking a question, how about you start answering questions, providing us with more then a verse, for a verse was even written by how the grammer and litatured used, even william shakespear created verses also.
Goodluck to my opponent, I predict my opponent will not show us no proof only words from a book, with alot of hear say.
That little argument, is a way of me disproving of a god existing.
Yet an Atheist say all random chance. Nature and the food chain all random, is nonsense.
The bible proves that it is from God by telling the future. But if you are not His then His Words is not logical to you. Maybe He is not talking to you.
Example: The destruction of Syria and The Middle East. USA is Babylon and the King of it! Israel became a State 1948 May. Fact so, God said it will be destroyed within a 65 year period again!
Isa_7:7, Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
Isa_7:8, For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
Watch them babble!
Obama is dividing Jerusalem! " Dan 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done. Dan 11:37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers nor the desire of women nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all. Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold and silver and with precious stones and pleasant things. Dan 11:39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many and shall divide the land for gain. "
My viewers as we take a look at his claims, and arguments, throughout this debate you can see how he still has not provided any proof, he avoids my previous arguments. His logical common sense only goes so far as to the bible, Which I have provided knowledge, obvious facts, as it still occurs today on life. My opponent states "the bible proves that it is from God by telling the future, but if you are not his, then his words is not logical to you".
Well lets look at this for a minute, really think about this statement, as we all know from common sense that even the bible states men wrote the books of the bible. It states that god spoke through the men to write the documents.
As I ask my opponent one simple question: What evidence or proof you can show, that these men were being told to write these words, besides saying the bible says, how about I ask my opponent to go out of a closed mind view accusation, and show us some proof beyond the bible.
As my opponent can see in many debates on trying to prove gods existence has failed, for no believer would go away from the bible, or anything containing the bible. Let me remind my opponent, when you say the bible is true, you might as well say harry potter is true. They both are books, if my opponent says one book is true, because the book said then he might as well say the books of twilight, and harry potter books are true also.
It is amazing how a man created by God can deny the existence of the Sun that is in the sky which is the clock of the world. In which all planets are subject to, through rotation around it. So fine tuned that if the sun moved 1/4 mile in space toward the earth it would destroy it.
RE: my opponent wrote this in his last argument, I wonder if my opponent knew, that all planets rotate around the sun, that also when something moves that is not affected by any other planet gravitational pull, would have to hit something else to change direction. Then he tries to put up an arguement, "well it is amazing how a man created by god can deny the existence of the sun, that is in the sky, which is the clock of the world".
Let my opponent know I never denied the sun, for the sun you can actually go outside, look up there it is. There is physical proof of the sun, now when you go outside and you look up towards the sky you cannnot see a freakishly large man holding the earth in his hands. for we do rotate consistantly, for we do not see no fingers, nor hands.
Addition: Lets put it like this, your strong in faith as i can see, how you put much faith in a book, lets say if this god is real, and can speak through people, he comes to you and commands you to jump off a bridge, on the bottom of this bridge is water, the bridge is tall vertical wise. Say this god if he is real, and can surely talk to people, commands you to go to this bridge, and jump. Knowing from your arguments, you seem like your faith is really strong in this book call the bible. You believe everything in this bible, So now I would ask would you jump off the bridge if this god is real, commanded by this god, if he told you. would you jump? Would you obey this so called god, if he truly was real.
If you answer yes: Let me tell you, you have done comitted suicide, you took your own life, meaning if this bible is true, your chances after taking a life, your own, since you cannot ask for any forgivness, you took a life, your own life, now if this bible is true, and all is real, you are now condemned to go to Hell; for eternity.
If my opponent answered no: Let me tell you what you did, you disobey this so called god command, meaning if you open your bible, Deutronomy 28, 15-66 states what will happen; if you disobey this god.
Inconclusion to that: My opponent would then be screwed, both ways. Now what I was doing during that little piece of argument was stating, and showing, what god this bible speaks of, First they say this god is all loving, all pure, never thinks evil, never would create evil, This god Knows the future, the past, the present, that he loves everyone all, that he would do no harm, he would not commit no evil act, nor think of evil.
