Orton's Arm

That actually has nothing to do with the point I was making. I wrote that it's possible for a genetic trait to be helpful at the individual level, but harmful to the group as a whole. As for "arguing with a published textbook"--I'd point out that my only arguments were with statement 4 (which I would have made more nuanced) and statement 5 (which represents savvy politics, but bad science). If you think scientists are above political pressures, I'd urge you to take a closer look at the scientific community in Nazi Germany. According to Ute Deichman, "Scientists, including those who were not members of the [Nazi] party, helped to get funding through their work through modified behavior and direct cooperation with the state." Deichman described "the active role of scientists themselves in regard to Nazi race policy . . . where [research] was aimed at confirming the racial doctrine . . . no external pressure can be documented." At least according to Deichman, funding requests were a sufficient tool to ensure not merely the scientific community's passive silence about Nazi racial doctrine, but its active cooperation in promoting such doctrine. Might political forces also be at work in modern American funding requests? And might those forces apply to the question of whether there is a sound scientific basis for a eugenics program? We condescendingly look down on the genetic statements of the Nazi German scientific community, without realizing that at least in some areas, our own scientific community has become equally politicized. In neither Nazi Germany nor the modern U.S. has it been possible for scientists to dissent from the politically-imposed view of eugenics without incurring strong social and financial penalties. What did people say about eugenics back when you could take either side of the issue without becoming a social outcast? Late 19th/early 20th century supporters of eugenics included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Winston Churchill, Alexander Graham Bell, Margaret Sanger, Luther Burbank, Leland Stanford (founder of Stanford University), H.G. Wells, and George Bernard Shaw. Eugenics-related research was done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins. Eugenics was considered mainstream science, until political (not scientific) forces changed things. The forces of political correctness no longer permit an open and honest discussion about the extent to which there is a scientific basis for a eugenics program. But that doesn't change the underlying truth. The Mendelian theory is correct, and Lamarckian ideas are completely wrong. Due to the power of Mendelain genetics and selective breeding, dog breeders have been able to create breeds of dogs which are noted for intelligence, for specific temperaments, and for specific types of hard-wired behavior.

Your exact words were But keep telling us you'd never ridicule a textbook.

The objections you've raised didn't stop dog breeders from using selective breeding to create a breed of dog disposed toward high levels of intelligence, hard work, and the tendency to herd other animals. Can you or anyone else quantify the genotype/phenotype relationship for a tendency to herd sheep? People were able to use selective breeding to get more or less whatever kind of dog they wanted. You want a dog that specializes in water rescue? No problem--that's been hardwired into some breeds of dogs. You want a dog that will retrieve prey without harming it? That exists too. Different breeds have different temperaments, different predispositions to obey orders (as opposed to thinking for themselves), etc. Selective breeding worked, despite dog breeders' inability to develop quantitative measurement systems for the traits they were breeding for. Selective breeding worked long before people had heard words like "genotype" and "phenotype." The very first chapter of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species discusses how selectively breeding animals resulted in strong differences between one breed and the next. Darwin used this observation to support his theory of evolution. Darwin's work was published long before Watson and Crick discovered the DNA double helix. Darwin may not have been able to answer genotype/phenotype questions about any characteristic, but he understood evolutionary forces apply to all characteristics. Your "1940's [sic] Germany" comment implies a) that modern Darwinistic forces don't apply to human intelligence, and b) that anyone who believes otherwise is a Nazi. Unfortunately, that particular form of ignorance is not only tolerated, but actively encouraged by an intellectually undisciplined culture. People are taught humans evolved from apes. People are not taught the same evolutionary forces which turned apes into humans could just as easily turn humans into apes. Natural selection caused some subset of apes to gradually get smarter, until finally modern humans emerged. If through artificial selection the least intelligent people have the most children, that same process will reverse itself. Maybe you'd be tempted to respond by mockingly pointing out that it will be a very long time before humans degenerate into something with only a chimp-level of intelligence. But there's no reason to wait until we get to that point before taking action. Moreover, artificial selection can work very quickly; as evidenced by the large differences that exist in various animal breeds. Natural selection works more slowly, because an individual's reproductive success is largely due to chance. A mouse that has a unique allele helpful for cat avoidance might still get unlucky and be eaten by a cat anyway. Given the large disparities between the fertility rates of smart versus unintelligent women, humanity's degeneration comes closer to following the accelerated pace of an artifical selection program instead of the generally slow pace with which natural selection works.

An interesting comment coming from someone who ridiculed a statistics textbook's quote about regression toward the mean.

Statements 1 - 3 are mainstream. I'm not going to argue with them, except to say that there have been different estimates for the heritability for intelligence; many of which are higher than the 0.60 your textbook mentioned. The American Psychological Association has accepted a heritability estimate north of 0.70, for example. It's also true heritability estimates are made for the individual, not the group. A heritability estimate of 0.70 means that, on average, 70% of differences in intelligence can be explained by genetics. That percentage could be lower or higher for any given person. Statement 2 was made with race in mind. Just because, say, 60% or 70% of within-group variation is the result of genetic differences does not imply that exactly 60% or 70% of intelligence differences between races are caused by genetics. The two subjects are separate. Statement 3 is correct, because of the way heritability works. In a situation where the relevant environment differs radically from one person to the next, heritability estimates will be low for any given trait. Your height, for example, might have more to do with whether you were malnourished as a child than with your genetic predisposition to height. When environments become more similar, genetics play a larger role in determining differences between one person and the next. Hence, the heritability estimate for height is a lot higher in populations where everyone receives good nutrition than it is for populations where many people grow up half-starved. Statement 4 could have been worded better. It should read, "heritable does not necessarily mean inevitable." There are times when it does. For example, physical traits are heritable enough that most people can't become NFL offensive linemen no matter how hard they try. The heritability of physical or mental traits means certain life options are inevitably denied. While heritability creates an inescapable ceiling for all of us, it doesn't create an inevitable floor. Your parents might be talented athletes, but if you grow up malnourished, or don't exercise enough, you won't achieve as much as them. With statement 5, the author of your genetics book compromised his or her intellectual integrity to kowtow to the pressures of political correctness. If, for example, the discussion turned toward a relatively uncontroversial topic (such as dog breeding) there would be no argument that selectively breeding dogs for a given trait will produce the desired result. That remains true even when the trait is hard to quantify; such as aggressiveness, or a tendency to herd sheep, or to help people in water rescue, or intelligence, etc. But once the subject turns to human beings, intelligence, and social policy, the lessons learned in dog breeding somehow go out the window. Statement 6 (the poorly understood relationship between genotype and phenotype) was presumably written in an attempt to support statement 5. Yes, the relationship between genotype and phenotype is better understood for some traits than for others. But selective breeding programs targeted at animals produce results for all targeted traits, regardless of how well or poorly geneticists comprehend the underlying mechanisms at work.

Your utter arrogance would be easier to excuse if if was backed up by intellectual rigor. But both in this discussion and in most of our previous ones, the objections you've attempted to raise displayed either a) a basic lack of understanding of what the other poster was saying, b) a misunderstanding of the underlying concept, or c) both. For example, someone will clearly and coherently explain concept A. You, on the other hand, are fixated on your understanding of concept B. You mistakenly assume 1) that concepts A and concept B contradict each other, and 2) that the person with whom you're disagreeing is an idiot for not understanding concept B. (You interpret silence about B to indicate ignorance.) Then instead of laying out your deeply flawed thought process for everyone to see, you'll simply write, "You're an idiot," or something to that effect. Given the childishness and immaturity of your own behavior, I'm a little surprised you feel yourself in a strong enough position to make accusations against others. Then again, people with high levels of inner weakness and insecurity often have a need to put down others. People who have reached a deep level of maturity don't have that need.

