Re: Moorad's comment is sound

On 6/30/05, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/30/2005 9:11:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> rich.blinne@gmail.com writes:
>
> On 6/29/05, RFaussette@aol.com <RFaussette@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 6/29/2005 3:38:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > rich.blinne@gmail.com writes:
> > My point is that the so-called connection between intelligence and
> genetic
> > diseases does not follow. That's because genetic drift rather than
> > heterozygote advantage best explains the genetic diseases.
> >
> > Unless you're deliberately selecting for a trait and concentrating
> > maladaptations due to your intense selection that JEWISH SCHOLARS
> THEMSELVES
> > SAY IS WHAT THEIR COMMUNITIES PRACTICE. Why is that so difficult for
> you?
> > Why do you refuse to address what they say about their own practices?
> > Since you know the self selection is occurring because that is the
> nature of
> > Jewish religion, why do you look for the cause elsewhere?
> > Of course, there are real bottlenecks in some populations, but that
> doesn't
> > mean they apply in the Ashkenbazi case, does it? And you haven't
> responded
> > to the fact that a deliberate increase in self selection might easily be
> > observed as a bottleneck since only a segment of the population
> increased
> > their selective behavior. Where's the drift? There's no drift. It's
> > deliberate.
> >
> > Metzenberg:
> > While I take for granted that there are innate differences between
> > communities and ethnic groups, and that these may reflect biological as
> > well as cultural differences, I personally fall more on the "nurture"
> > side of the "nature versus nurture" debate when it comes to IQ and
> > intelligence. Because the authors relied too heavily on biological
> > explanations and mechanisms, they ignored cultural ones, and they failed
> > to grasp that Jewish populations are actually open and partially
> > self-selected.
> >
> >
> > Lamm:
> > The emphasis on learning, the selective genetics involved in marrying
> > the scholar - even to the extent of giving one's fortune for it- and
> > the insistence on having children imbued with that value is reason
> > enough for the superb development of the Jewish mind.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gee, Rich. They even use the words self selected. Are you saying that
> > Metzenberg, Lamm and the most important rabbis at Yeshiva University are
> > lying? Or are you saying that they are self selecting and their high
> > intelligence has nothing to do with their selections?
> >
>
> rich b.
>
>
> I never once disputed that AJ practiced Eugenics nor that this was
> motivated by Talmudic scholarship. Cochran's paper can be divided
> roughly in half. One part was successful and the other an utter
> failure. The successful part established a relationship between
> intelligence and both LSD and non-LSD. Cochran then hypothesized that
> intelligence was a heterozygote advantage for these diseases.
>
> rich f.
> Good, then we are agreed that AJ practice eugenics. That it is an
> essential part of the religion. That is my main argument and you agree.
> However, it is in the torah also.
> rich b.
>
>
> The problem with that hypothesis is that you can measure the genetics
> of AJ to determine if there really was heterozygote advantage of any
> kind and there is now a considerable body of evidence that LSD
> diseases in AJ and others are the result of founder effect rather than
> heterozygote advantage. In fact, there was so much evidence my
> citations of it was bounced by the list software because my post was
> too large.
>
> rich f.
> You didn't counter the suggestion that founder effect could be confused
> with a segment of a population self selecting which would look just like
> founder effect since we have a small group (separated from a larger
> population doing the self selection and out reproducing the larger group
> that is not. This is precisely what occurred with the Hasidic renewal.
> Founder effect WAS the accepted cause for this before self selection as a
> cause was introduced. Heterozygote advantage accrues in thalassemia and
> sickle cell anemia, the selection pressure is coming from a disease carried
> by mosquitoes. These AJ populations are self selecting, the pressure is
> assumed consciously, they are inbreeding and concentrating these deleterious
> diseases in their zeal to marry intelligently.
>
 Heterozygote advantage is well established in sickle cell anemia. But, it
is no longer the case for Tay Sachs. And that's my point. You need to show
heterozygote advantage for your case to be made. The study I quoted was a
controlled study to determine whether it was founder effect or heterozygote
advantage that explained the allele. You are begging the question here. You
are assuming heterozygote advantage before proving it. You need Cochran's
proposed follow up to do that.
 The reason why selecting for intelligence probably doesn't work is that
intelligence is 24-48% heritable and thus the "scholars" that are breeding
and the wrong people are selected (from a genetic perspective). The breeding
programs showed the value placed on intellect and it was most likely that
that was the cause of higher intelligence. The same cultural values produce
the same effects, it's just not because of the eugenics. Again, the reason
why I say this is that when look at the genes of AJ we don't see evidence of
*effective* self-selection. Therefore, we need to look for an environmental
reason rather than a genetic one.
 One side comment: inbreeding is a key component of both founder effect and
heterozygote advantage. Regardless of which theory wins the fact that AJ
inbreeded is part of the explanation of the genetic diseases.
Received on Thu Jun 30 17:56:35 2005