As I pointed out they did evolve faster for a long time. That is why modern humans emerged in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago rather than in the Near East or Europe. During the past 10,000 years ago whites and Orientals evolved faster because of the population pressures of agriculture and urban living.
That sounds like stuff you made up. Is it your own opinion, or do you actually have evidence that one race has “evolved faster” than any other? And how on earth is evolution “speed” measured?
Evolution speed among humans can be measured by average intelligence and crime rate. Civilization breeds civilized people.
I developed my ideas on this before I read The 10,000 Year Explosion, which I reviewed here.
The book confirmed my beliefs, however. It explained the evolution of racial differences that are easy to document.
The problem is that there is zero evidence of this, it is all just a product of wishful thinking.
All the pages of this argument are completely based in made up data and confirmation bias.
Can you even demonstrate that we are significantly different from individuals that were alive 10,000 yeas ago?
Funny that, your actions here an in the pit convinced me that the book writers had very good chapters, but as good cranks they do like to make long screeds with poison pills in it surrounded by good information.
The skeletal record clearly supports the idea that there have been rapid evolutionary change in humans over the past 10,000 years. The human skeleton has become more gracile - more lightly built - although more so in some populations than others. Our jaws have shrunk, our long bones have become lighter.
- Professors Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending, from The 10,000 Year Explosion, pages 94-95.
Professors Cochran and Harpending also claim that 10,000 years ago average brain size was lager. This is interesting and somewhat paradoxical in light of Professor Rushton’s claim of a positive relationship between brain size and intelligence.
Brains may have been shaped differently, however. Neanderthals had larger brains than modern humans. However, the parts of their brains that were larger determined reflexes and coordination. The frontal lobes, that determine conscious thought, were smaller.
The fact that you keep going to back to the same source proves you have no real bases in fact with this argument.
People were shorter due to poorer diets and that their bones were more dense due to a higher level of physical activity.
Physical activity during growth plays a huge role bone mass and bone geometry.
So how about some cites that are not from these known quacks?
And yet you still ignored that Nigerian Americans trounce the “more evolved” whites in level of education attainment? Maybe it is nurture and not nature that plays the biggest role?
As pointed out before, even a biology professor calls them cranks, other scientists are not impressed also.
If you documented that assertion, I missed it.
In Intelligence and the Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Richard Lynn estimated the average IQ in Nigeria as 67.
http://sq.4mg.com/NationIQ.htm
The OECD/PISA Study does not even list Nigeria, although it shows that schools that outperform American schools are nearly all white or all black.
It isn’t hard to find, but thanks for documenting that their home country education level is low…it helps demonstrate how wrong your claim is.
[
](http://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php)
That is interesting, and atypical. I would like to know how Nigerian immigrants to the United States differ from the entire Nigerian population.
Access to better education due to being in a 1st world country.
The familial emphasis on education exists in both places, which has a real scientific documented influence on education attainment. Familial/community expectations even trump socio-economic level as far as educational attainment goes.
Non-parental raised children only have a correlation of ~.22 with their parents, if IQ test scores were pure inheritance that should be near .50.
It does not surprise me that a book that pushes against the constraints of political correctness will receive negative reviews.
This is the review that appeared in amazon.com
Resistance to malaria. Blue eyes. Lactose tolerance. What do all of these traits have in common? Every one of them has emerged in the last 10,000 years.
Scientists have long believed that the “great leap forward” that occurred some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago in Europe marked end of significant biological evolution in humans. In this stunningly original account of our evolutionary history, top scholars Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending reject this conventional wisdom and reveal that the human species has undergone a storm of genetic change much more recently. Human evolution in fact accelerated after civilization arose, they contend, and these ongoing changes have played a pivotal role in human history. They argue that biology explains the expansion of the Indo-Europeans, the European conquest of the Americas, and European Jews’ rise to intellectual prominence. In each of these cases, the key was recent genetic change: adult milk tolerance in the early Indo-Europeans that allowed for a new way of life, increased disease resistance among the Europeans settling America, and new versions of neurological genes among European Jews.
Ranging across subjects as diverse as human domestication, Neanderthal hybridization, and IQ tests, Cochran and Harpending’s analysis demonstrates convincingly that human genetics have changed and can continue to change much more rapidly than scientists have previously believed. A provocative and fascinating new look at human evolution that turns conventional wisdom on its head, The 10,000 Year Explosion reveals the ongoing interplay between culture and biology in the making of the human race.
The 10000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution: Cochran, Gregory, Harpending, Henry: 9780465002214: Amazon.com: Books
This is from a review in The Wall Street Journal:
In their final chapter, Messrs. Cochran and Harpending venture into recorded history by observing two interesting facts about Ashkenazi Jews (those who lived in Europe after leaving the Middle East): They are disproportionately found among intellectual high-achievers – Nobel Prize winners, world chess champions, people who score well on IQ tests – and they are victims of rare genetic diseases, like Gaucher’s and Tay-Sachs. The authors hypothesize that these two facts are connected by natural selection.
