Re: The Bell Curve.

Bill Morse <wdNOSPAmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
eOXgj.8109$%A6.6757@trndny08:">news:eOXgj.8109$%A6.6757@trndny08:

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.



Finally, someone who attempted to answer the questions I asked.

Thank you.

--
Gary Bohn

NOW COMPLETELY SIG FREE AND WRY!

.

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: 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: Gene discoveries highlight dangers facing society
    ... >> Mankind's increasing understanding of the way genes influence behaviour ... >> the biggest dangers facing society, ... The exceptions to this rule will be IQ boosting heterozygotes that ... Negative epistasis - because different continental populations may ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The Bell Curve.
    ... In my opinion, there has been too little time, not enough selection (or ... IIRC the general criterion is fewer than one migrant between populations per ... generation - so it is highly unlikely that there is a genetic difference ... It is a good question - if a trait is affected by many genes as opposed to ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading