Suppose scientific racism is correct. How will you react? How will society?

[ApostateAbe]

It is meaningful. The illustration you have may approximate the gap between whites and northeast Asians: 5 IQ points, or a third of a standard deviation. Not much, but probably enough to explain the educational gaps and income gaps. For the gap between Ashkenazi Jews and whites, you must double the gap, maybe even triple it (Askenazi Jews have an average IQ between 110 and 115). It may not seem like much, but it becomes especially relevant when you look at the right tail ends of the distribution: when you move the the distribution to the right, it means increasing the width of the right tail end many times, which would explain the Jewish dominance in science, business, literature, celebrity, anything with a strong intellectual component, far out of proportion to their share of the population. The top 1% income earners are about 20% Jewish, despite being less than 2% of any nation except Israel. The gap is about the same between American blacks and American whites, but blacks have the disadvantage. The disadvantage is especially perverse when looking at black Africans, with an average intelligence fully two standard deviations below whites. It means there would be a large chasm between those two distributions and only a small overlap. It matters.

It "matters" only because of the way you divided the population into groups. If the point is to shift the mean to the right (and you are assuming genetics as the root determinant), then the "problem" is people (in all groups) in the tail to the left having too many children and the people (in all groups) in the tail to the right having too few children. Why would having "whites and Asians", in the tail to the left procreate move the mean to the right?

Since you are concerned with the mean intelligence of humanity then you should group people by intelligence rather than by race.

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

 

[skepticalbip]

It "matters" only because of the way you divided the population into groups. If the point is to shift the mean to the right (and you are assuming genetics as the root determinant), then the "problem" is people (in all groups) in the tail to the left having too many children and the people (in all groups) in the tail to the right having too few children. Why would having "whites and Asians", in the tail to the left procreate move the mean to the right?

Since you are concerned with the mean intelligence of humanity then you should group people by intelligence rather than by race.

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

As one rabidly opposed to any governmental eugenics programs, the racial component is only a secondary, or maybe even tertiary, issue for me. I have no problem with the wide range of IQs among humanity. That is just the way life is. It isn't my obligation or right to try to mold humanity into what I would think would be the ideal.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

As one rabidly opposed to any governmental eugenics programs, the racial component is only a secondary, or maybe even tertiary, issue for me. I have no problem with the wide range of IQs among humanity. That is just the way life is. It isn't my obligation or right to try to mold humanity into what I would think would be the ideal.

There is one widespread type of eugenics law that is very commonly accepted, and for good reason: the laws against incest. The only relevant argument behind those laws is that it reduces the frequency of homozygous recessives. It is an example of how eugenics can go right, but of course there are other examples of how eugenics can go wrong, which is why I would feel comfortable with the expansion of eugenic laws only among a well-informed critical-thinking democratic public. Race-based eugenics, for example, would be fundamentally misguided. I would feel more comfortable with a purely PRIVATE eugenics organization, for example an organization that genetically tests couples before they have children to predict genetic defects, or an organization that pays people with low intelligence to agree to be sterilized, or an organization that collects the sperm of high-intelligence donors and distributes the sperm to willing women (which actually happened and produced many children of higher intelligence in the eighties and nineties: "Repository for Germinal Choice").

 

[bilby]

As one rabidly opposed to any governmental eugenics programs, the racial component is only a secondary, or maybe even tertiary, issue for me. I have no problem with the wide range of IQs among humanity. That is just the way life is. It isn't my obligation or right to try to mold humanity into what I would think would be the ideal.

There is one widespread type of eugenics law that is very commonly accepted, and for good reason: the laws against incest.

Those laws are primarily religious/moralistic; The eugenic argument is a later addition or rationalisation, intended to deter the practice rather than to justify its prohibition. The 'Don't screw immediate family or your children will be monsters' argument comes from the same source as (and has about the same validity as) the 'Don't masturbate or you will go blind' argument.

The only relevant argument behind those laws is that it reduces the frequency of homozygous recessives.

