Posted on 12/11/2007 8:28:45 AM PST by squireofgothos
above-average intelligence in Ashkenazi Jews — those of northern European heritage — resulted from natural selection in medieval Europe, where they were pressured into jobs as financiers, traders, managers and tax collectors.
Those who were smarter succeeded, grew wealthy and had bigger families to pass on their genes, they suggested. That evolution also is linked to genetic diseases such as Tay-Sachs and Gaucher in Jews.
The new study was funded by the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute of Aging, the Unz Foundation, the University of Utah and the University of Wisconsin.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
What do you think the definition is?
It is possible in a European with a non-functioning Lactose turn off gene, that lactose is not seen for so long that the gene which would usually function normally is eventually buried in chromatin and is no longer easily turned back on. So yes, it can happen that a someone who was formerly lactose tolerant can become somewhat lactose intolerant after not eating dairy for a long time. However no amount of drinking lactose can make a human who has a functioning gene to turn off the lactose gene after infancy lactose tolerant. It will just give them gas and an upset stomach and diarrhea.
Being successful as a farmer requires good health, strength, and energy (as well as intelligence). Being a successful merchant or banker requires being smart enough to not get outsmarted by people who want your stuff. Over time, stupid merchants and financiers tend to lose money and starve
That's from a wide swath of language family groups (Semitic, Turkic (Mongolian?), Austronesian, and Indo-European). Has there been a conclusive study suggesting a common root language for humanity as a whole who's descendants are the modern languages?
Common roots of their language include words for chariots and wheels, horse and sheep; so that might give some clue as to what type of lifestyle they lived. One of herding sheep, riding horses, and building chariots to ride down their foes.
The word (macroevolution) wasn't invented by Creationists (do you honestly believe that macroevolutionists would adopt a word conjured up by Creationists, especially one supposedly designed to thwart their views? Most macroevolutionists' attitudes toward Creationists are similar to yours, chiefly that Creationists are idiots who choose to ignore the obvious).
Or they could be devolving. That is, they’re getting dumber, not smarter. The dark side of the study asserting Jews are smarter is that other groups of humans are dumber. No one wants to go there for political reasons, even if the science beckons and it’s true.
Appreciated.
Please define macroevolution.
But generally Hawaiian isn't considered to be related, and it's origin region (Southeast Asia) wasn't near the area Indo-European languages were prevalent (you have a point for the others, though: Israel and the Turk/Mongol region were relatively close to areas using an Indo-European language and they could have picked up a word or two or more from that Indo-European language while keeping their language families separate).
While I’m waiting for your definition I’d like to comment that I do not appreciate others attributing views to me that I do not have.
If I person tells me that they take aspects, or all of, the Bible literally, I have no problem with it. That is an act of faith. I do not share the view, but I accept it.
If a person claims to take the Bible or aspects of the Bible literally and then proceeds to twist, obfuscate and misrepresent scienc because their faith is not strong enough to stand alone, I will cheerfully point out the errors in their scientific representations.
From Merriam-Webster Online. Link here.
Thank you.
Thus species formation is a key feature, as I said.
Now, can you explain how the organism knows when to stop piling up changes so it won’t go a form a new species?
No, the whole point of the invented “macro-evolution” is that changes cannot accumulate far enough that the new popuation has lost its ability to interbreed with the ancestral one.
Since you obviously were not typing that the definition of macroevolution "is that changes cannot accumulate far enough that the new popuation has lost its ability to interbreed with the ancestral one" (since you're a proponent of macroevolutionism), but rather that the whole point of Creationists' use of macroevolution is to use it as a smokescreen to recognize microevolution (which is relatively easy to find evidence for) while dismissing macroevolution (for which evidence is much more scarce). And that is basically the case. However, Creationists are not all the same (just as macroevolutionists aren't: consider panspermia and life originating on Earth). Some Creationists recognize species which are generally not able to interbreed anymore as having a common ancestor (such as horses and donkeys in the mule case). Rather it is largely at the genus area instead of the species area. So, bacteria wouldn't evolve into multicellular organism which wouldn't evolve into fish which wouldn't evolve into amphibians, which wouldn't evolve into reptiles, which wouldn't evolve into birds or non-human mammals, which wouldn't evolve into men (and closer too, within families: rodents wouldn't evolve into bears, etc.).
If I understand your post, for you the holdup would be at the genus level?
Your post is not entirely clear to me, since your examples range from divisions to orders to families.
Is this a correct rewording of your interpretation?
You can evolve species within a genus.
You may or may not get new genera.
There is a firm wall at the family level and beyond.
If that is a correct interpretation, what makes the wall? How does a 4 legged critter with a life cycle dependent on a water stage (amphibian), “know” that protecting the egg from evaporation so it can be laid on land rather than underwater, is forbidden. That scaly proturbences are forbidden? Etc.
Are you presuming to sit in judgement on science, which has the right to pass judgement on ever single subject of Divine Revelation and state whether or not they are fairy tales? Don't you know that everything is subject to our ever-increasing store of new knowledge and that religious belief is supposed to "evolve" with the times? If you try to salvage the "human soul" from the findings of modern science, what else are you going to hold back on, hmmm?
What are you, some sort of obscurantist fanatic? [/sarcasm]
OK. I can disprove this whole study with one simple statement: Ehud Olmert’s parents are ashkenazi Jews and he is possibly the biggest moron on the planet. Case closed.
What I am is a bit confused as to what exactly you have your knickers in a knot about.
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.