...Continued

On top of that, the fact that they're all so closely socially connected, in rural communities, makes the psychological neutralising of any potential offence near impossible, and deterrence is a much bigger factor when an individual risks being identified in the process of committing an offence or cannot just slip away quietly into the anonymity that a metropolitan area provides, once they have committed an offence.

As for aborigines, they have such a long and understandably troubled history that if you can just assume some genetic inferiority without acknowledging any of the crippling effects of cultural displacement, then there is no hope for you.

I would love to know what you think finding a genetic link would achieve, though. What non-draconian crime prevention methods would it help us to implement? Or would proving such a link just make you feel better?

In regards to your Bell Curve-Evolution analogy, those who fought against Darwin's ideas had no evidence to the contrary, just a faith. So your analogy is false.

Finally, your claims regarding "dumb" people, criminality and I.Q. ignore the fact that, not only is the nature-nurture bone of contention a problem for I.Q. too, but you get the whole chicken-and-egg problem on top of that. And as if that wasn't bad enough, criminality, lack of education, poverty and low I.Q. all tend to exacerbate each other. Someone who is told that a holy book contains all that they'll ever need to know, or whose cognitive development is hindered by the trauma of an abusive and/or impoverished upbringing is probably going to score low on an I.Q. test despite their genetic potential. Hundreds of studies have been conducted in an attempt to gain a clearer understanding of the different relationships at play here, but still this area remains blurry. And here you think you can just brush it all off with something as fluid and difficult to pin down as genetics. Amazing!

Dear Mr Phillips.

Human beings are mammals of the primate order. Mammalian species such as dogs, horses, cats, cattle, sheep and humans, all possess identifiably different subsets called "breeds", which may be the result of environmental conditions affecting natural selection, or the result of selective breeding. Regardless of which force genetically alters mammalian orders to result in identifiably different breeds, it is common knowledge that different breeds of mammals possess not only differing physical attributes, but differing personalities as well.

Your premise is, that genetic transmission of personality works for mammalian animals but can not work for mammalian humans. Sorry, I can't accept that. And I will leave it to the judgement of our readers as to whether your premise is logical.

Your next premise, is that there are only tiny genetic variations between human races, so these variations can do nothing more than alter the physical appearances of the races. I don't buy that either. I am not a geneticist, but I will wager that the degree of genetic variation between all breeds of mammals is very small, but it results in very noticeable variations of both appearance, as well as physical and mental abilities. Especially since we know that behaviour and intelligence is heritable.

As for humans not being bred for specific traits, that is nonsense. To begin with, many breeds of animals are bred specifically for physical attributes like high milk capacity, fecundity, weight of meat, or just a pleasing appearance. The resulting personality traits exhibited by these breeds may be incidental to the desired characteristics selectively bred. Furthermore, environmental conditions may result in the natural selection of breeds with particular personalities like high intelligence, or a violent and fearless nature. Lastly, human beings themselves selectively breed. Males select females possessing physical beauty related to breeding attributes, while females prefer Alpha males with money and power.

continued

continued

Next we came to left wing conspiracies. It is a self evident fact that there is little cultural diversity in the humanities disciples of universities. Anyone who violates the current left wing humanitarian orthodoxy gets shown the instruments of torture. This happened recently to that towering scientific giant, James Watson, (co discoverer of the double helix) who was suspended from his own US research institute when he informed a British newspaper that Africans were not as intelligent as Europeans. Hey, what would the co discoverer of the double helix know about genetics?

This cross connects with the anti racist book by Paul Breggins, "The War on Children" in which Breggin openly bragged about how he and the NAACP had used political influence to shut up the genetic scientists, including those on the prestigious Human Genome Project. I repeat, that any ideology which tries to shut up scientists, especially scientists of the stature of James Watson, is intellectually bankrupt. And you are right about there being some crazy hypotheses bandied about in the halls of science and academia. The wackiest one at the moment, is that all races are absolutely equal in intellectual ability. Mind you, no one has ever bothered to prove that hypothesis, it is just accepted within the humanities academia as an act of faith. But some distinguished scientists have proven the opposite, and they get silenced or jumped on from a great height for daring to commit heresy against the prevailing orthodoxy of this internationalist humanitarian faith.

The AIC paper which you are referring to is issue 263, "Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts?" If you want to examine it, go right ahead. But since you have already accepted that criminologists agree that there is a genetic causal link to criminal behaviour, it is not going to help you much. As for "Criminologists not making up stuff', the same IAC released another study paper claiming that the public perception about ethnic criminal behaviour going out of control was all the result of sensationalist media reporting. Yeah, right.

Continued

continued.

