For many on the academic and journalistic left, genetics are deemed largely irrelevant when it comes to humans. Our large brains and the societies we have constructed with them, many argue, swamp almost all genetic influences.
Humans, in this view, are the only species on Earth largely unaffected by recent (or ancient) evolution, the only species where, for example, the natural division of labor between male and female has no salience at all, the only species, in fact, where natural variations are almost entirely social constructions, subject to reinvention. We are, in this worldview, alone on the planet, born as blank slates, to be written on solely by culture. All differences between men and women are a function of this social effect; as are all differences between the races. If, in the aggregate, any differences in outcome between groups emerge, it is entirely because of oppression, patriarchy, white supremacy, etc. And it is a matter of great urgency that we use whatever power we have to combat these inequalities.
Reich simply points out that this utopian fiction is in danger of collapse because it is not true and because genetic research is increasingly proving it untrue.
Pfft. Even a Neanderthal knows this.
I like the new format. I don’t care how many confused people there are when it comes to genetics, the human species will continue doing dumb things until we wipe ourselves out.
Great platform for a tablet ! Well done.
So now it’s BOTH the Evangelicals and SJW leftards that deny the facts of Evolution?
That may be surprising to many, but those paying attention have seen that these two groups have far more in common than that, don’t they? I find the further you get to the farther reaches of the partisan left AND right, you find the crazy people who figure everyone who isn’t JUST LIKE THEM is evil. The delusional who feel they have a ‘moral obligation’ to tell everyone else how to live and then attack those who refuse to comply.
And in BOTH groups, their denial of Evolution appears to be based strictly on the fact that the science conflicts with their own crafted narrative of the world. It would be funny if it were not so disturbing to witness so many people being intentionally ignorant of reality. Sigh….
Only some very conservative Evangelicals.
I know I will get dumped on for this, but technically, evolution is a theory, not reality. As such, it is different from genetics. Introducing the Evangelicals here is a red herring in my view. I see no correlation between them and the SJW.
none so blind as “you” who will not see the truth. I think noah’s ark just got torpedoed, so you can quit looking for that helicopter that crashed with the penguins aboard. (in case you don’t git it, there is NO way noah, or any one else back then could have rounded up 2 of each kind)
LindaL, I think it is sad that you think having your comments fairly challenged is ‘being dumped on’. The day they call it the ‘Theory of Christianity’, maybe you can make such a comparison of ‘honest realities’ more fairly. Genetics and evolution are so intertwined that it is simply bizarre to me to ‘believe in’ one but not the other.
Ken, you are right and the same goes for leftards.
Anyways, it being Easter Sunday, in retrospect I find this a piss-poor time to be debating anyone’s faith. I will let my comments stand and wish all my Christian friends and family a Happy Easter.
To Canadian Observer, nice hijacking of the thread into a discussion on Evangelicals and evolution, neither of which is on topic.
As to how “intertwined” genetics and evolution is, there is a famous quote from the great botanist Luther Burbank. Now, mind you, he was no Evangelical, quite the contrary. He was an atheist and an evolutionist. But he was also an honest scientist (back in his day they were much more common.) So he published honestly what he saw.
Burbank said that he could make a tomato four times the normal size, and he could make a tomato one fourth the normal size. But he said there was a limit to how much he can do, however much he tried. At some point, there was “reversion to the mean”. The tomatoes stubbornly remained tomatoes, though genetically engineered to be quite different in size. What he observed was genetics, not evolution. And the two are not “intertwined.”
The famous beaks on the famous finches on the famous Galapagos Islands never got any thicker, and “reverted to the mean” after the famous Charles Darwin left those islands. What he witnessed was adaptation, possibly related to genetics, if by that you mean that the finches with certain genetic traits survived the droughts better. But it surely was no evolution.
In fact, no evolution has ever been observed, that is the changing on one species into another, unless you count those that did it with one stroke of the pen. For many reasons, but primarily to forestall the draining of some ponds, dishonest biologists have changed their definition of “species” to include “habitat.” And, voila! darter snails who dwell in different ponds become different species, and both ponds must be protected under the protection of species act.
it has always been a theory and remains so. when is a theory no longer a theory? when concrete proof has been determined.