Well my friend; for a god who knew all if he is real, he sure is not pure, now lets say this if this god is real, he has decieved you. Why the give a way is this so call god knew all, Past, Present, Future. That is a dead give away that when this book was written they did not truly think of the words they truly wrote, they did not sit back and say wait a minute, no they made this god know all, past, present, future.
Oh now lets attack the free-will, for if this god whom created man, not man creating him knew of the past, present, and future, who is not evil, nor think of evil things, before this so call free will came to play he knew of what free will would do, therefor he allowed the free will to produce evil.
Now a argument will be brought up, but I shall shoot it down before he mentions it, he would then bring up the devil, suduced of doing evil, the devil created evil. WRONG, as it states, in this book, this GOD CREATED ALL. for then he, even created the devil, god created the evil in this world, this god knew all would happen before it would happen, but yet with an evil mind he allowed it to happen.
Now my opponent said the sun is moving 1/4 towards the earth, wrong again, the sun does not move, only rotates among itsself, the planets move around the sun, the sun is growing, but its not moving so that little arguement does not have nothing to even do with him trying to prove god exist, nor the bible is right. Therefor that argument is INVALID.
Example: The destruction of Syria and The Middle East. USA is Babylon and the King of it! Israel became a State 1948 May. Fact so, God said it will be destroyed within a 65 year period again!
RE: Now is this one of the prophecies mention in the bible; well if we take 2013 subtract that from 1948 (2013-1948) by calculation the answer is 65 years, so if this prophecy is correct, and it became a state in may of 1948, then Israel will be destroyed this year. Now what happens when Israel does not become destroyed this year?
AJ you have the answer: yes I do that would mean then this bible would be incorrect. I would actually like the viewers to give me there insight to this claim he has gotten from the bible.
My opponent then said "Obama is dividing Jerusalem! " WOW, he did not just go there, for then I know what kind of person he is, those ones that sit there, trying to prove claims of prophecy using obama. trying to break codes, putting obama name in it.
Now let me truly educate my opponent, we went to this war 4 years before obama even hit office as president. FACT.
FACT; this country was divided even before this war.
FACT; The anti-christ was disproven twice in history, one was it to be said Hitler, the other one was to be said napoleon, but yet revelations never took place. They died, so them predictions failed FACT.
FACT; you sit there and say obama is dividing the country, but how could he if he never took us to that country for the start of war.
FACT; your accusation is false, it would then be BUSH, NOT OBAMA.
FACT; you used another verse again, from a book that has many flaws, and a book that is only HEAR SAY. NOT PROOF OF EVIDENCE. WRITTEN BY MAN.
Let me educate you some more, scienctist test and test untill its proven, why have not any religion, or anyone who believes this book test, to prove its right instead of say oh its right.
Let me mention something to you: if you were born and raised in china, it is 100% gurentee you would believe in buddah instead of the christian god.
Your whole argument is invalid for once again you have not proven any existance of this god, nor gave evidence claiming the book is true.
I would like to extend both my previous arguments. for my opponent still has not shown evidence or actual proof for any of his claims. Let me remind my opponent he has BoP.
1Co_1:27, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co_2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1Co_3:19, For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Pe_2:15, For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
This a waste of time because the simple plan of God is that men seek Him! Without faith you can not please Him=God.
Isa_29:15, Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Isa_29:16, Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
No other book has been so fought over. Preserved and handed down. Placed in every hotel. Why it is important for you to understand. So no man has excuse. So you God HATERS, WHY YOU WORRIED? I never debated the existence of Santa Clause=St.Nick=Satan either but yet their he is too everywhere.
Well I will make this argument quick, my opponent has the BoP, but yet ignores all my previous arguments, and avoids, showing us this god.
Let me tell my opponent, when you go outside, do you see god with your physical eyes. We are not talking spirit bull crap, but actual physical apperance.