If poverty was a causal link to criminal behaviour, all poor communities would have high rates of criminal behaviour. This is demonstrably false. The Book "Rising crime in Australia" uses the statistics from the Parliamentary yearbooks to prove that crime in Australia was at it's lowest during the Great Depression when the Australian population was at its poorest. There was very real poverty in England at the beginning of the 20th Century, but the English from 1900 to 1950 attained the lowest homicide rate ever recorded by any advanced society. (0.2 per 100,000) Much to the amazement of police forces around the world, English beat policemen alone were not even armed with sidearm's.

Finally, we get to your extraordinary claim that if the premise that some races are not as intelligent as others, and are much more prone to criminal behaviour than others, what good does this do to publicise it? This equates with the quote from the woman who once claimed that even if Darwin was right, and that humans did evolve from apes, why would anybody want to tell people about it?

The litmus paper test for any person who considers himself intelligent is "may the truth be told, though the heavens may fall." Today, western countries are basing their immigration policies on the flawed concept that all races are equal. The result has been spiralling rates of social strife, serious crime, and welfare dependency. The only explanation for this phenomenon is to always blame my white race for the shortcomings of others. Any government policy which is based upon a demonstrably false lie, however well intentioned that lie may be, is doomed to fail. The continued existence of the liberal democracies, and for the peaceful progress of this world, is dependent upon the liberal democracies getting our facts right instead of scapegoating my race

LEGO,

The term "breed" is used in reference to varieties of domesticated animals. Not humans.

<<...dogs, horses, cats, cattle, sheep and humans, all possess identifiably different subsets called "breeds"...>>

Presumably you knew this and that's why you listed five species of domesticated animals before slipping in humans at the end there in the hope that I wouldn't notice.

<<...which may be the result of environmental conditions affecting natural selection, or the result of selective breeding...>>

Incorrect. "Breeds" refer to varieties of species that have been selectively bred. They are not scientifically recognised classifications, either, due to their human-induced fluidity.

<<...it is common knowledge that different breeds of mammals possess not only differing physical attributes, but differing personalities as well.>>

Correct. Because they have been selectively bred. You’re also ignoring the points that I made regarding 'nurture', which negate what you're saying here. Your unexplained introduction of ‘mammalia’ appears to be some sort of a red herring too.

<<Your premise is, that genetic transmission of personality works for mammalian animals but can not work for mammalian humans.>>

I have said nothing of the sort. You are simply confusing ‘selective breeding’ with ‘natural selection’. The two have completely different forces at work and one has an end-goal while the other does not. Clearly you don’t understand evolution.

<<Your next premise, is that there are only tiny genetic variations between human races, so these variations can do nothing more than alter the physical appearances of the races.>>No, I didn't say that. That would be a non sequitur.

Perhaps I should have included tew words, “as of yet”, then. However, the rest of that paragraph should have eliminated any need to. Once again: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15856#274724

<<I don't buy that either. I am not a geneticist, but I will wager that the degree of genetic variation between all breeds of mammals is very small, but it results in very noticeable variations of both appearance, as well as physical and mental abilities. Especially since we know that behaviour and intelligence is heritable.>>

Continued...

...Continued

I have already answered all this and countered it all in previous posts. Once again, repeating yourself using different words doesn't negate what I've said.

<<As for humans not being bred for specific traits, that is nonsense.>>

Okay then, who is breeding us?

<<To begin with, many breeds of animals are bred specifically for physical attributes like high milk capacity, fecundity, weight of meat, or just a pleasing appearance. The resulting personality traits exhibited by these breeds may be incidental to the desired characteristics selectively bred.>>

Correct. But they are still selectively bred and for very specific purposes, while those who do not 'fit the bill' are either not bred or destroyed (i.e. their genetic line ends with them) natural selection, on the other hand, is far less picky. All one needs to do is survive long enough to pass one's genes on. This is yet another false analogy.

<<Males select females possessing physical beauty related to breeding attributes, while females prefer Alpha males with money and power.>>

Yes, and when we see a woman with small breasts and lacking an hourglass figure, we keep her separate from all males so that she cannot possibly pass on her genes. In all seriousness though...

<<Next we came to left wing conspiracies. It is a self evident fact that there is little cultural diversity in the humanities disciples of universities.>>

As for your conspiracy theories, all I can do is refer you back to what I've said previously. You sound very naive in regards to how peer-review works. If one has good evidence for their research findings - regardless of what they are - then no amount of ideology can bring that down. Claiming, too, that academics assert that average IQs amongst different "races" are equal, is an oversimplification at best and a lie at worst. I have already addressed the IQ issue, yet you persist with this claim.

As for James Watson, he regretted his comments and (after already having stepped down from his position) admitted that there was no evidence for his remarks.

Continued...