Woolley's point is perfectly valid, and it doesn't just apply to human beings. Some breeds of domesticated animals have lost many of the traits that allow their non-domestic counterparts to survive. A wolf that can't run at high speeds over long distances will be weeded from the gene pool. The same is not the case for Yorkshire terriers. If Yorkshire terriers are successful in going feral, I haven't heard of it. This suggests the terrier has become something which can succeed only in a domesticated environment; never in the wild. To what extent have human beings domesticated themselves? As Woolley has pointed out, people who would be weeded out "in the wild" are perfectly able to have children due to the nature of modern society. Some of this is due to technology masking genetic defects, some to social programs, and some is due to other factors. One factor in particular is that the benefits of technology advances are generally shared. Consider a scientist who makes a major discovery. The benefits of this discovery are shared by humanity or some random subset; and not by the scientist or by those who have the most in common with him genetically. Genetic traits which lead people to make major discoveries aren't being selected for. Because smart people tend to have fewer children, such traits are actively being selected against. The domestication of the Yorkshire terrier is sustainable so long as humanity is able to continue to support such animals. The same is not necessarily true of humanity's domestication of itself. In modern society, both smart and unintelligent people benefit from the discoveries and engineering of the very brightest. Both altruistic and selfish people alike benefit from those willing to deny themselves to benefit the greater whole. The people who produce these benefits aren't receiving genetic rewards; and are often being genetically punished for the traits that make them beneficial to the group.

You make an excellent point in saying technological advancement can mask the effects of genetic deficiencies. It's odd anyone would take issue with something so clearly true. I'd like to add to that by pointing out it's possible for a trait that's positive at the individual level to be negative at the group level. For example, consider an allele that predisposes people toward altrusitic behavior. At the individual level this could easily be negative--you make sacrifices without reaping individual reproductive rewards. But imagine a tribe or nation of people each individually prepared to sacrifice for the greater good. That tribe or nation will be stronger than a nation where everyone acts selfishly. For example, government officials in the altruistic nation will uphold the law; while officials in the selfish nation will accept bribes. I'd argue the Roman Republic was built by individuals willing to make sacrifices for the greater good; while the Roman Empire fell because that willingness no longer existed. I'm not saying altruism is determined strictly by genetics. In general, traits are determined by three factors: genetics, the environment, and an interaction term between the two. Take intelligence for example. By adulthood, genetically unrelated siblings reared together show no correlation in their levels of intelligence. Environment alone plays very little role in determining differences in people's intelligence, at least in the U.S. But consider the interaction term as it relates to challenging educational opportunities. Someone with a high genetic potential for intelligence will benefit from such opportunities far more than someone without such potential. To maximize human intelligence, the smartest people have to have the most kids (genetic part of the equation); and those kids have to have the best possible education (environmental and interaction terms). If the intelligence-genes aren't there, you lose out not only on the genetic portion of the equation, but also on that interaction term. That leaves the environmental term as the only possible source of improvement. I'd argue that, in general, a population genetically disposed toward high levels of intelligence will do a better job of creating good learning environments than one not so disposed. Whether it's parents, teachers, school administrators, or others responsible for affecting children's environments, people with low levels of intelligence will, on average, be less able to create challenging and stimulating learning environments for children than will similarly motivated people of high intelligence. Those who honestly expect environmental improvement to counter genetic decline are guilty of a hopeless level of naivety on a number of levels. For one thing, good environment plus low-IQ genetics results in low IQ adults. Beyond that, it's not clear to me why people would expect environmental improvement. Intellectual rigor isn't as high a priority in modern American education as it was a few decades ago. I see no evidence to suggest education in this country is improving either on the institutional level or the individual level. Today's textbooks aren't more vigorous or challenging than the ones used in the early '70s. On the contrary. Today's teachers aren't better than the teachers in the '70s, '60s, or '50s. Nor am I aware of evidence to suggest today's parents are doing a better job of providing stimulation to their children than the parents of a generation ago.