As for his last argument. Santa Claus and st. Nick are the same people, St. Nick is another word of santa clause, and st. Nick actually was a true man, they called him santa clause because he would bring gifts in his town to little ones.
No one is worried? we just want to see if you can prove gods existance, without the bible, or religion affiars. But you have failed to prove it, you keep bring up verses, we all know the book was created by man, and the book has many flaws.
Yes there has been many books that were preserved and handed down.
As I ask the voters please read his arguments, he failed to go beyond the book, and religion to prove of any existance of this god. All we hear is hear say, no factual evidence.
He ignored all my previous arguments.
So I will extend all previous arguments to this round.
Thank you for reading voters, I hope you enjoyed.
1Co_1:25, Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by likespeace 5 years ago
Posted by likespeace 5 years ago
He did make the prophesy argument, which would've validated the bible's vision of the future via independent real-world events. Where he went awry was, Con showed there were inconsistencies between the biblical events and the real-world events Pro claimed they corresponded to, and Pro then dropped the argument without a serious response.
Posted by Aceviper2011 5 years ago
Isa_29:15, Woe unto them that seek deep to hide their counsel from the LORD, and their works are in the dark, and they say, Who seeth us? and who knoweth us?
Isa_29:16, Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding?
In the northern hemisphere summer, the earth is as far as 94,509,460 miles from the sun. In the southern hemisphere summer, it is as close as 91,402,640 miles away. I'm not a professional scientist or mathematician but I'm pretty sure that difference of 3,106,820 miles constitutes something on the order of 12 million times the 1/4 mile figure presented in the debate. So why hasn't the sun destroyed the earth yet, when the fluctuation in distance is greater than 1/4 miles, every year?
Posted by Aceviper2011 5 years ago
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not debate, he preached; he did not argue, he preached; his spelling and grammar are atrocious; and he used only the bible for a source, to prove its own validity. EDIT: fixing typo in RFD.
Vote Placed by likespeace 5 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:
|0 points
|Agreed with after the debate:
|0 points
|Who had better conduct:
|1 point
|Had better spelling and grammar:
|1 point
|Made more convincing arguments:
|3 points
|Used the most reliable sources:
|2 points
|Total points awarded:
Reasons for voting decision: Pro gave three arguments for the bible's accuracy--deeply hidden in their mostly random musings. First, is the prophesy of the destruction of Syria and Obama coming to power. There are inconsistencies between the biblical account and moden day events. Con points these out and Pro drops the argument without a clear response. Second and Third were, "The bible is very popular" and "If it's not true, why are you debating it?" These can be summarily dismissed as weak evidence. Conduct to Con since Pro called him a fool. Name-calling has little place in civil discourse.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.


text:
Principal Investigator(s): Steven J. Schiff and Srinivas Tadigadapa
Title: Implantable brain microelectromechanical magnetic sensing and stimulation (MEMS-MAGSS)
Category: 2016 NIH Grant Large-Scale Recording and Modulation
Project Number: 1R21EY026438-01
Lab: Center for Neural Engineering
University: Penn State Medical Center
We seek to offer proof-of-concept testing and development of a novel class of MEMS-MAGSS technology.
Principal Investigator(s): Steven J. Schiff and Srinivas Tadigadapa
Title: Implantable brain microelectromechanical magnetic sensing and stimulation (MEMS-MAGSS)
Category: Large-Scale Recording and Modulation
Project Number: 1R21EY026438-01 NIH webpage
Lab: Center for Neural Engineering University: Penn State Neuroscience
We seek to offer proof-of-concept testing and development of a novel class of MEMS-MAGSS technology. This project would produce a 'first-of-kind' technology capable of 1) cellular resolution detection of spiking activity in neurons, 2) cellular level modulation of neuronal firing, 3) adaptve noise cancellation enabling use outside of magnetically shielded environments, 4) room-temperature operation enabling packaging for long-term implantation within with biological tissue for animal or human use, and 5) a clear translational pathway for long-term human implantation across a person's life-span.
