>Sure, prenatal conditions and upbringing will have their effect on things
>like intelligence (again: in the *broadest* sense of the word), but the
>original genetic programming is almost certainly the most important
>factor (by far).
Almost certainly? By what standard?
The study Kennita referred to actually did measure the contribution of
post-natal environment, genes, and pre-natal environment on IQ (not
intelligence in general, which is a more complex thing). This showed that
the genes were #2 on the list; less important that post-natal environment.
Do you have any evidence to back up your contention?