Humans have not stopped evolving, and races biologically exist

[bilby]

Funny you should pick Ashkenazi Jews as an example of a low-level "race", especially in a discussion about race and intelligence.

One of the most obvious shortcomings of Lynn's argument (other than the fact that some of his data sources are really questionable) is the fact that, according to his data, Ashkenazi Jews in the US score about 10 points higher than Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. The only obvious explanation is that even relatively minor cultural differences between two populations that are, at the genetic level, almost identical, living in two countries with similar levels of development, can cause a 10 point difference - and if that is so, much larger differences between populations living in very different circumstances shouldn't surprise anybody and can no longer be used as an argument for a biological basis of such differences.

Also, are you serious about the "Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race"? While it's correct that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Middle Eastern populations than non-Jewish groups of Central and Eastern Europe are, they're still fundamentally European, i.e. closer to European populations than to Middle Eastern ones. And what Middle Eastern heritage they have is hardly identifiable as Jewish by objective measures - They are closer to both Mizrahi Jews and Palestinian Arabs than Poles are, but pretty much equidistant from both.

That particular idea of races has been proven wrong by genetic research a long time ago.

The Ashkenazi Jews are not merely a cultural group, but they are a racial group that can be identified with genetic markers. You can get a genetic test and find out if you are probably an Ashkenazi Jew, as there are four haplogroups closely associated with them. And Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disease that affects NOT Jews in general so much and NOT Europeans in general so much but Ashkenazi Jews in particular. They are a group that existed in Europe since the ancient diasporas, marrying and mating only with each other for cultural reasons--relatively, that is, because of course, yes, there was admixture with Europeans. You speak of "Ashkenazi Jews in Israel," but I am not sure who you mean, as the Ashkenazi Jews are defined as having ancestry in Europe. Israel has all subgroups of Jews, not just Ashkenazi. There are many explanations for why Ashkenazi Jews in particular have high intelligence (the highest, in fact), and the one I prefer is that the Ashkenazi Jews had a history of being excluded from the typical occupations in Europe, such as farming, so they were pushed into occupations that depended on high-intelligence for success, such as law, management and accounting. Sexual selection drove the rise in IQ. It is not a certain explanation but a plausible one.

Only insofar as by 'plausible', you mean 'ad-hoc'.

Just so stories are fun, but they shouldn't be mistaken for reality.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The Ashkenazi Jews are not merely a cultural group, but they are a racial group that can be identified with genetic markers. You can get a genetic test and find out if you are probably an Ashkenazi Jew, as there are four haplogroups closely associated with them. And Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disease that affects NOT Jews in general so much and NOT Europeans in general so much but Ashkenazi Jews in particular. They are a group that existed in Europe since the ancient diasporas, marrying and mating only with each other for cultural reasons--relatively, that is, because of course, yes, there was admixture with Europeans. You speak of "Ashkenazi Jews in Israel," but I am not sure who you mean, as the Ashkenazi Jews are defined as having ancestry in Europe. Israel has all subgroups of Jews, not just Ashkenazi. There are many explanations for why Ashkenazi Jews in particular have high intelligence (the highest, in fact), and the one I prefer is that the Ashkenazi Jews had a history of being excluded from the typical occupations in Europe, such as farming, so they were pushed into occupations that depended on high-intelligence for success, such as law, management and accounting. Sexual selection drove the rise in IQ. It is not a certain explanation but a plausible one.

Only insofar as by 'plausible', you mean 'ad-hoc'.

Just so stories are fun, but they shouldn't be mistaken for reality.

It is a plausible hypothesis intended to establish a significant possibility, not as a certain reality. I think it is a big mistake to dismiss plausible hypotheses as just-so stories and then turn around and treat purely-cultural explanations of phenotypes with no objection, no derogatory names, as though such explanations are established with certainty, when they are actually implausible and lack the evidence they really need.

 

[Jokodo]

Funny you should pick Ashkenazi Jews as an example of a low-level "race", especially in a discussion about race and intelligence.

One of the most obvious shortcomings of Lynn's argument (other than the fact that some of his data sources are really questionable) is the fact that, according to his data, Ashkenazi Jews in the US score about 10 points higher than Ashkenazi Jews in Israel. The only obvious explanation is that even relatively minor cultural differences between two populations that are, at the genetic level, almost identical, living in two countries with similar levels of development, can cause a 10 point difference - and if that is so, much larger differences between populations living in very different circumstances shouldn't surprise anybody and can no longer be used as an argument for a biological basis of such differences.