This is not a relevant argument, because the problem it addresses is typically too small to be worth worrying about.

It is an example of how eugenics can go right, but of course there are other examples of how eugenics can go wrong, which is why I would feel comfortable with the expansion of eugenic laws only among a well-informed critical-thinking democratic public.

Or better still, not at all. eugenic laws are a perfect example of action that is almost certain to do more harm than good; as such they should simply not exist.

Race-based eugenics, for example, would be fundamentally misguided.

I hope you don't imagine that this comes as news to anyone.

I would feel more comfortable with a purely PRIVATE eugenics organization, for example an organization that genetically tests couples before they have children to predict genetic defects,

Such things exist in both the government and private sector; they are not problematic; they are on the very edge of the definition of eugenics; and they are completely unrelated to the concept of race.

or an organization that pays people with low intelligence to agree to be sterilized, or an organization that collects the sperm of high-intelligence donors and distributes the sperm to willing women (which actually happened and produced many children of higher intelligence in the eighties and nineties: "Repository for Germinal Choice").

Why would such a thing be a good idea? You have yet to show that the current level and distribution of intelligence is a problem; That is the first step, before we can even consider whether to try to change these things, and if so, how.

You are several steps ahead of yourself.

First, demonstrate that improving the general intelligence of the next generation is desirable - and establish for whom it is desirable.
Second, establish the size of the change that is needed to give those desirable effects
Third, establish that any negative effects are outweighed by the positive ones
Fourth, consider possible means to achieve the goal
Fifth, select the means that gives the best result for the lowest cost

You have skipped steps 1 to 4, and gone straight to step 5. This is sloppy thinking; I suggest that you avoid having children - for the 'benefit' of mankind.

 

[skepticalbip]

It "matters" only because of the way you divided the population into groups. If the point is to shift the mean to the right (and you are assuming genetics as the root determinant), then the "problem" is people (in all groups) in the tail to the left having too many children and the people (in all groups) in the tail to the right having too few children. Why would having "whites and Asians", in the tail to the left procreate move the mean to the right?

Since you are concerned with the mean intelligence of humanity then you should group people by intelligence rather than by race.

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

You apparently misunderstood the meaning and intent of my post. I was criticizing your study methodology. You begin with the assumption of race as the primary factor so divide humanity by race then see that there is a mean variance of IQ between races. You then take this as confirmation of your starting hypothesis.

Someone could just as reasonably start with the assumption that height (or any other physical trait) is the primary factor so divide humanity by height. They would, of course, find that there is a variance of the mean IQ between the various quintiles of height. Should they then take this as confirmation of their hypothesis? Would this tell them the optimum height required for optimum intelligence? (Of course, they would find that optimum height to be 173cm )

Since the concern is intelligence, any rational analysis would require dividing humanity by intelligence level rather than race or height or any other trait in order to actually learn anything about the subject under study.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Since the concern is intelligence, any rational analysis would require dividing humanity by intelligence level rather than race or height or any other trait in order to actually learn anything about the subject under study.

What, you mean finding smart people and then finding out what makes them smart, rather than trying to prove some groups are just smarter than other groups?
But...how could the not-so-smart among us feel superior to others if we can't claim an honorary inclusion in the smart set?

 

[ApostateAbe]

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

You apparently misunderstood the meaning and intent of my post. I was criticizing your study methodology. You begin with the assumption of race as the primary factor so divide humanity by race then see that there is a mean variance of IQ between races. You then take this as confirmation of your starting hypothesis.

Someone could just as reasonably start with the assumption that height (or any other physical trait) is the primary factor so divide humanity by height. They would, of course, find that there is a variance of the mean IQ between the various quintiles of height. Should they then take this as confirmation of their hypothesis? Would this tell them the optimum height required for optimum intelligence? (Of course, they would find that optimum height to be 173cm )

Since the concern is intelligence, any rational analysis would require dividing humanity by intelligence level rather than race or height or any other trait in order to actually learn anything about the subject under study.

