Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin’s unexploded bomb
The Spectator ^ | 5/6/14

Posted on 05/06/2014 5:19:14 PM PDT by Altura Ct.

‘This book is an attempt to understand the world as it is, not as it ought to be.’ So writes Nicholas Wade, the British-born science editor of The New York Times, in his new book A Troublesome Inheritance.

For some time the post-War view of human nature as being largely culturally-formed has been under attack just as surely as the biblical explanation of mankind’s creation began to face pressure in the early 19th century. What Steven Pinker called the blank slate view of our species, whereby humans are products of social conditions and therefore possible to mould and to perfect through reform, has been undermined by scientific discoveries in various areas.

But the most sensitive, and potentially troubling to the modern psyche, is the difference between human population groups that have evolved over the past 50,000 years. As Wade writes: ‘The fact that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional is not widely recognized, even though it has now been reported by many articles in the literature of genetics. The reason is in part that the knowledge is so new and in part because it raises awkward challenges to deeply held conventional wisdom.’

The political objections are a reaction to the horrific things done in the name of race in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, culminating in the Final Solution, after which the UN’s Ashley Montagu made the influential declaration that race was to all intents and purposes a fiction. Before that, anthropologist Franz Boas had popularised the idea that we are entirely products of culture.

This has remained the conventional view, indeed the only one that academics could safely hold; yet a number of inconsistencies have begun to crack away at this noble idea.

Among them is the recent knowledge that evolution can take place far quicker than people once thought. Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending, in their book The 10,000 Year Explosion, argued that human evolution had sped up since the advent of the first cities. The drastic changes in our ancestors’ environment created new evolutionary pressures; among them were selection for qualities that were beneficial in our larger communities, such as lower levels of aggression, deferred gratification (vital for farmers), a greater willingness to trust people outside of close kin group, and the qualities required for craftsmanship, finance and various other complex skills. Thus civilisation had increased the rate of evolution, and was continuing to do so.

Their research was solid, yet as Wade says, ‘Scientific enquiry thus runs into potential conflict with the public policy interest of not generating possibly invidious comparisons that might foment racism’.

Among the areas explored by Cochran and Harpending, along with another academic, Jason Hardy, has been Ashkenazi intelligence, and yet a previous paper, despite being considered ‘fascinating’ by editors, could not be published in the United States.

It is obviously understandable why Jewish intelligence and success, the subject of extreme and violent jealousies through the ages, makes people nervous. But the outsized contribution of Jews to almost all fields must surely interest all but the dullest of minds: just 0.2 per cent of the world population, Jews accounted for 29 per cent of Nobel Prizes in the late 20th century, and 32 per cent so far in 21st century. That tiny, remarkable country Israel recently won its fifth Chemistry Prize in a decade.

One can admire Jewish culture and the Jewish work ethic, but the idea that this enormous level of achievement is purely cultural, while possible, certainly does not pass the Occam’s razor test. As Wade says, ‘People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it.’ They haven’t.

The same is true of the Chinese, who across Asia and now the rest of the world have formed highly successful business communities and, like the Jews, have suffered attacks from jealous neighbours: ‘If Chinese business success were purely cultural, everyone should find it easy to adopt the same methods. This is not the case because social behaviour, of Chinese and others, is genetically shaped.’

As he says: ‘New evidence strongly suggests that the very different kinds of society seen in the various races and in the world’s great civilizations differ not just because of their received culture – in other words, in what is learned from birth – but also because of variations in the social behaviour of their members, carried down in their genes.’

The implications of this will trouble many people, seeing as it suggests that certain traits differ on average among population groups. He cites the MAO-A enzyme; people with only 2 copies (rather than 3, 4 or 5) have a much higher level of delinquency. And ‘if individuals can differ in the genetic structure of their MAO-A gene and its controls, is the same also true of races and ethnicities? The answer is yes.’ A team in Haifa looked at people from seven ethnicities and found 41 variations in the portions of the genes they decoded, with ‘substantial differentiation between populations’.

So why do so many people confidently argue that there is no such thing as race, because there are ‘no clear distinct racial boundaries’. This he calls ‘verbal subterfuge’, arguing: ‘When a distinct boundary develops between races, they are no longer races but separate species. So to say there are no precise boundaries between races is like saying there are no square circles.’