Categories: Penn State Neuroscience, NIH 2015-16 grants, and Research (Neuromodulation)
Project Description
This NIH BRAIN Initiative R21 will initiate development of a completely Implantable Brain Microelectromechanical Magnetic Sensing and Stimulation (MEMS-MAGSS) technology. Significance: We seek to offer proof-of-concept testing and development of a novel class of MEMS-MAGSS technology, to address the NIH BRAIN Initiative: New Concepts and Early-Stage Research for Large-Scale Recording and Modulation in the Nervous System (R21). The current state of the art for large-scale recording of neuronal activity does not have cellular resolution for sensing and stimulation. The current state of the art for highly sensitive magnetic sensing cannot be performed at safe temperatures for biological implantation, and requires expensive shielded rooms incompatible with human long-term use. Innovation: Magnetic fields can now be sensed at amplitudes and spatial density never before possible using several new microelectromechanical electrical systems (MEMS) technologies that we have pioneered. We are in a unique position to create a next generation of magnetic sensing and stimulation devices capable of meeting the high-density cellular level mandate of the NIH BRAIN Initiative. We have brought together a unique team of exceptional investigators in electrical engineering, physics, neurophysiology, neurosurgery, and materials science with the requisite skills to collaborate in a highly integrated transdisciplinary fashion capable of meeting the proof-of-concept milestones of this project within 2-years. Approach: We will approach this project by selecting from among 2 magnetic sensing technologies already in the prototype stage. We can incorporate on-chip adaptive magnetic noise cancellation for ambient magnetic fields. Using prototype MEMS based magnetic stimulation designs, we will develop the ability to integrate simultaneous magnetic sensing and stimulation. We will perform proof of concept experiments disambiguating the magnetic signatures from single cell firing in cortical brain slices, and establish both forward and inverse solutions of these same neurons. Impact: This project would produce a 'first-of-kind' technology capable of 1) cellular resolution detection of spiking activity in neurons, 2) cellular level modulation of neuronal firing, 3) adaptve noise cancellation enabling use outside of magnetically shielded environments, 4) room-temperature operation enabling packaging for long-term implantation within with biological tissue for animal or human use, and 5) a clear translational pathway for long-term human implantation across a person's life-span.
Public Health Relevance Statement
It is technically feasible to develop a transformative technology capable of measuring the activity of individual cells within a volume of the brain, and to stimulate those cells, by leveraging novel advances in room-temperature, high-density magnetic sensing and stimulation using microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) fabrication. Such technology will enable magnetic-microscopy to test hypotheses never before tractable in laboratory experiments. Furthermore, this pathway will enable long-term placement and management of implanted arrays, including above the inner table of the skull, suitable for long-term use in humans for a wide variety of applications.
NIH Spending Category
Bioengineering; Mental Health; Neurosciences
Project Terms
Address; Affect; animal tissue; Animals; base; Biological; Brain; BRAIN initiative; brain volume; cantilever; Cells; Clinical; cranium; density; design; Detection; Development; Devices; Electrical Engineering; Engineering; Environment; Fire – disasters; Generations; Goals; High temperature of physical object; Human; Implant; implantation; Individual; innovation; Laboratories; Longevity; magnetic field; Magnetism; Maintenance; Maps; Measurement; Measures; Mechanics; meetings; Microscopy; minimally invasive; Nervous system structure; Neurons; neurophysiology; neurosurgery; next generation; Noise; novel; operation; Pathway interactions; Performance; Persons; Physics; Physiology; Positioning Attribute; prototype; public health relevance; relating to nervous system; Research; Research Personnel; research study; Resolution; Route; Science; Shapes; skills; Slice; Solutions; spatiotemporal; Staging; System; Technology; Temperature; Testing; Time; Transistors; United States National Institutes of Health
Administering Organization: National Eye Institute
Funding Organization: NIMH
Total Funding: $216,697
Materials Research Institute News
Tuesday May 17, 2016
In Penn State's newest and most advanced research building, a new program is taking shape that, if successful, will revolutionize the ways in which we interact with the human brain. Led by Srinivas Tadigadapa, an electrical engineer, and Steve Schiff, a neurosurgeon with a background in physics and control engineering, this ambitious project exemplifies the convergence of research fields that are typically separated by distinct disciplinary boundaries.
