I have this feeling that my head is about to explode.

It's right there in the same article: the contradiction between what they are saying about evolution and what they pay attention to as "an evolutionary advance." And if they were consistent, they would be saying that it was an evolutionary REGRESS, and that parents should avoid this gene pairing, not seek it.

I'm glad you guys picked this one up. It really is a very vile thing. And if not vile, then completely ignorant of the nature of evolution.

I think I missed the part about "getting even stupider by the minute."

Comparatively.

Joseph:

As David said.

Vile? Nonsense?

Only if one view humanity in pseudo-darwinian, Nazi terms of voelker elbowing each other out of the way for a place in the sun.

From the perspective of humanity as individuals, there is nothing here to be afraid of and not much that is surprising or unexpected.

If the only reason we have to love our neighbor as ourselves is that he is as clever as we, we immediately start looking around for a good place for the smokestack when the data suggests human variation. If we have better grounds for justly treating the least of our bretheren, why not go where the data takes us? The question posed by C.S. Lewis, in Perelandra, as I recall, of whether we care for man or for seed, is what we are looking at here.

It may very well be that Old Europe, having lost its nerve through the hypertropisms of the last century, is incapable of progress: we shall see. What we can look forward to, however, is the genetic drift written of to be driven on by to interplay of assortative mating with spacial
mobility and a fading of the residues of racist thinking.

Recalling that mere numbers are a hinderance, and that technology makes short work of the supposed disadvantage of head size, why should we not be pierced by the arrow of longing to be surpassed?

Bizarre.

Of course, the spectrum of genetic diversity on the African continent is broader than in the rest of the world combined.

Some pygmy tribe will soon be discovered to be naturally resistant to space radiation. Then Mr. Jefferson colonizes the galaxy in our behalf!

Also, when can I get an injectable dose of peterparkerine and swing from pillar to post?

The study is stupid, but criticizing it does nothing to disprove natural selection, nor do OJ predictable rants on demographics. Rather, I think the fact that the quality of ideas on this website is proof itself that natural selection is no longer at work on the human race; at least in New Hampshire.
Howabout you post some real, current research involving natural selection? I know its a lot easier to prop up a straw man and then knock it down, but you gotta become a man one of these days.

Actually, Kilgore, this is real, current research involving natural selection. Hot off the presses as a matter of fact and gracing the pages of Science.

Rather, I think the fact that the quality of ideas on this website is proof itself that natural selection is no longer at work on the human race

Good to know that we still have naturally selected Kilgores to teach us proper English.

As David Berlinski once observed: This isn't a parody of evolutionary thinking, this *is* evolutionary thinking.

Actually, this has absolutely nothing to do with evolutionary thinking.

The phenomena under discussion either exists, or it does not.

Assume it does -- that might lead to some consequences (or according to Lou, and I think he is right, it shouldn't and probably won't).

Continuing with the assumption, naturalistic evolution might be the reason.

According to OJ, though, that can't be.

So take it up with The Designer, not evolutionary biologists.

Anon: What is Darwinist is the assumption that there must be a "fitness" advantage to any characteristic we think of as good and that having that characteristic is thus better than not having it.

Mr. Cohen:

Of course that is the assumption, it may well be right.

But let's just assume for the moment the phenomena is real, but the explanation false.

In other words, let's assume Mr. Judd is right.

Is everyone happier that The Designer produced such an outcome, on purpose?

"Is everyone happier that The Designer produced such an outcome, on purpose?"

A question that only a true humanist could ask.

The world was not designed to make us happy.

David

I agree with your and Flanman's sentiment, which Anon might agree to also. However I interpreted his statement to mean that regardless of the issue of Designer or Evolution, the "facts" presented in the study are either true or not. Therefore it's rather futile to bring up the concept of Evolution as being an inaccurate explanation. The same results could existence under an assumption of The Designer.

I seem to be missing what's 'vile' about the study, or how it's nonsense.

H: Some people have lighter skin and some have darker. Some are right handed and some are left handed. Some are taller and some are shorter. Some are dumb and some are smart. Those are facts. Only Darwinists (whether theoretical or applied) think that those facts have any moral force and reflect on the worth of the individual.

It may have nothing to do with these genes, but the descendants of Europeans rule the world, and the descendants of sub-Saharan Africans rule nothing.
(Except in the sense that we're ALL descendants of sub-Saharan Africans - but that was 75,000 years ago).

Therefore, it's worth looking into.

David Cohen:

Only Darwinists and parents.

How many parents have hoped that their children will be short, darker than they are, and stupid ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 10, 2005 3:43 AM

Well, Michael, that will come as news to an awful lot of Asians, Russians, Persians, Turks, Arabs, etc., and it is rather meaningless when talking about the entire Western Hemisphere. Except for Rome, you couldn't have said anything like that until at least the 17th century, so those genes must be real hard-working little critters. Funny how evolution takes so long for things like standing up straight and learning to eat a steak but can drive the whole master race into Mensa in real time.

Anon, before you even pose the question of whether "the phenemenon" exists, you have to believe: a) that intelligence is a quantifiable, physical characteristic; b)that it makes scientific or even logical sense to talk about collective genetically-driven intelligence across whole populations. Why don't you go there while the rest of us stay here and look for the empathy and sense of humour genes?

h-man:

You apprehended my point perfectly.

Mr. Cohen:

"Only Darwinists (whether theoretical or applied) think that those facts have any moral force and reflect on the worth of the individual."

If the theory is true, it correctly describes the process underlying the gene's spread.

The explanation has nothing to do with "moral force."

Any more than "the world is not designed to make people happy."

Anon: Here is the slippery slope. 1. The gene exists. 2. The gene is spreading throughout the population. 3. Genes survive and spread if they provide a "fitness" advantage. 4. This gene provides a fitness advantage. 5. More fitness is better than less fitness. 6. People with this gene are more fit than people without it.

Step 3 is wrong and thus everything that follow is wrong. The error is compounded here because the gene in question is thought to have a connection with intelligence, which Americans overvalue.

Peter B:

[T]hat will come as news to an awful lot of Asians, Russians, Persians, Turks, Arabs, etc.

Not really.
They're well aware of who calls the shots.

How many of 'em are in the G7, for instance ?
Only one.

If, I say IF, China or some part thereof actually becomes powerful, prosperous, and advanced enough to be considered a peer of the tier of nations right below the U.S., THEN we can discuss how much of the Earth Asians rule, but as of now, the gov't of the PRC doesn't even rule all of the PRC.

BTW, Arabs and Persians ?
Are you trying out a new comedy routine ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at September 11, 2005 4:16 AM

Mr. Cohen:

Step three is wrong?

How so?

Presuming the phenomena is correctly described, what is your alternative explanation?

Michael:

Are you just having fun or are you seriously entertaining the notion that Western influence over the past several hundred years has a genetic explanation?

Anon:

And are you seriously advancing the proposition that scientific theories should be accorded respectability ab initio unless the critic has a full-blown, objectively verifiable alternative scientific explanation?

Peter:

No, I'm not. Please re-read my post. It is a two part question.

The first part asks him to back up his statement. Clearly a theory may be completely wrong while having no replacement.

The second part, while I might have worded it better, merely asks for an alternative explanation.

"I don't know" would suffice.

It is just possible that women prefer smarter men. Female preference might, just might, explain amplifying a mutation. And would also come under the umbrella of fitness.