Yeah, theoretically, we could all agree to hold hands and chant that intelligence has nothing to do with race, so racial inequalities in intelligence are irrelevant, race being just an arbitrary categorization that has no more relevance than height categories. That is theoretically possible. I have no doubt: the world would be a better place if we all did that. The main problem seems to be that people very much tend to identify with their own races, being genetically and ethnically similar. It seems to be natural and expected from evolutionary theory. The police in Ferguson may very well have systemic prejudices against short people, but the community broadly believes that their race-based prejudices are far more relevant. And that is the pattern seen all over the world. And it is for that reason alone that there is a widespread bias against intelligence tests. Since races score unequally on intelligence tests, the intelligence tests are the target of popular blame for their illusory biases. For that reason the US supreme court decades ago outlawed general intelligence tests for use in hiring choices among private companies.

If the popular public battled the science because of a perceived bias against short people, then it would likewise be the focus of my defense. The correlation between height and IQ is small but statistically significant: 0.15.

 

[skepticalbip]

You apparently misunderstood the meaning and intent of my post. I was criticizing your study methodology. You begin with the assumption of race as the primary factor so divide humanity by race then see that there is a mean variance of IQ between races. You then take this as confirmation of your starting hypothesis.

Someone could just as reasonably start with the assumption that height (or any other physical trait) is the primary factor so divide humanity by height. They would, of course, find that there is a variance of the mean IQ between the various quintiles of height. Should they then take this as confirmation of their hypothesis? Would this tell them the optimum height required for optimum intelligence? (Of course, they would find that optimum height to be 173cm )

Since the concern is intelligence, any rational analysis would require dividing humanity by intelligence level rather than race or height or any other trait in order to actually learn anything about the subject under study.

Yeah, theoretically, we could all agree to hold hands and chant that intelligence has nothing to do with race, so racial inequalities in intelligence are irrelevant, race being just an arbitrary categorization that has no more relevance than height categories. That is theoretically possible. I have no doubt: the world would be a better place if we all did that. The main problem seems to be that people very much tend to identify with their own races, being genetically and ethnically similar. It seems to be natural and expected from evolutionary theory. The police in Ferguson may very well have systemic prejudices against short people, but the community broadly believes that their race-based prejudices are far more relevant. And that is the pattern seen all over the world. And it is for that reason alone that there is a widespread bias against intelligence tests. Since races score unequally on intelligence tests, the intelligence tests are the target of popular blame for their illusory biases. For that reason the US supreme court decades ago outlawed general intelligence tests for use in hiring choices among private companies.

If the popular public battled the science because of a perceived bias against short people, then it would likewise be the focus of my defense. The correlation between height and IQ is small but statistically significant: 0.15.

You are conflating very different things here. Yes there are prejudices. Yes there is identifying with group whether it be racial, social, fraternal, etc. None of these have anything to do with intelligence. It has to do with social dynamics.

If you want to learn about intelligence then look at the top 20% for commonalties, the bottom 20% for commonalties, and the differences between those commonalties. If you think it is genetic then look for gene sequence commonalties and differences, etc., etc. Those 20% on either end of the spectrum include representatives from parents of all “races” and economic levels so race and financial position is not the answer to what is responsible for the difference in intelligence level.

Intelligence is an individual trait. You are erroneously "analyzing" it as a group (racial) trait only because it fits your original assumption. The mean of an arbitrarily assigned group says nothing about the individuals who were stuffed into the group.

