Posted on 05/06/2014 5:19:14 PM PDT by Altura Ct.
What places have the same genetics but put no emphasis on education and learning? And I’d stay away from remarks that third graders could pick the article apart.
Jews and Arabs are called Semites because they speak a Semitic language. Being Semitic has nothing to do with genes.
So, by way of example, how do you explain "The Bell Curve"?
Yes, specifically the Vietnamese in recent years, the Koreans and the Japanese. But like the Chinese, their cultures are Confucian. That's the critical factor IMHO.
(How can you be sure they follow Confucian culture? They all eat with chopsticks. No kidding!)
Also, two other Asian countries, where Chinese are an extremely influential minority, have done moderately well in the economic arena -- Malaysia and Thailand.
In the meantime, the non-Confucian countries in Asia haven't done do so well -- Indonesia, Laos, Burma, Cambodia, Philippines, India, Nepal, etc.
(And guess what? They don't eat with chopsticks. They eat either with spoons or with their fingers!)
>> Being Semitic has nothing to do with genes. <<
Not so sure about that. The Y-chromosome haplotypes of Jews and Arabs are remarkably similar.
There is a definition of Semitic, look it up.
Daniel Pipes? No Thanks.
Since cultural factors and ideas are not genetic, they can't be explained (not even in principle) by natural selection and hence evolution. I wonder why scientists pretend not to see this obvious fact.
Always wishing there would be some discussion on the full title of Darwin’s book, “The Origin of Species and The Preservation of Favoured Races.” If that were an open topic, liberal evolutionists would be forced to deal with their hypocrisy and the textbooks re-written. Unfortunately it’s not going to happen.
Compare North and South Korea.
The North demands that you do not learn anything except the limited amount they allow. Real education is verboten although they do emphasize "re-education". They are a failed society.
The South does put emphasis on education and learning. They are a successful society.
They are perhaps the clearest example of the difference that culture has on people. If genes ruled then the North and the South would be roughly equal. They are not.
Different groups of human beings have been reproductively isolated for tens of thousands of years, long enough to accumulate obvious morphological differences.
If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from, then what on this great green earth makes you think that somehow, magically, all people everywhere are exactly the same in all other respects? Do you think that things like average levels of key mood or behavior influencing hormones are somehow immune to genetic variation? Keep in mind this is variation so significant that it can cause powdery earwax, epicanthic folds, and shovel teeth. I simply cannot grasp such idiotic and irrational thinking that would blatantly assume all people, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, must somehow be biologically and behaviorally identical.
Obvious physical differences between various ethnic groups are just the tip of the iceberg. Differences in key metabolic pathways, differences in immunological function, differences in average and peak levels of key hormones and enzymes, are forming the basis of ethnically and individually targeted medical therapies. In a few years you’re going to be prescribed drugs tailored to your ethnic background, and hopefully therapies targeted specifically at your familial and individual profile.
Yet you think that differences like that can’t possibly influence maturation, behavior, or measurable ability? That somehow the biochemistry responsible for us being able to communicate in the first place, and engage in abstract reasoning, must be exactly the same in all respects between all persons and groups of persons? That culture is the only possible cause of differences in between groups of people? That somehow human beings magically stopped changing when they left Africa?
You do realize that such fairytale rationale can cause more harm than good? How about this scenario: say that a few years from now researchers discover that persons of a certain familial background have significantly lower average and peak levels of key growth differentiation factors in utero - leading to a measurably reduced rate of neurological development. Said researchers hypothesize that simply supplementing pregnant women of said group with injections of said GDF is an intervention likely to improve the neurological function, and hence overall life outcome, of an entire generation of persons. Do you ignore those measurable biological differences as well and argue that good schooling will somehow make up for a 15 point IQ deficiency?
How about a real-world example. Years back a few maverick researchers wanted to explore the possible hereditary nature of schizophrenia. The very idea was abhorrent to many in the academic establishment, with comparisons to eugenics and nazi science brought forth and numerous attempts made to deny the researchers funding. Eventually the researchers were able to secure some funding from people not so obsessed with phantom boogeymen of eugenic deathsquads, and were able to demonstrate that yes indeed schizophrenia is significantly heritable. This discovery didn’t cause the government to sterilize the mentally ill, it didn’t cause a resurgence in hate crimes, it didn’t cause us to turn our asylums into crematories — it DID however allow doctors to identify at risk families as well as individuals and engage in early medical and psychiatric intervention that measurably improved the quality of life for a large number of persons.
Just because differences exist between individuals and groups doesn’t mean the end of the world or the start of a eugenics war. Admitting that people differ biologically, and that such differences in biology effect both behavior and life outcome, is the first step in generating new and effective medical therapies and social interventions to improve quality of life for large numbers of people. Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying biological differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences. Quite the opposite, stubborn denial delays the formation and adoption of reasonable, moral frameworks to guide the discussion about said differences.
You speak as if the theory of evolution has not itself changed since Darwin. That is, of course, false. Why would someone want to debate something that is, a best, an interesting history and beginning point. Darwin had an woefully incomplete understanding of geology and an incomplete knowledge of biology. He didn’t have DNA, radiometric dating or plate tectonics to work with. Survival of the fittest isn’t survival of the best.
You are correct. And the big ideas of Confucius are strong families, cultivation of knowledge and morality.
These are very similar to the big ideas of Judaism.
When you study successful cultures they tend to have those three big ideas in common.
Genetically they may be as different as you can get. But their ideas converge.
I am curious, have you actually read it?
The BeeGees had the answer to why the Jewish people have done well while others have not. It lies in the title of one of their songs “Staying Alive”.
That is a great incentive to be creative in the face of diversity and annihilation. Having a god to look to for guidance, as well as written laws and guidelines for behavior, proper health practicies, and social cohesion also help a people survive.
Do you understand the distinction between Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews?
It appears to this layman there is a strong helping of both nature and nurture in humans.
>>It is absolutely clear that difference between groups are solely cultural and there is no legit clues to prove otherwise.
The field of athletic success says otherwise.
Not really.
If you start learning about world genetics you find that we are far more mixed then most people could believe. Genes from around the world are found around the world. We travel, we trade and we have lots of sex. Whenever you find any group that has contact with any other group there is, to a greater or lesser degree, an exchange of genes. And then that group trades with a third group and it goes on and on.
If you can tell at a glance, or looking at a piece of hair or earwax under a microscope, which continent someone’s ancestors are from,
Well, you see that is just the problem. You can't.
Are there genetic traits? Of course. Are they stronger then culture? So far unproven to say the least.
This flies in the face of those who think we can "breed" better people rather then training better people.
They think that if they can just find the right mix of genes the hard consistent work of creating and maintaining a culture that encourages people to be better will be over.
To quote you "Sticking your fingers in your years and screaming “LALA-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU” is not a good substitute for rationally discussing the risks and benefits of quantifying cultural differences between persons and groups and addressing the consequences of those differences - you can’t just wish away differences."
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.
How do you explain it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.