In the midst of throwing stupid accusations against me, you somehow managed to ask a legitimate question. That's a step up for you. In answer to your question, the genetic basis for intelligence is declining because smart women are choosing to have fewer children than less intelligent women. I'd like to add that a trait which is positively selected for at an individual level may be negative for the group as a whole. Consider, for example, a mutation in a harmful bacterium. The normal strain of bacterium is mildly harmful to people, but allows them to live out normal lives. The mutant strain reproduces much faster, and thereby kills its hosts relatively quickly. Suppose you are injected with a solution of bacteria that's 99% normal, and 1% mutant. Over the course of your infection, the percentage of mutant bacteria will rise quickly, because the mutants reproduce so much faster. Just based on this changing percentage, it would appear the mutant strain is more genetically fit. But here's the catch: the mutant strain destroys its hosts, whereas the normal strain does not. Over the course of thousands of years, and a countless number of infections, the normal strain of bacterium has a much better chance of survival than does the mutant strain. Suppose Planets A and B both happen to have a modern technology level; and are too far away to interact with each other. Planet A is populated with people who are smart enough to continue using their environmentally destructive technology, but not smart enough to improve it. Moreover, they reproduce quickly, thereby compounding the environmental damage. Due to the absence of talented scientists and of long-term planning skills, the people on Planet A fail to develop an environmentally friendly economy. Planet B, on the other hand, has a high percentage of smart people; who are able to quickly advance the planet's technology level. The people on this second planet soon make the transition to electric cars and solar power satellites. On Planet A, people go extinct due to environmental damage. On Planet B, they thrive.

One of your more annoying habits--and you have many--is to assume ignorance or stupidity where there is none. Woolley's post pointed out Darwinistic forces no longer promote a human gene pool with traits traditionally associated with genetic fitness. Instead of accusing him of "retardation"--as you for some reason insisted on doing--you should be congratuating him for having grasped a concept beyond the ken of most people. You correctly imply Darwinistic mechanisms are positive, not normative--that is, they describe the way the gene pool will change, not the way it should change. Both Woolley and I understood that already. But that doesn't mean that I, at least, am happy with the way human genetic change is going. I see two different thresholds: the lower one is where humanity is smart enough to chop down trees, burn fossil fuels, create pollution, and do other things to mess up the environment. The higher threshold is where humanity develops alternative fuels, controls pollution, and develops viable off-world colonies. Due to the decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, it will be very difficult for humanity to reach this second threshold. Or, having reached it, it will be difficult to sustain it in very many places; or throughout very much of the global economy. Humanity could very easily go extinct as a result of falling between these two thresholds.

A lot of times DTs don't produce much in their rookie years, only to have success later on. Maybe Marv thinks the main improvement to the DL needs to come from McCargo (and even Kyle Williams) getting better. It'd be nice for the Bills to use an early pick to replace Tim Anderson, but it's possible those early picks will be allocated to positions like MLB, DB, WR or TE, RB, etc.

This is one of the finest posts I've seen on these boards. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

You've written quite a bit lately, so I need to get around to responding to it. - You argue that I should look at OL drafted on the first day, not those drafted just in rounds 1 & 2. There's no right or wrong answer here. According to the NFL trade value chart, the 15th pick in the first round is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 2nd round; which in turn is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 3rd round; which is worth more than double the 15th pick in the 4th round. If trade values are biased towards early picks, it's because early draft picks are disproportionately likely to succeed. Over the past 11 years, the Bills have only used one pick in the first two rounds on an offensive lineman. - You argue that letting Antoine Winfield go was necessary to free up money for Lawyer Milloy. Milloy in turn was more necessary than Winfield (according to your way of thinking) because the Bills needed to keep Coy Wire on the bench. I disagree. As bad as one year of Coy Wire starting would have been, it would have worth it to have Antoine Winfield with us today. - Coaching improvements. I'm not trying to be blinkered in my assessment of this team's accomplishments and mistakes. You're right to say that coaching was a problem in the past, and is becoming part of the solution today. But ultimately, it's the general manager's job to figure out which players can play, and which can't. The Patriots identify players with high levels of intelligence, toughness, work ethic, and passion for the game of football. Look at their offensive line! TD failed to consistently implement a similar system with the Bills, and his results speak for themselves. You're right to imply Ronnie Vinlarek's advice on offensive linemen wasn't helpful to TD. But TD's errors go beyond just hiring the wrong coaching staff. - Good players might have failed with Kevin Gilbride as their offensive coordinator, and Ronnie Vinlarek as their position coach. I'll grant that's possible in theory. But in practice, no OL released during TD's era has gone on to have success with another team. There's one exception to that rule though: Ruben Brown. Not coincidentally, Ruben Brown was the second most recent Bills' first round OL pick. - You point out some first day OL are busts (see Mike Williams) or too injury-prone to be worth their contract money (Jennings). I'm not really sure why you're bringing that into this discussion. Erik Flowers was a bust on the DL, Travares Tillman a bust as a DB, and Corey Moore a bust as a LB. Does that mean the Bills shouldn't use first day picks on defense? Of course not. Some picks work out, others don't. I've heard it said offensive line has a lower bust rate than most other draft positions, but there's going to be a chance of a bust no matter which position you choose to address in the draft. - You argue that making bad decisions with early OL draft picks is a much bigger issue than investing too few early picks in OL. I disagree. Before taking trades into account, the Bills have had 22 picks in the first two rounds over the last 11 years--enough to draft one player for every position on the team. Had they used five of those picks on offensive linemen, the line would be getting its proportionate share of picks. Instead, just one such pick was used on the o-line. The consequences of that neglect were compounded by a) the fact that pick was a bust, and b) the fact that until very recently, the Bills have had little success finding quality offensive lineman in picks 3 - 7 or through UDFAs.