ETA:
If the top 20% were all "whites and Asians" and the bottom 20% had no "whites and Asians" then your original assumption could be argued... but that ain't what we see.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Yeah, theoretically, we could all agree to hold hands and chant that intelligence has nothing to do with race, so racial inequalities in intelligence are irrelevant, race being just an arbitrary categorization that has no more relevance than height categories. That is theoretically possible. I have no doubt: the world would be a better place if we all did that. The main problem seems to be that people very much tend to identify with their own races, being genetically and ethnically similar. It seems to be natural and expected from evolutionary theory. The police in Ferguson may very well have systemic prejudices against short people, but the community broadly believes that their race-based prejudices are far more relevant. And that is the pattern seen all over the world. And it is for that reason alone that there is a widespread bias against intelligence tests. Since races score unequally on intelligence tests, the intelligence tests are the target of popular blame for their illusory biases. For that reason the US supreme court decades ago outlawed general intelligence tests for use in hiring choices among private companies.

If the popular public battled the science because of a perceived bias against short people, then it would likewise be the focus of my defense. The correlation between height and IQ is small but statistically significant: 0.15.

You are conflating very different things here. Yes there are prejudices. Yes there is identifying with group whether it be racial, social, fraternal, etc. None of these have anything to do with intelligence. It has to do with social dynamics.

If you want to learn about intelligence then look at the top 20% for commonalties, the bottom 20% for commonalties, and the differences between those commonalties. If you think it is genetic then look for gene sequence commonalties and differences, etc., etc. Those 20% on either end of the spectrum include representatives from parents of all “races” and economic levels so race and financial position is not the answer to what is responsible for the difference in intelligence level.

Intelligence is an individual trait. You are erroneously "analyzing" it as a group (racial) trait only because it fits your original assumption. The mean of an arbitrarily assigned group says nothing about the individuals who were stuffed into the group.

ETA:
If the top 20% were all "whites and Asians" and the bottom 20% had no "whites and Asians" then your original assumption could be argued... but that ain't what we see.

Hmm, no I don't think so. There is a common habit among the public (thankfully not so common in science), that, if the distributions are NOT straight-edged boxes with no overlap, then it is the same as completely random scatter. No, I don't think that way, neither should you, and I would explain the reason why, except I know you well enough that I honestly think you already know why!

 

[Canard DuJour]

It "matters" only because of the way you divided the population into groups. If the point is to shift the mean to the right (and you are assuming genetics as the root determinant), then the "problem" is people (in all groups) in the tail to the left having too many children and the people (in all groups) in the tail to the right having too few children. Why would having "whites and Asians", in the tail to the left procreate move the mean to the right?

Since you are concerned with the mean intelligence of humanity then you should group people by intelligence rather than by race.

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks.

..and 50% of American whites' grandparents. Strongly suggesting that we aren't addressing a dysgenic effect. Oh, but I'm forgetting - it's only dysgenic for black people.

If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

Which rather suggests the relevant factor isn't "black", but "America" and "Africa". 84% of whites all over the place would have qualified not long ago too. Oh, but I'm forgetting - it's only genetic when it's inter-racial.

When you assume your conclusion, then try to do the science, chances are you'll end up invalidating it.

 

[OLDMAN]

I can be racist. It just pops up from time to time. I have to deal with it. It is not something I think I should be, but more an emotional response. We have to learn to control some emotions...does this make me a bad person or just normal?

 

[skepticalbip]

I can be racist. It just pops up from time to time. I have to deal with it. It is not something I think I should be, but more an emotional response. We have to learn to control some emotions...does this make me a bad person or just normal?

It makes you a normal human. Everyone has prejudices and biases. It is just, especially in some endeavor like a scientific study, care must be taken to be sure that they do not influence the study in setting up the methodology, in acquiring the data, or in analyzing the data. And this applies to all prejudices and biases, not just racial ones.

 

[Jokodo]

It "matters" only because of the way you divided the population into groups. If the point is to shift the mean to the right (and you are assuming genetics as the root determinant), then the "problem" is people (in all groups) in the tail to the left having too many children and the people (in all groups) in the tail to the right having too few children. Why would having "whites and Asians", in the tail to the left procreate move the mean to the right?

Since you are concerned with the mean intelligence of humanity then you should group people by intelligence rather than by race.

