Re: The Bell Curve.

Gary Bohn wrote:

I'm currently reading "The Bell Curve" and finding it hard going, not
because it is difficult to understand but because it goes against my
grain. I'm reading it so I can refute it.

Anyway, it brings up a question or two I thought the hard core
evolutionists here could answer.


So far, and I have actually read very little, it seems they are
suggesting that some areas of the US are breeding themselves into
stupidity and others into brilliance.

In my opinion, there has been too little time, not enough selection (or
selection has not been specific enough) and far too much gene transfer
and introduction for any significant change to have taken place.

So, the questions are:

How non-random is human 'pairing' and does it even approach what is
necessary to affect intelligence?

Unsurprisingly, humans practice assortative mating and one of the major
factors is choosing a mate is intelligence. But assortative mating won't by
itself affect net intelligence unless the higher intelligence couples have
on the average more surviving offspring, and I don't know of any good data
that show any trends in either direction.


How much isolation is necessary for a group to see a noticable change.

IIRC the general criterion is fewer than one migrant between populations per
generation - so it is highly unlikely that there is a genetic difference
between populations, absent some other selection pressure that is
negatively correlated with intelligence.

How much difference in this change would intelligence as a spandrel have
as opposed to intelligence being controlled by a group of genes as
opposed to being controlled by a single gene. (I'm assuming intelligence
is both nature and nurture based.)

Ouch. You just went beyond my very limited knowledge of population genetics.
It is a good question - if a trait is affected by many genes as opposed to
a few genes, does that make it more or less likely to vary among
populations.


--
Yours, Bill Morse

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Reviving group selection
    ... >> populations by sexual recombination. ... > No theoretical argument against group selection is based on within-group ... that produces new combinations of genes via sex. ... but it is very weak as a force for creating variation between groups. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Humans ARE still evolving - NYT and PLoS articles
    ... Human Genes Tell New Story" ... Many of these instances of selection may reflect the pressures that ... Three populations were studied, Africans, East Asians and Europeans. ... (Synopsis continues at Public Library of Science - Biology) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Bell Curve.
    ... In my opinion, there has been too little time, not enough selection ... genetic difference between populations, absent some other selection ... It is a good question - if a trait is affected by many genes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sexual competition
    ... species as a whole, even as it changes. ... individuals for units of selection. ... No, genes reside in individuals. ... to look at it in reverse, and consider populations to be delimited by ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The root of all evil? - Dawkins Documentary
    ... selection not being a very common phenomenon, ... Dawkins himself refers to genes are 'selfish cooperators'. ... what the biochemical nature of life itself and how it might have begun. ... parasitical is one manner in which a meme can operate, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading