[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Rapidly Changing Human Evolution Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran’s recent book, The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution, puts to rest the Left’s anecdotal assertions that genes don’t matter and that evolution ceased prior to humans leaving Africa 50~100 thousand years ago. In addition, they expound on Kevin MacDonald’s work on the history of Jewish culture and traditions that created the eugenic program of the Ashkenazi Jews in the Diaspora. They also explain the correlation between the recessive genes that contribute to modern Ashkenazi Jews’ high intelligence and genetic disease—genes that were beneficial in the highly literate niche that Jews dominated for hundreds of years. They assert, “Stephen Jay Gould’s position that 50,000 or 100,000 years is an ‘eye blink,’ far too short a time to see ‘anything in the way of evolutionary difference,’ is simply incorrect. We are surrounded by cases in which selection has caused big changes over shorter time spans, often far shorter; everything from the dog at your feet to corn on the cob is the product of recent evolution.” And, there is no difference between natural and artificial selection—they both change gene frequencies within populations under varying ecological conditions. The mechanisms are identical whether breeding dogs, humans, or urban rats. They point out that “evolution has taken a different course in different populations. Over time, we have become more and more unlike one another as differences among populations have accumulated.” Humans have increasingly differentiated themselves into specialized ecological niches—from new cults to occupational specialization to radical differences in exposure to technology versus exposure to deprivation. Humans both within nations and between nations are exposed to ever increasing differences in how they go about conducting their lives, with genetic changes following closely behind. For example, “Dog breeds vary greatly in learning speed and capacity. The number of repetitions required to learn a new command can vary by factors of ten or more from one breed to another. The typical Border collie can learn a new command after 5 repetitions and respond correctly 95 percent of the time, whereas a basset hound takes 80-100 repetitions to achieve a 25 percent accuracy rate.” And the same is true of human racial differences. Humans, those who understand the consequences, can now make decisions about how evolutionary changes will impact their offspring’s ability to compete in the global rat race. Genetic interests can be directed with more precision towards racial dominance—White privilege means little if we cannot expand on it and secure it for our future generations. They address one of the most overused canards against racial differences: “It turns out that although the distribution of genetic variation is as Lewontin said, his interpretation was incorrect. Information about the distribution of genetic variation tells you essentially nothing about the size or significance of trait differences. The actual differences we observe in height, weight, strength, speed, skin color, and so on are real: It is not possible to argue them away. Genetic statistics do not tell you what sort of differences in size, strength, life span, or disposition you can expect to see between populations.” Population genetics studies racial differences, these are real, and it is irrelevant if other genetic differences also exist within racial groups—racial differences between groups are still the driving force of conflict between the races. They conclude that, “Recent studies have shown that many genes are currently being replaced by new variants, most strongly in Eurasians—and that those genes favored by recent selection are for the most part different in different populations. The obvious between-population differences that we knew of a few years ago were only the tip of the iceberg.” And as the genetic basis for high intelligence or conscientiousness are located, genetic testing can help drive selection for these advantageous traits—those who embrace winning rather than compassionate capitulation to the “others,” will derive increased gene frequencies for success in future generations. So how do they know that the rate of genetic change is increasing? Genetic studies are uncovering numerous tools to determine genetic changes. “Recent studies have found hundreds of cases of long haplotypes indicating recent selection: Some have almost reached 100 percent frequency, more have intermediate frequencies, and most are regional…. The rate of change over the past few thousand years is far greater than this long-term rate over the past few million years, on the order of 100 times greater. If humans had always been evolving this rapidly, the genetic difference between us and chimpanzees would be far larger than it actually is.” Innovation/creativity—unleashed in Europeans 30~40 thousand years ago—opened up the gateway towards increased rapid changes in genes. New genetic enhancements were pushing Europeans into an internal arms race that altered both culture and intelligence. “With the advent of modern humans in Europe, innovation was bustin’ out all over.” Harpending and Cochran also speculate that Europeans may have acquired Neanderthal genes, which may have allowed for larger brains. Though this highly speculative contributing factor is unnecessary to explain European innovation, it does suggest the possibility of Europeans eventually acquiring the select Ashkenazi Jewish genes for high intelligence (see below). Culture today is increasingly fragmenting as people select their location, associates, marriage partners, worldviews, occupations, etc. from an ever increasing cornucopia of lifestyles. In addition, the sheer number of humans allows an ever increasing number of mutations to occur, and these can either spread randomly or be sequestered by genetically aware groups interested in genetic enhancement—so that favorable genes will be increased in frequency and possibly protected from spreading to competing groups. As for race deniers: “It’s time to address the old chestnut that biological differences among human populations are “superficial,” only skin-deep. It’s not true: We’re seeing genetically caused differences in all kinds of functions, and every such difference was important enough to cause a significant increase in fitness (number of offspring)—otherwise it wouldn’t have reached high frequency in just a few millennia. These were not just superficial changes affecting things like hair color, skin color, and the shape of the nose, although even those apparently superficial differences sometimes had important consequences. Some of these differences were far from being superficial or insignificant and profoundly affected the populations in which they appeared, sometimes in unexpected ways. They had a major influence on history; some continue to shape the course of events today.” Intelligence remains the most significant psychometric trait for human advancement, and the new genes responsible occur in highly differentiated frequencies among differing races. For example, “Efforts to teach Bushmen to become herders frequently fail when they eat all their goats. People can learn new traditions, but genetic differences must make this kind of self-denial easier for some people than it is for others. It takes a certain type of personality—with traits including patience, self-control, and the ability to look to long-term benefits instead of short-term satisfaction—and natural selection must have gradually made such personalities more common among peoples that farmed for a long time.” Science and innovation simply does not exist in sub-Saharan Africa for this reason—the hunter-gatherer society did not have the environmental conditions needed to drive higher intelligence. This also includes the Islamic world that managed to lose what may have been a more advanced civilization at one time, but was eventually sunk back into a primitive state with increased sub-Saharan African genes from the slave trade (my causal speculation). Harpending and Cochran then discuss the most politically contentious aspect of their research: the enhanced intelligence of Ashkenazi Jews that came about as a result of eugenics and economic necessity in Eastern Europe for hundreds of years—eventually reaching an average IQ of about 115. “So why are the Ashkenazim especially intelligent? To solve this puzzle, it may be useful to look at what we know about the DNA of the Ashkenazi Jews, because it turns out that they have another interesting characteristic. Namely, they have an unusual set of serious genetic diseases, such as Tay-Sachs disease, Gaucher’s disease, familial dysautonomia, and two different forms of hereditary breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2), and these diseases are up to 100 times more common in Ashkenazi Jews than in other European populations.” For about 1,000 years, the Ashkenazi Jews of Europe were primarily managers and financiers, requiring high intelligence and literacy. In addition, the high IQ of Jews is not like that of other races. They have an exceptional asymmetry, as reported by Kevin MacDonald (as well as Harpending and Cochran), where their performance IQ is normal, but their verbal and mathematical IQ is closer to 125. This was driven by Talmudic studies according to MacDonald, where debate was an important aspect of proving one’s intellect and suitability for marrying a wealthy businessman’s daughter. Harpending and Cochran attribute it to the comparative irrelevance of visuospatial ability for businessmen. However, this Jewish asymmetry in intelligence is mostly ignored: the nature/nurture debate continues to focus primarily on the Black/White IQ gap. Harpending and Cochran’s explanation of Eastern Europe Jewish eugenics is rather abridged compared to Kevin MacDonald’s account, outlined in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, 1994. The eugenic strategies changed over time and encompassed many aspects not covered by Harpending and Cochran. Still, there is no better proof for a genetic basis of intelligence than a link between known genetic markers for intelligence—in this case genetic diseases if not the actual genes—and the professional success of those who have the targeted phenotypic condition. To sum up this important book on the IQ debate: “Evolutionary stasis requires a static environment, whereas behavioral modernity is all about innovation and change. Stability is exactly what we have not had. This should be obvious, but instead the human sciences have labored under the strange idea that evolution stopped 40,000 years ago.… [H]uman nature [has been] unchanging and thus predictable, and many scientists today believe that human nature stopped changing tens of thousands of years ago. Historians seem to make the same assumption. In so doing, they’re ignoring tremendous opportunities: not just in decoding the past, but in shaping the future as well.”
Poster Comment: When people write about evolution, many of them can't seem to get straight the difference between micro and macro evolution. Micro is change within species, and is not evolution at all. Macro is one species changing into another, and the evidence for this is close to zero. When these people write about human evolution, they are writing about microevolution: the genes already exist. People are not "evolving," certain traits are just becoming intensified. As for dogs, you can tell many pugs 10,000 times what to do, and they'll never get it. Whether Europeans have Neanderthal genes is being debated. Some claim we have none; others claim we have a fair amount. I do know that I have a lot of what are considered Neanderthal traits. One thing I find interesting is that I prefer cloudy cool days, lots of trees with overhanging branches for shade, hills, and living by the water. I also happen to be about three-quarters Irish/Scottish/Scots-Irish, and the climate over there is much like what I prefer.Can genes possibly be that selective?
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Turtle (#0)
Yes they can. I'm with you on everything but the clouds.
“However weak the individual white man, his ancestors produced the greatness of Europe; however strong the individual black, his ancestors never lifted themselves from the darkness of Africa.” -- Carlton Putnam
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||