Also, are you serious about the "Ashkenazi Jewish race within the Jewish race within the Semitic race"? While it's correct that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically closer to Middle Eastern populations than non-Jewish groups of Central and Eastern Europe are, they're still fundamentally European, i.e. closer to European populations than to Middle Eastern ones. And what Middle Eastern heritage they have is hardly identifiable as Jewish by objective measures - They are closer to both Mizrahi Jews and Palestinian Arabs than Poles are, but pretty much equidistant from both.

That particular idea of races has been proven wrong by genetic research a long time ago.

The Ashkenazi Jews are not merely a cultural group, but they are a racial group that can be identified with genetic markers. You can get a genetic test and find out if you are probably an Ashkenazi Jew, as there are four haplogroups closely associated with them. And Tay-Sachs disease is a genetic disease that affects NOT Jews in general so much and NOT Europeans in general so much but Ashkenazi Jews in particular.

I read up a bit on Tay-Sachs disease. It seems to be about equally common among French Canadians as it is amont Ashkenazi jews, and also has rather elevated frequencies among the Irish. If you want to use the frequency of that allele as a race marker, you'd come up with a pretty weird classification.

They are a group that existed in Europe since the ancient diasporas, marrying and mating only with each other for cultural reasons--relatively, that is, because of course, yes, there was admixture with Europeans.

Yes, and? We're not discussing the history of Ashkenazi Jews, we're discussing the concept of race.

You speak of "Ashkenazi Jews in Israel," but I am not sure who you mean, as the Ashkenazi Jews are defined as having ancestry in Europe. Israel has all subgroups of Jews, not just Ashkenazi.

That's why I said "Ashkenazi Jews in Israel", not "Israelis, who are also Ashkenazim".

There are many explanations for why Ashkenazi Jews in particular have high intelligence (the highest, in fact), and the one I prefer is that the Ashkenazi Jews had a history of being excluded from the typical occupations in Europe, such as farming, so they were pushed into occupations that depended on high-intelligence for success, such as law, management and accounting. Sexual selection drove the rise in IQ. It is not a certain explanation but a plausible one.

That's an ad hoc explanation for a phenomenon we don't really know exists in the first place. We don't even know that the higher IQs measured in Ashkenazi Jews in the Western hemisphere are anything but cultural. In fact, we do know that Ashkenazi Jews in Israel don't have anywhere near the same spectacular averages, so that's firm evidence that there's at least a strong cultural component.

If you were doing science, you'd go like this: We know there's a cultural component, and there may or may not be a biological component. Given that, the first step is to study the cultural factors influencing intelligence - among other things, it's the only way to get a grasp of their effect size. Only then, when we understand their effect size and it turns out they are insufficient to explain the differences, can we claim to have evidence for biological differences in intelligence. And only with such evidence does it make sense to search for explanations (but even then, the most plausible explanation might just be random genetic drift).

 

[Trodon]

Living in a cold climate accelerated the intellectual development of Caucasians and Asians, especially Orientals. Nevertheless, Neanderthals lived in Europe during three ice ages. Fossil remains of Neanderthals, along with remains of their campsites, indicate that they were considerably less intelligent than the Cro Magnons who displaced them.

Civilization had an important contribution to the higher average iQ's of Caucasians, especially Europeans, and Asians, especially Orientals.

You have not presented an argument for why civilisation should provide for increased average IQs, a history of civilisation poorly patterns with race. This is not science, this is post-hoc justification of your foregone conclusions.

My explanation explains the higher IQ averages that are found in Orientals and Europeans.