Oh, not this chestnut again. The word “theory” has a specific meaning in the scientific method that’s distinct from its common vernacular meaning. Claiming that evolution “is a theory, not reality” is both fallacious and deliberately conflates two very different meanings for the word “theory”.
Look, you want to try and disprove the theory of evolution, go right ahead. The keenness of our arguments is honed on the whetstone of informed opposition; too many scientists blow off any criticism of their work with ad hominem. But if you’re going to take up that cudgel, for the love of St. Michael the Archangel could you please not recycle tired old fallacies based on deliberate misuse of technical terms, that were called out over a hundred years ago? Come on. It’s like arguing that the raisin bun model of atomic structure is inaccurate.
Yeah.. it’s bizarre that there are still people who don’t understand this. There is no “law” of evolution because there is no mathematical formula that defines it. It’s been proven.
there is an interesting site with something called the 75 thesis. you might want to read it.
Actually it is what is known as a Robust Theory. It is an attempt to describe reality. Evolution is, so far, the best explanation we have to explain the fact of animals changing over time.
Congratulations Team Kate … the results are terrific in these old eyes and hands.
Evolution isn’t an ‘intellectual’ concept …. it is reality … and yes I agree that humans are a unique case … an observer of our behavior would surely note that humans evolve their tools … to suit their purposes … and, in turn, their behavior and even physical characteristics are changed by the tool set.
Intellectuals have trouble with reality …. think on it …. golf is a game that you must ‘play it as it lays’ …. communists aren’t golfers IIRC.
An excellent article by Sullivan.
The Theory of Evolution can be disproved easily.
I believe in Creation because of scientific and historical evidence.
SJW have created their own religion (set of rules) and reactions, as demonstrated by Klein’s response to Reich’s points.
Interesting to note he feels this debate must take place to ensure the future of “liberalism”, then goes on to describe a liberalism that no longer exists. For example, most liberals are now full on progressives – same in Canada – and equality of outcome is very much part of their plan.
Exactly. Historical classical liberalism has been infiltrated by and usurped by ‘progressiveness’ (Frankfurt School Marxist communism). Conservatives are now the defenders of liberal democracy.
There you have it, folks! Genetics are racist. Those who aren’t identical and equal to everyone else should have their DNA confiscated.
Make evolution illegal as well. How dare any organism that has traits which allow them to survive in its environment and then have the ability to pass them on to the next generation. Those give it an undue advantage over one that doesn’t have those traits. Make all organisms equal!
David Hogg, where are you when we need you?
Sullivan is a conservative just like, Joe Scarborough.
I don’t think the concept of ‘nature’ factoring into intelligence has ever been anything but widely accepted in the scientific community. What isn’t accepted is the notion that some races are dumber than others on a genetic basis, because this isn’t supported by evidence. Even if there were such variance, it is trivial compared to intra-race variation, or variation due to the nurture side of things. Further, it will be moot as more and more interbreeding turns humanity racially homogenous while gene-editing does the opposite, allowing us to customize our genomes. In this glorious future we are all genetically enhanced Somoans.
Is it gentic differences in intelligence really what they fear? Intelligence is like money – you need a certain amount for survival, a certain amount to be secure, a certain amount to be happy. Amounts beyond that have diminishing returns. Having 2 billion doesn’t make you significantly happier than 1 billion. Same with intelligence – you need a certain level for survival, a certain….
I wonder if the fear is that genetics also determines more disturbing traits like anti-social behaviour. If that gets tied to race, then the racists will go wild. Racists won’t see advanced genetic screening as an opportunity to identify and provide early intervention for at-risk individuals but as justification for bigotry.
Genetic differences in IQ triggers envy, genetic differences in anti-social behaviour triggers fear. I think that’s why they’re barricading the door from studies of genetic differences between individuals, races and cultures.
I think this was posted here before:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html
To these two authors, I ask: What’s the difference between a ‘dangerous racist’ and a scientist who believes in ‘average genetic differences among human populations?’
Answer: To the left, nothing.
And another question: Why do you think people and scientists are so afraid of discussing and researching these topics?
Answer: You are about to find out.