Wade is critical of leading biologists, economists and psychologists who have simply dismissed possible non-cultural explanations as racist, or who pin their hopes in geographic determinism, or shy away from recent evolution because of the political implications. This, he says, has nothing to do with its scientific validity but the ‘political dangers’ that researchers face in ‘pursuing the truth too far’.

The political dangers are very real; various academics have lost their jobs or faced quite extreme harassment for voicing the belief that differences in group IQ scores are partly hereditary, despite there being solid evidence that intelligence is under genetic control.

And yet these ‘accusations of racism against anyone who suggests that cognitive capacities might differ between human populations groups… are shaped by leftist and Marxist political dogma, not by science.’ He says: ‘The common sense conclusion – that race is both a biological reality and a politically fraught idea with sometimes pernicious consequences – has also eluded’ much of academia.

This book’s ideas are indeed fraught but beyond carefully explaining the dangers of misusing science, the consequences are not for scientists to ponder, but rather lawmakers and others of influence; they can choose either to consider the evidence and make things work as best as they can, using what knowledge we have, or they can continue to ignore the ticking of Darwin’s unexploded bomb, punishing anyone who raises the subject.

This hostility faced by those with troublesome ideas is, of course, itself explained by evolution. As Wade mentions earlier on, we are social creatures, and we have evolved behaviours to live as such: ‘One is a tendency to criticise, and if necessary punish, those who do not follow the agreed norms.’ That is partly why, as a species, we find it easier to talk about how the world should be, rather than how it is.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: crime; darwin; eugenics; evolution; genetics; racetheory; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

1 posted on 05/06/2014 5:19:14 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

2 posted on 05/06/2014 5:23:50 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
This hostility faced by those with troublesome ideas is, of course, itself explained by evolution.

Our cultural values are explained by genetic evolution? How magical!

3 posted on 05/06/2014 5:29:33 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I’m trying to figure out what relevance your post has to the subject of the article?


4 posted on 05/06/2014 5:30:36 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

5 posted on 05/06/2014 5:33:11 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Well, OK, you could just say you don’t know either.


6 posted on 05/06/2014 5:36:22 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

I note the author says nothing about whether evolution as described proceeds forwards or backwards. My belief is that it is becoming retrograde and much of what formerly passed as “advanced civilization” is actually going backwards. And yes, it can definitely go quickly.


7 posted on 05/06/2014 5:41:02 PM PDT by Attention Surplus Disorder (At no time was the Obama administration aware of what the Obama administration was doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

8 posted on 05/06/2014 5:43:51 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder

Second Law of Thermodynamics says you’re on to something.


9 posted on 05/06/2014 5:46:16 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Attention Surplus Disorder
I note the author says nothing about whether evolution as described proceeds forwards or backwards.

Evolution cannot be described as going backwards or forwards.

I saw recently that the size of the human brain has been shrinking. This can be explained by the effect of civilization: since so many survival functions are now delegated to society, people do not have to devote as much brain mass to survival. So people with smaller brains can still survive and pass their genes to their offspring.

10 posted on 05/06/2014 5:52:09 PM PDT by exDemMom (Current visual of the hole the US continues to dig itself into: http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
Among them is the recent knowledge that evolution can take place far quicker than people once thought. Greg Cochran and Henry Harpending, in their book The 10,000 Year Explosion, argued that human evolution had sped up since the advent of the first cities. The drastic changes in our ancestors’ environment created new evolutionary pressures; among them were selection for qualities that were beneficial in our larger communities, such as lower levels of aggression, deferred gratification (vital for farmers), a greater willingness to trust people outside of close kin group, and the qualities required for craftsmanship, finance and various other complex skills. Thus civilization had increased the rate of evolution, and was continuing to do so

Communities breed out aggression! Really? Like the Romans were not aggressive slaughtering millions and stealing their wealth and making slaves of the survivors.

One can admire Jewish culture and the Jewish work ethic, but the idea that this enormous level of achievement is purely cultural, while possible, certainly does not pass the Occam’s razor test. As Wade says, ‘People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it.’ They haven’t.