Thanks, Bill, for the kind words. I agree with you that finding another Jason Peters is very unlikely, and that the Bills should use first day picks on the OL if they want it to continue to improve.

Um, yeah. Because there's nothing stupid about jeopardizing your own high paying career, and there's nothing selfish about jeopardizing your ability to contribute to your team.

I'll grant your points are true: evolutionary theory asserts that chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. It's possible chimps are as genetically different from this common ancestor as are humans. I agree that a species halfway between humans and chimps might well not be able to reproduce with either. On the other hand, lions and tigers can interbreed, housecats can breed with bobcats and even lynxes, horses can (sort of) breed with donkeys. The scenario I envisioned would have the most human-like of the various species breeding with humans; and the most chimp-like breeding with chimps. You'd need a few other human-chimp links in the middle of this chain if the goal was to ultimately mix human blood with chimp blood. Or you could just breed Bungee Jumper.

If you're going with this angle, obviously you need to start calling Belichick the master/evil emperor. That'd make Peyton Manning Luke Skywalker.

Waiting only one year after a draft is almost always too early to make definitive statements about it. But thus far, the second day appears to have been very strong, while the first day is harder to judge. All we have to really go on is Whitner's play; which was reasonably good. Overall, I have a higher opinion of this draft than bluenews seems to. But I'll be the first to admit my opinion could change if McCargo and Youboty don't do anything, if Whitner never lives up to the 8th overall pick, and if the Keith Ellisons and Kyle Williams of the draft experience a drop-off in production. Brandon Spoon looked like a very solid late-round find early on, and where is he today? While things seem promising so far, it's far too soon to label this draft a success or failure.

I'd be perfectly willing to trade McGahee for a second round pick, either in the division or out of it. Yes, you might be helping the Jets by giving them McGahee, but you're also hurting them by taking away that draft pick. Those two things could easily even out.

A good blurb. I couldn't read the article because the site required a login. But I'll grant the premise of the blurb. Darwinism can only work when those who are the least fit tend to survive less often, or reproduce less often, than those who are most fit. If a certain trait no longer increases one's chances of reproducing or surviving, that trait becomes vestigial. How does this apply to humans? In modern Western nations, the percentage of people who die before they reach sexual maturity is very small. The main factor in deciding which genes get passed onto the next generation, and which genes don't, is the number of children people decide to have. Less intelligent people are choosing to have more children than smart people. The Darwinistic forces that are supposed to be improving the gene pool are, in this case, actually exerting downward pressure on whichever alleles are associated with intelligence. If other planets' intelligent species experienced a similar situation, it would help explain the Fermi Paradox.

The problem I have with the Bills' drafting strategy is that they seem to have a very high willingness to take DBs with first round picks, and a very low willingness to extend these DBs beyond their first contracts. Yes, this would be a problem if it was done at some other position (such as OL) instead. The problem with pursuing the draff high/don't extend strategy at any position is that it drains draft picks from the rest of the team. I've been focusing on the deleterious effect this has been having on the offensive line, because the OL has been an obvious team need for over a decade. During that decade, the Bills did almost nothing to address that need.

You seem to be saying that natural selection "chooses" the fittest based on phenotype. Woolley seems to be saying natural selection increases fitness over the course of several generations by altering the genotype. Both sentiments are true.