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

Even if I were to agree with you that "solving the dysgenic effect" is a noble goal (which I don't), you're doing it wrong. Sterilising everyone with an IQ below 85 in a world where a large part of IQ differences is contributed by environmental factors (and we don't have to agree on just how large a part) is like trying too breed a taller race by sterilising everyone shorter than 150cm (4'11'' for the metrically impaired) - including children.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I agree with that. If we are talking about the dysgenic effect, then it would affect people of all races. Here is the downer: any attempt to solve the dysgenic effect would affect some races more than others. For example, suppose we were to pay anyone with an IQ below 85 to agree to be sterilized. People with an IQ below 85 exist in every race, so it can be non-racist in spirit. But, in practice, it would mean that only 16% of American whites would qualify compared to 50% of American blacks. If you were to take the policy to blacks in Africa, then 84% of the people would qualify.

Even if I were to agree with you that "solving the dysgenic effect" is a noble goal (which I don't), you're doing it wrong. Sterilising everyone with an IQ below 85 in a world where a large part of IQ differences is contributed by environmental factors (and we don't have to agree on just how large a part) is like trying too breed a taller race by sterilising everyone shorter than 150cm (4'11'' for the metrically impaired) - including children.

There seems to be a drastic disconnect in that comparison. If there is an environmental component to intelligence differences, it does not follow that a eugenic policy to breed for greater intelligence would be like sterilizing everyone short including children to breed for tallness. There is likewise environmental components to the size variations of domestic fruits and vegetables (more nutrient-rich soil means larger produce), but there is also a proven genetic component, which is the reason why all of our modern fruits and vegetables are much larger than their ancestors from thousands of years ago. They became larger through many farmers selecting the seeds of largest produce to plant the next season of crops. Even if there is only a small genetic component to such variations, it works. Of course it wouldn't work so well if infant produce were included in judgments of size and equally weighted to adult produce as though there is no difference, like you may suggest merely for the purpose of discounting the general method.

 

[Jokodo]

Even if I were to agree with you that "solving the dysgenic effect" is a noble goal (which I don't), you're doing it wrong. Sterilising everyone with an IQ below 85 in a world where a large part of IQ differences is contributed by environmental factors (and we don't have to agree on just how large a part) is like trying too breed a taller race by sterilising everyone shorter than 150cm (4'11'' for the metrically impaired) - including children.

There seems to be a drastic disconnect in that comparison. If there is an environmental component to intelligence differences, it does not follow that a eugenic policy to breed for greater intelligence would be like sterilizing everyone short including children to breed for tallness. There is likewise environmental components to the size variations of domestic fruits and vegetables (more nutrient-rich soil means larger produce), but there is also a proven genetic component, which is the reason why all of our modern fruits and vegetables are much larger than their ancestors from thousands of years ago. They became larger through many farmers selecting the seeds of largest produce to plant the next season of crops. Even if there is only a small genetic component to such variations, it works. Of course it wouldn't work so well if infant produce were included in judgments of size and equally weighted to adult produce as though there is no difference, like you may suggest merely for the purpose of discounting the general method.

The general method of farmers is not to knowingly grow one variety under irrigation and the other on dry soil and conclude anything from their different output. The method is to randomly cast the seeds on a field that can be assumed to provide more or less uniform conditions. Everything else is systematically eliminate genotypes that didn't get a chance to reach their potential (like kids if you're selecting for height). If you don't see how the assumption of uniform conditions is laughable in what we are talking about, your so-called "scientific racism" really is 100% racism, 0% science.

 

[ApostateAbe]

There seems to be a drastic disconnect in that comparison. If there is an environmental component to intelligence differences, it does not follow that a eugenic policy to breed for greater intelligence would be like sterilizing everyone short including children to breed for tallness. There is likewise environmental components to the size variations of domestic fruits and vegetables (more nutrient-rich soil means larger produce), but there is also a proven genetic component, which is the reason why all of our modern fruits and vegetables are much larger than their ancestors from thousands of years ago. They became larger through many farmers selecting the seeds of largest produce to plant the next season of crops. Even if there is only a small genetic component to such variations, it works. Of course it wouldn't work so well if infant produce were included in judgments of size and equally weighted to adult produce as though there is no difference, like you may suggest merely for the purpose of discounting the general method.