In 2013, the Obama White House laid out a grand challenge to "accelerate the development and application of new technologies that will enable researchers to produce dynamic pictures of the brain that show how individual brain cells and complex neural circuits interact at the speed of thought." Called the BRAIN Initiative, it is a 12-year plan to fund research into understanding the brain on multiple levels, using a variety of new and developing technologies. With these tools, it is hoped that the many diseases and malfunctions that afflict the brain can be controlled or eliminated. Schiff and Tadigadapa recently won one of Penn State's two exploratory BRAIN awards.
A transdisciplinary team to solve a monumental problem
Steve Schiff has the soothing voice and gentle manner of someone who has spent a large part of his career dealing with children, and frequently, children in pain. As a pediatric neurosurgeon, he has leant his skills and bedside manner to treating diseases of the brain in children, but as a researcher he is adding another skill set, one based on his background in engineering and physics, to develop technology to understand and control diseases of the brain.
Schiff is director of the Penn State Center for Neural Engineering, a lab that takes up an entire floor of the Life Sciences wing of the Millennium Science Complex on Penn State's University Park campus. A series of card-swipe controlled laboratories make up the 11,000-square-foot Center, with facilities for the construction of custom electronics, live animal imaging, surgery, and advanced computerized microscopy. His Center colleagues include medical doctors, engineers and biomedical engineers, and the graduate students they are training.
In the Materials wing of the building in a basement micro and nanoscale devices laboratory, Tadigadapa's group is developing microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) that miniaturize device arrays for sensing and actuating, some of which the team hopes will one day be implanted into the human skull in order to explore the brain on a cell-by-cell basis.
Penn State's Millennium Science Complex was built with the concept of integrating the expertise of materials scientists, electrical and mechanical engineers, and nanotechnologists, who occupy the north wing of the building, with medical and biological researchers, who occupy the building's west wing.
"This building we are in reflects this interaction, because we are half materials science and half life sciences," Schiff said. "We will literally build these technologies on one side and walk them up the stairs to our lab where we do experiments on neurons. We will use individual neurons that we will be recording from and stimulating to see how far we can push this technology. We are, to our knowledge, the only center at present that is in a position to manufacture these high density arrays for sensing and stimulation in a nanofabrication facility and then literally transition them to an operating room."
The team also includes, as a consultant, John Wikswo of Vanderbilt University, who is one of the world's leading experts on magnetic fields in neurons. "John provides some of the key physics expertise that no one else in the world has," Schiff said.
In short, Schiff and Tadigadapa, with Wikswo's help, propose to develop a technology capable of measuring the activity of individual cells of the brain and to stimulate those cells at room temperature with a MEMS device capable of being implanted above the inner table of the skull for long-term human use.
Why stimulate the brain?
For the past 70 to 80 years, scientists have been using electrodes on the surface of the brain to measure electrical currents, and, since the 1950s, to stimulate the brain. In recent times, an approach called deep brain stimulation (DBS) was developed as a means to treat the tremors associated with Parkinson's disease. Now, DBS is being studied experimentally as a method to treat major depression, along with a variety of other ailments. In DBS, a pair of electrodes is implanted in the brain and a generator is surgically implanted in the patient's chest wall. A pattern of electrical pulses is used to stimulate portions of the brain. The treatment seems to work for a proportion of patients with major depression, although the exact mechanism is still unknown. Another use of such sensing and stimulation is to run robotics for patients with disabilities. However, bleeding, stroke and infection are potential side effects.
"If I put electrodes into the brain, which I have done a great deal in my career, there is a measurable risk of hemorrhage and damage, and there is always a few percent risk of infection," Schiff said. "If I'm studying a child for epilepsy, I need to take those things out by two weeks, definitely by three weeks, or I have to go in and free them from the scar that's already formed.