Just as sickle-cell anemia results from having two copies of an allele that protects you against malaria if you have just one, perhaps each Ashkenazi disease occurs when you have two copies of an allele that brings about something useful when you have just one. That useful thing, according to Messrs. Cochran and Harpending, is higher cognitive ability. They argue that the rare diseases are unfortunate side-effects of natural selection for intelligence, which Messrs. Cochran and Harpending think happened during the Middle Ages in Europe, when Jews rarely intermarried with other Europeans.
“The 10,000 Year Explosion” is important and fascinating but not without flaw. Messrs. Cochran and Harpending do not stop often enough to acknowledge and rebut the critics of their ideas. And though the authors cite historical sources and scientific articles in support of their thesis, they too often write in a speculative voice, qualifying claims with “possible,” “likely,” “might” and “probably.” This voice is inevitable in any discussion of events tens of thousands of years ago. But it leads to another problem: The authors don’t say enough about the developments in genetic science that allow them to make inferences about humanity’s distant past. Readers will wonder, for instance, exactly how it is possible to recognize ancient Neanderthal DNA in our modern genomes. Despite all this, the provocative ideas in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” must be taken seriously by anyone who wants to understand human origins and humanity’s future.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123440723977275883.html?mod=article-outset-box
None of those reviewers you are pointing out are related experts like the Professors that I quoted.
I’m not surprised. Didn’t he, on the previous page, tell Smeghead (whom, IIRC, is a trained scientist) to his face that his entire training and understanding of biology was wrong, when NDD himself does NOT have any of the education or scholarship that one would expect in making such an assertion?
If he did it himself, he’d allow those who agree with him to do it too.
Utter nonsense.
The world does not operate as if it were part of an X-Men script with amazing mutations leaping out and taking selected people into the future.
The typical beneficial mutation will provide some small increase in a single trait. (Or a decrease in an unfacorable one, but we will stick to handling things in one direction.) That small increase will only be passed on if its carrier survives to the point of reproducing. Since each mutation is rather small in effect, it will not give its carrier superhuman powers, merely a single advantage in a single situation. Perhaps it will increase the carrier’s speed by 1%. Perhaps it will increase the digestibility of available foods by 1%. However, in a very large pool of people, the 1% increase to person X might occur in a person who would otherwise have been only 98% as fast as most of his or her contemporaries. Or, it might increase the speed of the fastest person by 1%, but that person might mate with a person who has only 97% of the speed of the person with the mutation. The larger the pool, the more likely the mutation will be reabsorbed into the mainstream. (Remember, you are the one who reminded us that children of exceptional people tend to regress to the mean–that is how it happens.) It is much more often in smaller populations where the beneficial mutation might actually provide the individual with a special advantage that will affect future generations. (The opposite is also true: a disadvantageous mutation has a greater chance of harming a smaller population, but that is why evolution appears to move more swiftly in smaller groups–not in larger groups.) This is why we look to the Galapagos environment to examine evolution: it moves particularly swiftly among small, contained groups, not among large groups.
Identical twins reared apart are more similar in IQ scores than non related children raised by the same parents.
I am honestly surprised that Nigerians achieve so much academically in the United States. Nigeria has a population of over 170,000,000. Very few come to the United States. I suspect that those who do come are among the most intelligent.
I’ll quote the huff post here seeing as we tossed credible sources out the window, although they are well cited.
[
](ARE Blacks A Criminal Race? Surprising Statistics | HuffPost Latest News)
I really want documentation, that is not biased like arrest records are that “blacks” supposedly are dumber and more likely to be criminals due to IQ.
Heck, I doubt you could define “black” in a scientific way.
Blacks are less likely to use illegal drugs than whites. They are also less likely to have alcohol problems.
Blacks and whites differ most obviously by appearance. In addition they can be identified by skeletons and DNA.
Your claiming that does not make it so. Evolution is not teleolgical and your Lamarckian views have long since been discredited. You claim that “Civilization breeds civilized people,” but that is like saying that food on high branches “breeds” long necks on giraffes.
Your argument is part and parcell of Lynn’s phony claims. He wants to assign Nigerians an IQ of 67, yet Nigeria has a literacy rate of around 68% and the nation has a lare number of productive industries. With a (median?) IQ of 67, no country could provide enough labor to engage in anything more complex that hunter-gatherer subsistence, yet Nigeria sustained significant industry for years, with only an unemployment rate around 11%. Currently, it is about double that, due to the world’s economic downturn, but for years it maintained a workforce capable of building modern cities and factories and operating oil fields and refineries. No nation could function in that way with an IQ that low.