Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[God of Mr. Hanky]

LOL, I doubt we are really having the same discussion - you and I are both dealing with our own pet issues, and talking past each other.

So...."umadbro"....really?  Do you or do you not understand how learned behaviors, regardless of there being any gene that marks them, can affect the genotype?  Human beings -aren't- born with those skills, and yet we possess them.  

We know basic mathematical skills, and some of us can even deal with algebra, trig, and maybe calculus, but most of us don't have the brilliance of Pythagoras. We understand basic Newtonian physics, but most of us couldn't even talk to a modern-day Isaac Newton. Skills which are learned do influence a culture, it leads to selection pressure for those who are good at math and science in a culture which values them, but if I were to have any offspring through a female which is no better at working with numbers than I am, then I would not do much to help my species evolve its innate strengths.

If those skills provide a survival advantage -whatever the possessor may carry- in their genes piggybacks along for the ride without those genes being operative.  In the same way that genes related to height may piggyback along when natural selection works on eye color. 

Not really sure how this relates to the discussion at hand.

    That you choose to interpret -every- advantage natural selection works on as genetic is simply declaring it to be so by fiat. 

Not what I said at all. I said it makes sense, based on the observation of human learning differences to conclude that there are innate differences of strengths which are to some extent natural. I can't define just what that extent is, nor has anyone attempted to because this has been made controversial by the pseudoscientists who have declared, by fiat (to use your term) that culture is completely responsible for shaping the child, without any regard to innate strengths and weaknesses at all. This was believed by the Stalinist Soviets, who thought they could completely reinvent human culture without the nuclear family, and that experiment failed miserably. Yes, I'm going off on a big tangent here, but it's an example of just how plastic the human mind really isn't. In the Western world the SSSM became politically guarded, thereby all science was thrown out the window with social "science". How dare anyone suggest that some individuals have strengths or weaknesses which others don't - that would be "racism"! Science was suffering from the backlash of the radical Genetic Determism which had influenced the Nazis, and it still hasn't quite recovered.

There may be a unified psychology/genetics......

Now we may be getting somewhere - that is exactly what I was suggesting, if you mean that individuals learn by unequal combinations of genetic strength and brute effort. But what you learn with very little natural strength will be hard-taught to your offspring, and theirs will also struggle with that skill in question until one who has it is introduced to your family.

but you clearly don't posess that explanation and so prefer to describe any example given to you as a non-sequitur (and unrealistic, no less...despite them being examples from our history....?)........I guess you didn't inherit the genes for correctly identifying logical fallacies or engaging in robust argumentation?  Or maybe you didn't inherit the genes that make these things come naturally?  Or maybe...just maybe, you're demonstrably wrong.....and your genes aren't to blame.

Because I really don't see how they relate to the argument at hand - I get the feeling we are talking much of the same idea, and mostly in agreement, but still talking straight past each other.

   Let's use another of your examples.  You could be born with the most athletic genes in the world, and it won;t help you if your opponent in the game of life was born to a family that knows how to make a gun.  You can't outrun a bullet....and making guns isn't genetic.  Who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time, all other things being equal?  The guy who runs really fast, jumps really high, and never gets winded.....or the guy who learned to make a gun? Bang bang.  Now....lets needle in on just that subset.  Two gun users, both can make guns.  One is a "natural" shooter (wtf that is, lol)...the other has learned to make a significantly better gun..one that requires far less skill to operate.  All other things being equal...who's genes do you expect to find better represented in a population over time?

    Perhaps this could all be so much simpler.  Would you describe the relationship of the native americans to my european ancestors as one of genetic or technological inferiority?

You are discussing things which influence a culture, and my concern has been with what improves a genotype. Genotypes in the wrong culture have been wiped out. The Tanzanians roamed naked over very cold, blustery, rocky terrain, so they must have been a good physical genotype that they could tolerate such conditions, but without the gun or understanding of European culture, they lost. But I do not see how that argument relates to mine, which is that I may teach a child what I know of math, music, and science, but they aren't going to be become the next Einstein without genes which I don't have.