Speaking of Darwinism, I wondered what would happen if they dug up a number of missing links between humans and chimps. These missing links would need to be preserved in Siberian glaciers; with a few cells intact enough so that you could clone them. The most human-like of the missing links could be bred with humans; while the most chimp-like could be bred with chimps. Then you'd start breeding the resulting offspring with other missing links closer to the middle of the chain. Eventually, you'd wind up with a creature that was part human, part chimp, and part missing link. Then I asked myself: why go through all that when you already have Bungee Jumper?

Woolley was dead-on right. He was saying that whether you take good care of yourself or not, your underlying genetics will remain the same. The genes you're passing onto your kids will be the same. Natural selection works by giving those with the best genes more opportunities to survive or reproduce. And that's correct. But, you might respond, what about a situation where animals have roughly the same genetics, but radically different environments? Clearly those who had the best environments will tend to have a strong advantage for survival and reproduction. But this type of natural selection does not improve the gene pool, and therefore does not result in Darwinistic evolution. Darwinism deals strictly with how genetically-based reproductive or survival advantages gradually change species' genetics. The articles you found indicate that if person A and person B both eat the same meals; their bodies will likely respond in different ways due to their genetic differences. That's also correct; but not something that contradicts anything written by Woolley.

Over the course of his career, Bills' first round pick Antoine Winfield will end up having contributed significantly more to the Vikings than he has to the Bills. The same might end up being true of Nate Clements and whichever team signs him. Thinking back, you also have to consider first round CBs like Jeff Burris and Thomas Smith. Traditionally, the Bills' response to their first round CBs playing well has been to let them walk in free agency. How on earth can you build a Super Bowl champion if your draft successes from five or six years ago are playing for some other team? Either the Bills should extend whichever high round DBs work out well, or they shouldn't use first round picks on DBs in the first place. During the Jeff Burris/Thomas Smith/Antoine Winfield/Nate Clements years, the Bills have generally had a good secondary. But from the mid-'90s to today, the team's also had a mediocre to downright bad offensive line. Further, the team's generally spent very few first-day picks on offensive linemen. A while back, I did a regression which showed that for each first round offensive lineman you take who turns into a starter, your team is expected to win two additional games. Statistics can show correlation but not causation. So we need to ask ourselves: to what extent might the play of those first round offensive line starters be causing their teams' additional wins? It's fairly obvious to me that teams which keep their QBs upright, and open holes for their RBs, will win more games than teams which don't do these things. One thing I noticed about the Patriots/San Diego game is how, after a few series, the Patriots' offensive line took control of the line of scrimmage. Once that happened, the Patriots' offense came alive; and they won the game. The same thing happened a few years earlier when the Patriots won that Super Bowl against the Carolina Panthers. I'm not saying that the only possible way to build your offensive line is through first and second round picks. Generally teams with good lines use a few high round picks, as well as a few guys from lower rounds or UDFAs. You try to find quality offensive linemen late in the draft when possible, but you use high round picks to fill out whichever OL positions are still an area of need. However, the Bills haven't been able to throw high round OL picks at their needs on the OL, because their picks have been consumed elsewhere. After drafting DBs who leave after their first contract, slot receivers, RBs, Bledsoe trades, and the like, there simply weren't high round picks left over for the offensive line. During his tenure here, TD used eight picks in the first two rounds on offensive skill position players, while using just one such pick on an offensive lineman. John Butler went from 1996 - 2000 without using a first or second round pick on an offensive lineman; and Marv didn't use any rounds 1 or 2 picks on offensive linemen this year. That's an eleven year stretch with just one offensive lineman chosen in the first two rounds. By ignoring the offensive line in the first two rounds of the draft, the Bills created a situation where they had to find a good player for every OL position later in the draft, or through free agency. And that's extremely difficult to do. If you do well you can fill two spots with UDFAs or late round picks; maybe even three. But if you categorically refuse to fill offensive line needs with early picks, it will be almost impossible to find an answer for those last two or three OL spots. Other than the Tampa Bay Bucs, I can't think of any examples of teams which won the Super Bowl without having a very good offensive line. If the Bills continue to ignore the line in the future as they have in the recent past, it's almost certain they'll continue to be denied the Lombardi Trophy.