- - - Updated - - -

At least 194 Jews and people of half- or three-quarters-Jewish ancestry have been awarded the Nobel Prize,1 accounting for 23% of all individual recipients worldwide between 1901 and 2014, and constituting 36% of all US recipients2 during the same period.3 In the scientific research fields of Chemistry, Economics, Physics, and Physiology/Medicine, the corresponding world and US percentages are 27% and 39%, respectively. Among women laureates in the four research fields, the Jewish percentages (world and US) are 35% and 50%, respectively. Of organizations awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, 23% were founded principally by Jews or by people of half-Jewish descent. Since the turn of the century (i.e., since the year 2000), Jews have been awarded 27% of all Nobel Prizes and 29% of those in the scientific research fields. (Jews currently make up approximately 0.2% of the world's population and 2% of the US population.)
http://www.jinfo.org/Nobel_Prizes.html

 

[Trodon]

Jewish Accomplishments

Science and Medicine
Dr. Jonas Salk created the first Polio Vaccine.
Dr. Abraham Waksman coined the term antibiotics.
Casmir Funk, a Polish Jew, pioneered a new field of medical research and coined the word "vitamins."
Dr. Simon Baruch performed the first successful operation for appendicitis
Dr. Paul "magic bullet" Ehrlich won the Nobel Prize in 1908 for curing syphilis.
Dr. Abraham Jacobi is considered America's father of pediatrics.
Dr. Albert Sabin developed the first oral polio vaccine.

Business and Finance
Haym Solomon and Isaac Moses are responsible for creating the first modern-banking institutions.
Jews created the first department stores: The Altmans, Gimbels, Kaufmanns, Lazaruses, Magnins, Mays, and Strausses became leaders of major department stores.
Julius Rosenwald revolutionized the way Americans purchased goods by improving Sears Roebuck's mail order merchandising.
Hart, Schaffner, Marx, Kuppenheimer and Levi Strauss became household names in mens' clothing.
Isadore & Nathan Straus - "Abraham & Straus," eventually became sole owners of Macy's, the world's largest department store, in 1896.
The fortunes of English-Jewish financiers such as Isaac Goldsmid, Nathan Rothschild, David Salomons, and Moses Montefiore helped England become an empire.
Armand Hammer (Arm & Hammer) was a physician and businessman who originated the largest trade between the U.S. and Russia.
http://judaism.about.com/od/americanjewry/a/accomplishments.htm

And on and on.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jokodo, Tay-Sachs among French Canadians is caused by a mutation that is entirely different from the mutation that causes Tay-Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews. We don't identify races by their diseases. We identify them by their genetics.

 

[Trodon]

The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution

This is the official website for the recently released biohistory book by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion.

we consider the accepted belief that human evolution stopped 40,000 years ago. Then we dispel it; in fact, it looks as if human evolution has become more and more rapid.

Perhaps the biggest change to the way humans lived since the expansion out of Africa was the development of agriculture. Living as farmers meant a radically new diet, new disease risks, and new forms of social organization. Humans had become good hunter-gatherers, but as they attempted to make a living at something completely different, they began to change.

This chapter deals with agriculture's effect on humans; these include skeletal changes, an increase in disease, a trade of brain for brawn, and a strange increase in relatively useless genes - when there are too many driving genes trying to shoulder through, a mess occurs. This chapter also deals with elite reproductive advantage, self-domestication.

New and improved versions of genes occasionally arise, but they can't be important unless they spread. This chapter talks about some of the factors that affected the spread of new mutations, ranging from Greek colonies to the Himalayas. In particular, we talk about some of the historical factors that may have influenced the spread of the allele causing blue eyes.

Peoples expand and displace their neighbors, sometimes dramatically so. We believe that these expansions are sometimes driven by genetic advantages. We discuss the expansion of Europeans into the Americas and the spread of the Indo-Europeans.

Ashkenazi Jews have been terrifically overrepresented in cultural and scientific achievements over the past hundred years. They have the highest average IQ of any ethnic group, and an odd set of genetic diseases. We believe that there is a simple explanation for all these surprising facts - natural selection for being better white-collar workers in the Middle Ages.
http://the10000yearexplosion.com/

 

[Jokodo]

You have not presented an argument for why civilisation should provide for increased average IQs, a history of civilisation poorly patterns with race. This is not science, this is post-hoc justification of your foregone conclusions.

My explanation explains the higher IQ averages that are found in Orientals and Europeans.

It might, for some definition of "explain" (although not really, since Europe outside the Mediterranean and Balkans was reached by agriculture and civilisation (for most definitions of civilisation) later than much of West Africa). But if Europeans and Orientals had markedly lower IQs, you could find an equally plausible story, equally well supported by evidence (i.e., not at all) to explain that, and that's why yours is an ad-hoc story and not science.

 

[Jokodo]

Jokodo, Tay-Sachs among French Canadians is caused by a mutation that is entirely different from the mutation that causes Tay-Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews. We don't identify races by their diseases. We identify them by their genetics.