So why do Jews (Semites) succeed whereas Arabs (Semites) live in squalor. Did the success gene split 1400 years ago or did the Arabs accept a cult bent on destruction? Whenever I hear "Occam’s razor test", I know the writer is attempting to appear logical where there is no logic.

Does the Negro fail because he has dumb genes or is it that he accepts the culture of sustenance of the War on Poverty pursuing non intellectual pastimes.

11 posted on 05/06/2014 5:54:48 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Is that what you hide behind when discussing the book ‘The Bell Curve’ also?


12 posted on 05/06/2014 5:58:49 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
This hostility faced by those with troublesome ideas is, of course, itself explained by evolution. As Wade mentions earlier on, we are social creatures, and we have evolved behaviours to live as such: ‘One is a tendency to criticise, and if necessary punish, those who do not follow the agreed norms.’ That is partly why, as a species, we find it easier to talk about how the world should be, rather than how it is.

Evolutionarily speaking, did the troublesome ideas evolve first, or did the tendency to criticize those troublesome ideas evolve first? Was it this mystical convergent evolution? Does evolution select for troublesome ideas and criticisms of those ideas or, as we have been proselytized to believe that evolution selects for the 4 F's…….fleeing, fighting, feeding, and reproduction. In the human genome where is the gene for criticizing an idea?

13 posted on 05/06/2014 6:01:18 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
.


Does the Negro fail because he has dumb genes or is it that he accepts the culture of sustenance of the War on Poverty pursuing non intellectual pastimes.


Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice and Allen West answer that question for me ...


.
14 posted on 05/06/2014 6:06:52 PM PDT by Patton@Bastogne (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
The author discusses Jews in the context of “race”, but Jews are not a “race”. Most are Caucasians, some are other races.
The fact that Jews have endured “natural selection” (i.e. for higher IQs) does not make them a different “race”.

Indeed, what is said of Jews can so be said of Americans in general — less than 5% of the world's population, we create over 25% of the world's wealth, and contribute disproportionately to science, etc., etc.

Does that make us a different “race”? No, it just means we are especially talented at bringing out the human potentials in all of our races.

15 posted on 05/06/2014 6:07:22 PM PDT by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
‘People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it.’ They haven’t.

That would be for the same reason they have not copied other culture success stories. Because it is hard work, because it forces you to interact with people who may not like you and it means taking risks.

These are all things that most humans avoid.

16 posted on 05/06/2014 6:07:52 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

If you don’t know enough history to understand then you do not know enough history to understand the explanation.


17 posted on 05/06/2014 6:10:36 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

~‘People are highly imitative, and if the Jewish advantage were purely cultural, such as hectoring mothers or a special devotion to education, there would be little to prevent others from copying it.’ They haven’t.~

Why would one group copy another? But you surely can await people copying one another within one group.

Their argument is absolutely illegitimate.

It is absolutely clear that difference between groups are solely cultural and there is no legit clues to prove otherwise.

Of course you need some intellectual and physical qualities for more achievments but if some ethnicies generally lacks that it is cultural as well.
If Muslims are leaning to inbreeding you can await a number of underforming freaks within their societies. If some other group doesn’t value education and gaining valuable skills and underperforming as a result it is exactly cultural.


18 posted on 05/06/2014 6:14:09 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
The same is true of the Chinese, who across Asia and now the rest of the world have formed highly successful business communities and, like the Jews, have suffered attacks from jealous neighbours: ‘If Chinese business success were purely cultural, everyone should find it easy to adopt the same methods. This is not the case because social behaviour, of Chinese and others, is genetically shaped.’

So both groups put a high emphasis on education and learning and both have notable success but aside from that they have little in common. Yet this person jumps to a rather strange conclusion that it must have nothing to do with culture but with genes.

Of course the fact is that there are a number of other cultures in Asia that are successful but are not Chinese. But they do all place a high emphasis on education and learning.

But in places that have the same genetics but place no emphasis on education and learning there is a marked lack of success.

This study is totally devoid of anything that resembles logic and reason. A third grader could pick it apart.

I know it plays to certain peoples desire to assume that they are "special" but they delude themselves.