"Imagine you are trying to run an artificial hand," posited Schiff. "You want to pick up signals from the hand area of the cortex to give you the intention of the individual to move such a hand. We can only do that now by implanting arrays of electrodes into the hand area of the brain itself."
Because the bone of the skull is a good insulator, electrical signals from neurons in the brain cannot easily pass through it into the outside world. So the skull has to be opened up to place electrodes on the surface or deeper into the brain. This can and often does damage brain tissue and can cause infection in the cerebral fluid, potentially leading to meningitis. Furthermore, electrodes tend to corrode or be scarred over within weeks to a few years, necessitating more surgery.
An engineer steps in
A better choice would be to sense and stimulate the neurons without penetrating the dura, the covering that protects the brain from infection. That's where Tadigadapa steps in. He is exploring magnetic MEMS sensors and actuators that can record and stimulate the brain with non-contact techniques.
The Penn State team will attempt to stimulate single neurons with a magnetic field that creates an electrical current in the individual brain cell. Stimulus is actually easier than recording, according to Tadigadapa. He and his engineering team are creating tiny coils that can deliver a localized stimulation to cells. Eugene Freeman, a Ph.D. candidate in Tadigadapa's lab, is working on the coil approach.
"Usually what people do to stimulate neurons is to have very big coils that go outside the head," said Freeman. "They're not implantable. They're about the size of your fist, so you have to go in to a lab for the treatment, which is called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS). These large magnets activate a relatively large part of the brain. You can't get single neuron specificity. We are experimenting and simulating microcoils in different sizes and shapes, the smallest so far being about 500 microns in diameter (about half the size of a grain of salt). We use microglass structures and pattern 3D copper coils on them."
The ability to do three-dimensional fabrication is a recent development, Freeman said. "We are just looking to see if that might be a better way to do it than just a flat coil."
Currently, the only magnetic sensors sensitive enough to detect the magnetic waves of the brain either need to be cooled to liquid helium levels in a device called a SQUID or heated to 180 degrees C to vaporize metals in a device called an atomic magnetometer. Neither technique is suitable for outpatient sensing and stimulation. So, recording of neural activity that is not potentially damaging to the brain either doesn't have cellular resolution, requires shielded rooms, or cannot be performed at safe temperatures. A recently developed third method uses a synthetic diamond material with random nitrogen vacancies to pick up very small magnetic fields, but that requires using microwaves – like the ones in a kitchen microwave – which have a tendency to cook things in the vicinity. Not an optimal solution.
Blocking the Earth's magnetic field
In order to make an implantable sensor to detect magnetic fields in the brain, something has to be done about Earth's magnetic field. Tadigadapa proposes to build active and passive circuits on a CMOS microchip that will cancel out magnetic noise using a simple feedback loop, the same technique used in noise cancelling headphones. The microdevice will generate an on-board magnetic field within the MEMS chip that will compensate for the Earth's magnetic field and other interfering magnetic fields in the nearby environment. Other circuits in the implantable chip will amplify the magnetic signal from the cells.
"The Earth's magnetic field is around 60 microTesla," Tadigadapa said, "and the magnetic field of the human brain is around a picoTesla (around 60 million times weaker). So there is need to block Earth's huge magnetic field. Currently that is done within an isolated room that costs $10 million to build, plus the cost of the SQUID itself and the high cost of liquid helium to cool the device. We hope to be able to do it with an on-chip circuit."
"We have a number of designs that Srinivas is going to be placing on these chips. Unlike in the past, these things can be implanted in the body. They are ambient, which means they assume the temperature of their surroundings, rather than freezing them by being dropped into liquid helium. And when implanted, they will allow us to take this technology out of the laboratory for the use of people in an ambulatory setting," Schiff said.
"It's a good technical challenge," Tadigadapa remarked with patent understatement.
Who benefits from this technology?