Apparently correct, but the Cajuns in Louisiana seem to carry the same mutation as Ashkenazi Jews. Still a rather odd race.

 

[Jokodo]

This is the official website for the recently released biohistory book by Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion.<snip>

What's this, copypasting a books cover text? Could you make an argument in your own words, or is that asking too much?
This, though:

Peoples expand and displace their neighbors, sometimes dramatically so. We believe that these expansions are sometimes driven by genetic advantages. We discuss the expansion of Europeans into the Americas and the spread of the Indo-Europeans.

I'm pretty sure that the expansion of Europeans into the Americas was indeed partly "driven by genetic advantages". Specifically, the advantage of partial immunity against measles.

 

[Trodon]

My explanation explains the higher IQ averages that are found in Orientals and Europeans.

It might, for some definition of "explain" (although not really, since Europe outside the Mediterranean and Balkans was reached by agriculture and civilisation (for most definitions of civilisation) later than much of West Africa). But if Europeans and Orientals had markedly lower IQs, you could find an equally plausible story, equally well supported by evidence (i.e., not at all) to explain that, and that's why yours is an ad-hoc story and not science.

The Ice Man, whose frozen body is about 5,300 years old, and who was discovered in the Alps, has the remains in his stomach of a meal that included wheat. Wheat has never grown naturally in the Alps. Those remains demonstrate that by 5,300 ago agriculture had reached central Europe. It reached Scandinavia by 5,000 years ago. The Bantu did not begin agriculture until about 4,000 years ago.

What we know is that Caucasians tend to be quite a bit more intelligent than Negroes. The best explanation I have found of that is that Caucasians were beginning civilization when Negroes were still Paleolithic, and that Europeans evolved in a colder climate.

 

[Jokodo]

It might, for some definition of "explain" (although not really, since Europe outside the Mediterranean and Balkans was reached by agriculture and civilisation (for most definitions of civilisation) later than much of West Africa). But if Europeans and Orientals had markedly lower IQs, you could find an equally plausible story, equally well supported by evidence (i.e., not at all) to explain that, and that's why yours is an ad-hoc story and not science.

The Ice Man, whose frozen body is about 5,300 years old, and who was discovered in the Alps, has the remains in his stomach of a meal that included wheat. Wheat has never grown naturally in the Alps. Those remains demonstrate that by 5,300 ago agriculture had reached central Europe. It reached Scandinavia by 5,000 years ago. The Bantu did not begin agriculture until about 4,000 years ago.

That is incorrect. 4,000 years ago (2000 BC) is the date for the beginning of the Bantu expansion into Central and Southern Africa. Locally, agriculture emerged in tropical West Africa at least 1,000 years early, possibly more.

What we know is that Caucasians tend to be quite a bit more intelligent than Negroes.

No, we don't actually know that. We know that European Americans tend to have higher measured IQs than African Americans, and that Europeans tend to have higher measured IQs than Africans. We also know that if you subjected Americans in 1932 to an IQ test normalised to today's results, they'd average an IQ of 80. If we know that the cultural and socio-economic differences between the USA of today and the USA of the early 20th century can be enough to cause a 20 point difference, than we have no good reason not to believe that the differences between different groups, living under different circumstances, today are be genetic.

The best explanation I have found of that is that Caucasians were beginning civilization when Negroes were still Paleolithic, and that Europeans evolved in a colder climate.

An ad-hoc explanation for a phenomenon that might be an artifact. Well done.

 

[Trodon]

No, we don't actually know that. We know that European Americans tend to have higher measured IQs than African Americans, and that Europeans tend to have higher measured IQs than Africans. We also know that if you subjected Americans in 1932 to an IQ test normalised to today's results, they'd average an IQ of 80. If we know that the cultural and socio-economic differences between the USA of today and the USA of the early 20th century can be enough to cause a 20 point difference, than we have no good reason not to believe that the differences between different groups, living under different circumstances, today are be genetic.

By every objective, measurable criterion whites have always tended to perform better intellectually than blacks. The only Negro nations that developed their own civilizations were the Nubians and the Ethiopians. These civilizations were based on Egyptian and Arab civilizations.