19 posted on 05/06/2014 6:20:41 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Most Darwinists know next to nothing about the man, nor what he wrote, nor why.

Wasn’t it Galton, Darwin’s cousin, whose views form the basis of eugenics? And of course Darwin himself claimed that most races are not evolving, and should therefore be weeded out of the gene pool, lest evolution march backward “into the swirling mists of the dawnless past.”

This gave the elitists - for the first time in history - a SCIENTIFIC basis for exercising rule over the unwashed masses.

Darwin’s bomb is not unexploded. Most people just don’t hear it.


20 posted on 05/06/2014 6:29:48 PM PDT by LearsFool ("Thou shouldst not have been old, till thou hadst been wise.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

What places have the same genetics but put no emphasis on education and learning? And I’d stay away from remarks that third graders could pick the article apart.


21 posted on 05/06/2014 6:36:32 PM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Jews and Arabs are called Semites because they speak a Semitic language. Being Semitic has nothing to do with genes.


22 posted on 05/06/2014 6:40:31 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
If you don’t know enough history to understand then you do not know enough history to understand the explanation.

So, by way of example, how do you explain "The Bell Curve"?

23 posted on 05/06/2014 6:41:05 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; Sherman Logan
>> there are a number of other cultures in Asia that are successful but are not Chinese <<

Yes, specifically the Vietnamese in recent years, the Koreans and the Japanese. But like the Chinese, their cultures are Confucian. That's the critical factor IMHO.

(How can you be sure they follow Confucian culture? They all eat with chopsticks. No kidding!)

Also, two other Asian countries, where Chinese are an extremely influential minority, have done moderately well in the economic arena -- Malaysia and Thailand.

In the meantime, the non-Confucian countries in Asia haven't done do so well -- Indonesia, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Philippines, India, Nepal, etc.

(And guess what? They don't eat with chopsticks. They eat either with spoons or with their fingers!)

24 posted on 05/06/2014 6:42:35 PM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

>> Being Semitic has nothing to do with genes. <<

Not so sure about that. The Y-chromosome haplotypes of Jews and Arabs are remarkably similar.


25 posted on 05/06/2014 6:45:03 PM PDT by Hawthorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn

There is a definition of Semitic, look it up.


26 posted on 05/06/2014 6:51:39 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
Jews and Arabs are called Semites because they speak a Semitic language. Being Semitic has nothing to do with genes.

Genetic Similarities Between Jews and Arabs

27 posted on 05/06/2014 6:55:20 PM PDT by LoneRangerMassachusetts (The meek shall not inherit the Earth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Daniel Pipes? No Thanks.


28 posted on 05/06/2014 7:01:10 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
Wade is critical of leading biologists, economists and psychologists who have simply dismissed possible non-cultural explanations as racist, or who pin their hopes in geographic determinism, or shy away from recent evolution because of the political implications.

Since cultural factors and ideas are not genetic, they can't be explained (not even in principle) by natural selection and hence evolution. I wonder why scientists pretend not to see this obvious fact.

29 posted on 05/06/2014 7:18:59 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

Always wishing there would be some discussion on the full title of Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species and The Preservation of Favoured Races.” If that were an open topic, liberal evolutionists would be forced to deal with their hypocrisy and the textbooks re-written. Unfortunately it’s not going to happen.


30 posted on 05/06/2014 7:20:50 PM PDT by Bravada (Wherever I Stand, I Stand With Israel!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2
What places have the same genetics but put no emphasis on education and learning?

Compare North and South Korea.

The North demands that you do not learn anything except the limited amount they allow. Real education is verboten although they do emphasize "re-education". They are a failed society.

The South does put emphasis on education and learning. They are a successful society.

They are perhaps the clearest example of the difference that culture has on people. If genes ruled then the North and the South would be roughly equal. They are not.

31 posted on 05/06/2014 7:28:56 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

Different groups of human beings have been reproductively isolated for tens of thousands of years, long enough to accumulate obvious morphological differences.