"Many of our colleagues in surgery and neurology are very excited that we can do this. At Hershey (Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center), we are working with patients in the ALS clinic. We're keenly interested in improving our ability to let patients communicate as they lose their strength. We are also interested in their ability to control their environment robotically. That's more of an issue of sensing," Schiff said.
"If I have someone like one of our young veterans who has lost an arm, you want him or her to be able to run a prosthetic device for 50 years. You need to be able to maintain the device, not damage them any further (through repeated brain surgeries), and importantly, you need a way to give sensory feedback to the brain. This is a way to interact with the brain and to give it signals reflective of what a prosthetic is sensing as it touches something.
"I've worked in epilepsy for most of my career," Schiff continued. "This is a way to potentially not only sense from a part of the brain that makes seizures, but to modulate the activity to prevent seizures. We've shown that we can stimulate parts of the brain to improve depression and Obsessive-compulsive disorder. One of the major thrusts of the BRAIN Initiative is to get a better understanding of the major cognitive disorders."
The economic impact of very common cognitive disorders, such as depression, which affects 17 percent of the population of the U.S., is tremendous. The technology could also address the communication needs of people with spinal cord injuries, ALS or strokes, and of course, would benefit people who have lost limbs.
When will we have this technology?
Schiff and Tadigadapa hope to make rapid progress. Their recent work on magnetoflexoelastic resonators has demonstrated sensitivity in the tens of nanoTesla and on magnetoelectric magnetometers has achieved ~300 picoTesla sensitivity, all at room temperature. The resources of the Penn State Nanofabrication Laboratory will make it possible to make very thin, high-density arrays of sensors and stimulators. Initial testing will be conducted on rat brain slices in vitro to understand the strength of signals and the magnetic field strength required for stimulation. There are billions of neurons in the brain, not to mention many other types of cells that are also important. They will need to develop mathematical filters that can distinguish one cell from another. They will also learn whether it is necessary to use single cells or whether they can work with a few cells. A lot of basic science will result from the first couple of years of work.
"The first chips will probably be on the scale of a centimeter for the part of the chip that just does sensing," Schiff said. "For implantation the scale we are targeting is 100 micrometers. We won't be submillimeter for the array the first two years. This is a new technology grant where we've shown we have enough technical advances now that with this support we can go to the next stage of iterating electrical engineering and nanofabrication of devices with experiments."
He expects that the first devices will be placed against the skull, rather than inside, due to the amount of electronics and chip packaging necessary. A wireless transmitter and receiver is also needed. When the electronics packaging issue is solved, Schiff expects to have a biocompatible array that can be placed in a small trough inside the skull where it can be maintained or replaced as needed.
"I think we are looking at a five-year time horizon to the point where we could seriously have the technology ready for application and potential translation testing," Schiff said.
Andrew Whalen, a Ph.D. candidate in mechanical engineering, and post-doc Herve Kadji are working with Schiff to prepare brain slice experiments using the micro-magnetic coils that Eugene Freeman has designed to stimulate neuronal tissue. Through these experiments they hope to understand the fundamental mechanisms of magnetic stimulation on neuronal excitability.
"Magnetic stimulation has some nice advantages over traditional electric stimulation, which has many complications due to the electro-chemical interface between electrode and tissue," Whalen explained. "Magnetic stimulation in theory should bypass these issues with electrical resistance interfering with stimulation transmission and the formation of scar tissue in long term stimulation implants."
"Implantable Brain Microelectromechanical Magnetic Sensing and Stimulation (MEMS-MAGSS)"Epilis a $450K opening grant, funded over two years by the National Institutes of Health to show the feasibility of the technologies, with further possible funding. Peng Li in psychology has the other Penn State BRAIN grant. A patent for this work is pending.
Steven Schiff, MD, Ph.D., is Brush Chair Professor of Engineering, professor of neurosurgery, professor of engineering science and mechanics, professor of physics (courtesy appointment) and director of Penn State Center for Neural Engineering. Contact him email@example.com
Srinivas Tadigadapa, Ph.D., is professor of electrical and biomedical (courtesy appointment) engineering. Contact him firstname.lastname@example.com.