To the best of my knowledge, Bermuda is the only black majority country with a high standard of living, a functioning democracy, and a fairly low crime rate. In Bermuda the murder rate is 7.7 per 100,000 inhabitants. In most white and Oriental countries it is under 4.0 per 100,000 inhabitants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

In Bermuda the population is 69,839, so it can hardly be used as a representative example of much of anything. Of this population, 53.8% are black, 31% are white.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bd.html

 

[ApostateAbe]

Jokodo, Tay-Sachs among French Canadians is caused by a mutation that is entirely different from the mutation that causes Tay-Sachs among Ashkenazi Jews. We don't identify races by their diseases. We identify them by their genetics.

Apparently correct, but the Cajuns in Louisiana seem to carry the same mutation as Ashkenazi Jews. Still a rather odd race.

I didn't know that Cajuns in Louisiana carry the same mutation as Ashkenazi Jews, but I think you are right, like the same mutation occurred twice. It reminds me that I shouldn't be talking of identifying races by genes, but many gene frequencies.

 

[Jokodo]

No, we don't actually know that. We know that European Americans tend to have higher measured IQs than African Americans, and that Europeans tend to have higher measured IQs than Africans. We also know that if you subjected Americans in 1932 to an IQ test normalised to today's results, they'd average an IQ of 80. If we know that the cultural and socio-economic differences between the USA of today and the USA of the early 20th century can be enough to cause a 20 point difference, than we have no good reason not to believe that the differences between different groups, living under different circumstances, today are be genetic.

By every objective, measurable criterion whites have always tended to perform better intellectually than blacks.

By every objective, measurable criterion, American whites in the early 21th century perform better intellectually than American whites in the early to mid 20th century - a 20 point difference of averages in fact, more than anyone's measured for the difference between European and African Americans. So you get to pick:

A) a 20 point difference between two groups can be attributed to cultural and socio-economic factors alone,
or
B) there was an extremely rapid evolution towards higher intelligence over the course of the 20th century.

If you pick (A), you'll need to explain why the same mechanisms are not the default explanation for differences between contemporaneous groups. If it's (B), welcome to fairyland.

 

[Jokodo]

Seriously, though, someone who's building his world view on Richard Lynn's data thinks that 69,839 people "can hardly be used as a representative example of much of anything"? You know the guy arrives at half of his country datapoints by interpolating between their neighbours, or by using tiny and non-random samples of immigrants from that country living on an entirely different continent?

 

[Trodon]

By every objective, measurable criterion, American whites in the early 21th century perform better intellectually than American whites in the early to mid 20th century - a 20 point difference of averages in fact, more than anyone's measured for the difference between European and African Americans.

I am not at all sure that is true. Since 1986 - 87 white SAT scores have risen only marginally.

shttp://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/diplay.asp?id=171

 

[Jokodo]

By every objective, measurable criterion, American whites in the early 21th century perform better intellectually than American whites in the early to mid 20th century - a 20 point difference of averages in fact, more than anyone's measured for the difference between European and African Americans.

I am not at all sure that is true. Since 1986 - 87 white SAT scores have risen only marginally.

shttp://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/diplay.asp?id=171

This is not a matter of opinion. The secular rise in IQ scores (often called Flynn effect) is a well-known fact.

Judging the American children of 1932 by today's standards—considering the scores they would have obtained if they had somehow taken a test normalized this year—we find that their average IQ would have been only about 80!

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rising-scores-on-intelligence-tests/99999

 

[ApostateAbe]

The Flynn effect really is well known (popularized by Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve), and it is probably the best argument for environmentalism. The pitfall is that the Flynn effect has not significantly reduced the racial IQ gaps. Intelligence scores went up about equally for all races, so the gap between whites and blacks is about the same today as it was a century ago, with a little reduction in the gap but not much. The best explanation for the Flynn effect seems to be the increasing preponderance of education and literacy, and education is increasingly oriented toward training students to score highly on tests. This means nobody should be a pure hereditarian, as environment has a significant minority effect on IQ variation, as we know from heritability studies (identical reared apart have about 75% IQ correlation but identical twins reared together have 85%, if I remember correctly).

 

[Jokodo]

That would only be a pitfall if there were no longer a gap in the conditions in which whites and blacks in the US live and grow up. If there still is a difference in environment, you expect there to be a persistent gap in IQ score even if the gap was entirely environmental in the first place.

You are not going to claim that the average living standards of blacks and whites in the US are about equal today, are you?