If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from, then what on this great green earth makes you think that somehow, magically, all people everywhere are exactly the same in all other respects? Do you think that things like average levels of key mood or behavior influencing hormones are somehow immune to genetic variation? Keep in mind this is variation so significant that it can cause powdery earwax, epicanthic folds, and shovel teeth. I simply cannot grasp such idiotic and irrational thinking that would blatantly assume all people, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, must somehow be biologically and behaviorally identical.

Obvious physical differences between various ethnic groups are just the tip of the iceberg. Differences in key metabolic pathways, differences in immunological function, differences in average and peak levels of key hormones and enzymes, are forming the basis of ethnically and individually targeted medical therapies. In a few years you’re going to be prescribed drugs tailored to your ethnic background, and hopefully therapies targeted specifically at your familial and individual profile.

Yet you think that differences like that can’t possibly influence maturation, behavior, or measurable ability? That somehow the biochemistry responsible for us being able to communicate in the first place, and engage in abstract reasoning, must be exactly the same in all respects between all persons and groups of persons? That culture is the only possible cause of differences in between groups of people? That somehow human beings magically stopped changing when they left Africa?

You do realize that such fairytale rationale can cause more harm than good? How about this scenario: say that a few years from now researchers discover that persons of a certain familial background have significantly lower average and peak levels of key growth differentiation factors in utero - leading to a measurably reduced rate of neurological development. Said researchers hypothesize that simply supplementing pregnant women of said group with injections of said GDF is an intervention likely to improve the neurological function, and hence overall life outcome, of an entire generation of persons. Do you ignore those measurable biological differences as well and argue that good schooling will somehow make up for a 15 point IQ deficiency?

How about a real-world example. Years back a few maverick researchers wanted to explore the possible hereditary nature of schizophrenia. The very idea was abhorrent to many in the academic establishment, with comparisons to eugenics and nazi science brought forth and numerous attempts made to deny the researchers funding. Eventually the researchers were able to secure some funding from people not so obsessed with phantom boogeymen of eugenic deathsquads, and were able to demonstrate that yes indeed schizophrenia is significantly heritable. This discovery didn’t cause the government to sterilize the mentally ill, it didn’t cause a resurgence in hate crimes, it didn’t cause us to turn our asylums into crematories — it DID however allow doctors to identify at risk families as well as individuals and engage in early medical and psychiatric intervention that measurably improved the quality of life for a large number of persons.

Just because differences exist between individuals and groups doesn’t mean the end of the world or the start of a eugenics war. Admitting that people differ biologically, and that such differences in biology effect both behavior and life outcome, is the first step in generating new and effective medical therapies and social interventions to improve quality of life for large numbers of people. Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying biological differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences. Quite the opposite, stubborn denial delays the formation and adoption of reasonable, moral frameworks to guide the discussion about said differences.


32 posted on 05/06/2014 7:35:47 PM PDT by jameslalor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Bravada

You speak as if the theory of evolution has not itself changed since Darwin. That is, of course, false. Why would someone want to debate something that is, a best, an interesting history and beginning point. Darwin had an woefully incomplete understanding of geology and an incomplete knowledge of biology. He didn’t have DNA, radiometric dating or plate tectonics to work with. Survival of the fittest isn’t survival of the best.


33 posted on 05/06/2014 7:40:04 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hawthorn
Yes, specifically the Vietnamese in recent years, the Koreans and the Japanese. But like the Chinese, their cultures are Confucian. That's the critical factor IMHO.

You are correct. And the big ideas of Confucius are strong families, cultivation of knowledge and morality.

These are very similar to the big ideas of Judaism.

When you study successful cultures they tend to have those three big ideas in common.

Genetically they may be as different as you can get. But their ideas converge.

34 posted on 05/06/2014 7:44:49 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
You seem to be hung up on "The Bell Curve".

I am curious, have you actually read it?

35 posted on 05/06/2014 7:46:06 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

The BeeGees had the answer to why the Jewish people have done well while others have not. It lies in the title of one of their songs “Staying Alive”.

That is a great incentive to be creative in the face of diversity and annihilation. Having a god to look to for guidance, as well as written laws and guidelines for behavior, proper health practicies, and social cohesion also help a people survive.


36 posted on 05/06/2014 7:52:38 PM PDT by MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Do you understand the distinction between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews?