The general method of farmers is not to knowingly grow one variety under irrigation and the other on dry soil and conclude anything from their different output. The method is to randomly cast the seeds on a field that can be assumed to provide more or less uniform conditions. Everything else is systematically eliminate genotypes that didn't get a chance to reach their potential (like kids if you're selecting for height). If you don't see how the assumption of uniform conditions is laughable in what we are talking about, your so-called "scientific racism" really is 100% racism, 0% science.

The wild ancestor of modern maize and corn would be a species phenotypically much closer to the teosintes (i.e. Zea perennis) than to modern corn (Zea mays). Teosintes look to be thin stalks of grass, and it seems to be a surprise that they closely resembled the ancestors of modern corn at the start of corn's domestication. Presumably, both genetic variations and environmental variations have an effect on the size variations of these stalks, and always did. So, I would like you to explain to me how the corn went from so small to so large in a few thousand years. The challenge is to do so without your argument against eugenics refuting it.

 

[Jokodo]

The general method of farmers is not to knowingly grow one variety under irrigation and the other on dry soil and conclude anything from their different output. The method is to randomly cast the seeds on a field that can be assumed to provide more or less uniform conditions. Everything else is systematically eliminate genotypes that didn't get a chance to reach their potential (like kids if you're selecting for height). If you don't see how the assumption of uniform conditions is laughable in what we are talking about, your so-called "scientific racism" really is 100% racism, 0% science.

The wild ancestor of modern maize and corn would be a species phenotypically much closer to the teosintes (i.e. Zea perennis) than to modern corn (Zea mays). Teosintes look to be thin stalks of grass, and it seems to be a surprise that they closely resembled the ancestors of modern corn at the start of corn's domestication. Presumably, both genetic variations and environmental variations have an effect on the size variations of these stalks, and always did. So, I would like you to explain to me how the corn went from so small to so large in a few thousand years. The challenge is to do so without your argument against eugenics refuting it.

You still don't get it.
Your argument is like arguing that rice (global average yield: 4.3 metric tonnes per hecate) is a much better crop than wheat (3.3 tonnes/hectare), ignoring the fact that a much larger proportion of rice than wheat is grown under irrigation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The wild ancestor of modern maize and corn would be a species phenotypically much closer to the teosintes (i.e. Zea perennis) than to modern corn (Zea mays). Teosintes look to be thin stalks of grass, and it seems to be a surprise that they closely resembled the ancestors of modern corn at the start of corn's domestication. Presumably, both genetic variations and environmental variations have an effect on the size variations of these stalks, and always did. So, I would like you to explain to me how the corn went from so small to so large in a few thousand years. The challenge is to do so without your argument against eugenics refuting it.

You still don't get it.
Your argument is like arguing that rice (global average yield: 4.3 metric tonnes per hecate) is a much better crop than wheat (3.3 tonnes/hectare), ignoring the fact that a much larger proportion of rice than wheat is grown under irrigation.

No, I get it. Answer the challenge.

 

[Jokodo]

You still don't get it.
Your argument is like arguing that rice (global average yield: 4.3 metric tonnes per hecate) is a much better crop than wheat (3.3 tonnes/hectare), ignoring the fact that a much larger proportion of rice than wheat is grown under irrigation.

No, I get it. Answer the challenge.

You obviously didn't or you wouldn't think this so-called challenge of you is in any way pertinent.

 

[ApostateAbe]

No, I get it. Answer the challenge.

You obviously didn't or you wouldn't think this so-called challenge of you is in any way pertinent.

You can't answer the challenge because it would defeat your objection against eugenics, and I suggest you rethink your objection.