It appears to this layman there is a strong helping of both nature and nurture in humans.


37 posted on 05/06/2014 7:57:41 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

>>It is absolutely clear that difference between groups are solely cultural and there is no legit clues to prove otherwise.

The field of athletic success says otherwise.


38 posted on 05/06/2014 8:00:44 PM PDT by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jameslalor
Different groups of human beings have been reproductively isolated for tens of thousands of years,

Not really.

If you start learning about world genetics you find that we are far more mixed then most people could believe. Genes from around the world are found around the world. We travel, we trade and we have lots of sex. Whenever you find any group that has contact with any other group there is, to a greater or lesser degree, an exchange of genes. And then that group trades with a third group and it goes on and on.

If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from,

Well, you see that is just the problem. You can't.

Are there genetic traits? Of course. Are they stronger then culture? So far unproven to say the least.

This flies in the face of those who think we can "breed" better people rather then training better people.

They think that if they can just find the right mix of genes the hard consistent work of creating and maintaining a culture that encourages people to be better will be over.

To quote you "Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying cultural differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences."

39 posted on 05/06/2014 8:02:59 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear

Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

How do you explain it?


40 posted on 05/06/2014 8:08:14 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: MadMax, the Grinning Reaper
The BeeGees had the answer to why the Jewish people have done well while others have not. It lies in the title of one of their songs “Staying Alive”.

To a certain extent you are correct.

41 posted on 05/06/2014 8:11:07 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.

The topic of this article, and the article itself for that matter, amounts to pseudo-scientific claptrap.

The author can’t even get the MAO polymorphism data correct, does not understand it or he would not make such an error in describing it.

But this is the world we live in. Idiots think they are geniuses, and no one knows better or cares.


42 posted on 05/06/2014 8:16:06 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle; BenLurkin

“I’m trying to figure out what relevance your post has to the subject of the article?”

Good point, me as well.

It would seem to be saying Sanger was right.


43 posted on 05/06/2014 8:17:48 PM PDT by ifinnegan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Altura Ct.
The same is true of the Chinese, who across Asia and now the rest of the world have formed highly successful business communities

They do so, not through natural selection or any other evolutionist fantasy, but through countless complicated scams that only they fully understand. For instance the chinese business immigration scams in Canada. Chinese education is based on plagiarism, cheating, bribery and fake degrees and everyone knows and accepts this. Everyone but dumb north americans that is.

44 posted on 05/06/2014 8:18:06 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
The question of your having read it is germane to the conversation. You can not intelligently discuss something, especially something about which so much misinformation has been attached, if you have not read it.

So I repeat, have you read it?

If not then please do so. I believe it is available on-line. Then you may cite parts that support what ever argument you are trying to make.

45 posted on 05/06/2014 8:18:19 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
So people with smaller brains can still survive and pass their genes to their offspring.

i see, survival of the smallest. So, according to evolution, people today find small brains more attractive, and hence tend to have more small-brained offspring with attractive small-brained mates. That's interesting. Or is it that having a smaller brain gives you an advantage in, say, Wall street, or the advertising industry, or maybe plumbing or accounting? Indeed a small brain would be of great advantage to the lucky ones who have it... though at the moment I can't think of why... perhaps my brain isn't small enough and I'm due for extinction. But it doesn't really have to be an advantage, does it? We can just say that it is, and that's good enough for evolution. Or we can say that it isn't even an advantage, and that's good enough for evolution.

46 posted on 05/06/2014 8:35:57 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan

No, I am not.


47 posted on 05/06/2014 8:46:47 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear; BenLurkin

You are trying to change the subject because you know you can’t answer without incriminating yourself.

Ben is afraid to even raise his head.

I’ve pretty much smoked you both out with a simple question.


48 posted on 05/06/2014 9:03:43 PM PDT by Balding_Eagle (Want to keep your doctor? Remove your Democrat Senator.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

What are you talking about?


49 posted on 05/06/2014 9:07:49 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

More particularly, what do you mean by “incriminating?”

And what do you mean by “Smoked me out?”

Seriously, you sound deranged.


50 posted on 05/06/2014 9:10:03 PM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-87 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson