Continued

The crime of "arson" is practically unknown in Japan. This is because for thousands of years, Japanese cities and towns were constructed of very flammable bamboo and paper. Any firebug who was caught was executed along with his entire immediate family. This may seem a bit drastic, but it seems to have genetically eradicated from the Japanese genome whatever collection of genes is responsible for creating firebug personalities. Hey, you can't argue with success.

Japanese culture advocates obedience to authority, iron self control, rigid social conformity, and endurance of suffering. These cultural values are reinforced by a concept of shame which makes the Christian version look positively enlightened. Any person who violates the social harmony (or WU) will suffer the most appalling stigmatization.

Oh dear, reading further down your reply and you now seem to be advocating the idea that genetics has little bearing on criminal behavior at all. Drat. It looks like we are going to have to start educating you all over again. Are you studying Criminology in Waziristan University or Upper Topdoggia somewhere? I am only a bloody out of work electrician and I seem to know more about contemporary criminology than you do.

Did your uni course happen to mention that 95-97% of offenders in every nation are males? Would not that alone be a perfect example of genetic susceptibility to criminal behavior? What about age? Isn't it true that most short time inmates are young,? That criminality seems to be a form of social immaturity which criminals usually grow out of?

The principle that crime and genetics is connected is already a fact of life within the legal system. Very violent offenders can get reduced sentences if they show remorse and appeal to the court that they have an intrinsic problem which they find it difficult to control. Judges can recommend psychiatric treatment which usually involves sedating the person with powerful drugs like Prozac to help them keep their emotional equilibrium.

Continued

LEGO,

I thought we had already established that it was you who didn't understand evolution. You've been having a hell of a time trying to conflate natural selection and selective breeding.

<<Species evolve through time to become other species. But the change from species to species is not a sudden jump.>>

Precisely. Which is why the category of 'subspecies' is still not agreed upon by scientists, and the fact that subspecies can produce fertile offspring suggests that it probably never will be. The point at which one subspecies becomes another is impossible to pin down.

This, too, contradicts your philosophy, which requires that subspecies to be distinct and static to have any meaning. What about hybrids? According to your philosophy, they can never really belong. They’ll only ever be ‘two halves’ and never a ‘whole’ because you have this flawed idea that subspecies and "races" are so distinct.

If you think this is all so easy to pin down, then tell me what the precise difference is between two species that cannot produce offspring and two that can only produce sterile offspring? The notion of species is difficult enough to define and you think you've got subspecies all figured? How long does a group have to be isolated before they’re considered a subspecies? How many generations does it take for one subspecies to give birth to another? You simply cannot recognise just how dynamic the concept of "races" and subspecies are. What about Neanderthals? Were they a race? A subspecies of humans? Or a different species all together? We COULD breed with them after all. Three per cent of our DNA is Neanderthal DNA.

Even with just the rape that was rampant in primitive times, our less systematic methods of finding mates (compared with animal breeders), the speed at which we've moved around the planet and conquered foreign lands, and the continual mutations and ever-changing variation from generation-to-generation, it would be extremely difficult for a particular type of personality to become genetically ingrained into a "race" given the fickleness and fragility of our brains and their delicate chemical balances.

Continued…

...Continued

Yet you insist that the vague and highly generalised similarities that we see within different "races" definitely must be genetic, despite geneticists finding no evidence for this, and overwhelming evidence (collated over the last 150 or so years) demonstrating strong cultural, parental, peer, psychological and sociological influences.

<<It does not matter if humans are "culturally, socially, emotionally, or intellectually" a more sophisticated species. Both human beings and animals can pass on heritable traits like physical appearance and personality to their offspring.>>

So your logic here is that just because humans can genetically pass on personality traits, then it must necessarily follow that the other influences don't matter at all.

Hmmm...

I think it's time you started explaining how the heritability of personality traits is so powerful that it can override all the other influencing factors, and over entire populations at that!

<<Your premise is, that human subspecies differ so little in DNA that it is "unlikely" that personality can be transmitted...>>

No, it’s not. And I've just clarified this - yet again.

Strike one!

<<...even though you have already conceded that criminologists know that there is a causal link to crime and genetics.>>

I like how you keep saying "conceded" as if I had initially resisted this. But hey, if you haven't made any headway, then you can at least word your posts to make it look like you have, I guess.

They don't "know" this either, by the way.

<<Your premise also claims that only physical appearance can be passed on by genetic transfer, a premise you have not even attempted to validate.>>

That's because I've never claimed it. Your preceding sentence even acknowledges this, for crying out loud.

Strike two!

<<My premise is, that human subspecies are no different to any other organism when it comes to the genetic transfer of heritable traits...>>

Yeah, I already addressed this yesterday. The only justification you've given so far is your assertion that other influences don't matter simply because personality traits can be heritable.

You mention mammalia again too. Why doesn't what you're saying apply to other classes?

Continued…

...Continued

<<Therefore your premise, that numerous sub species of humans must all have identical personalities, identical levels of intelligence...>>

Strike three! You're out.

Your next two paragraphs almost support what I've been saying by acknowledging that cultural factors can override possible genetic factors. But you still insist that when deviant behaviour occurs, it's definitely got to be genetic. You're picking and choosing when nature or culture/nurture apply when it suits you and to hell with the evidence.

As for the Japanese, I don't have much of a problem with what you're saying except for the bits about them selectively breeding, and eliminating the penchant for arson from their gene pool. Do you have any evidence for this?

<<Oh dear, reading further down your reply and you now seem to be advocating the idea that genetics has little bearing on criminal behavior at all.>>

I like how you make it sound like I'm chopping and changing my position. You did this earlier too by starting one of your previous paragraphs with, "Now you are claiming that cultural factors..." But hey, like I said before, if you can't make any headway...

Anyway, I didn't claim that. I simply said that the evidence is weak. I have remained consistent.

<<Are you studying Criminology in Waziristan University or Upper Topdoggia somewhere?>>

Why does it surprise you so much that you disagree? Isn't it all an elaborate ploy, anyway? A wink and a nod that somehow no-one blows the whistle on or ever let’s anything slip about? Like the Bush Administration’s involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

<<I am only a bloody out of work electrician and I seem to know more about contemporary criminology than you do.>>

Yes, and fact that you don't know about strain theory, the known links between genetics and crime, psychological neutralisation, the media's effect on the public's perception of crime and the percentage of male offenders to female are really good indicators of that too.

<<Did your uni course happen to mention that 95-97% of offenders in every nation are males?>>

It's actually 75-80% in Australia.

Continued…

...Continued

And we can't accurately compare that to every other country because reporting rates and recording methods differ everywhere.

<<Would not that alone be a perfect example of genetic susceptibility to criminal behavior?>>

When comparing males and females, it's more useful to talk about sex than genetics. You don’t hear criminologists or news reports speak of, ‘those with male genes’. Also, it doesn’t then follow that the same could be said for “races”, as you’re trying to get at. Sexes and “races” are two very different things. All subspecies need both sexes, but the sexes don’t need all subspecies.

<<What about age? Isn't it true that most short time inmates are young,? That criminality seems to be a form of social immaturity which criminals usually grow out of?>>

That's a PART of the explanation for THEIR criminality. They also predominantly come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (parents under financial strain tend not to engage with their kids as much) and are not employed full-time. There are multiple factors on both a micro and macro level, and no one theory explains everything. It’s more a complex flowchart of combined theories. This doesn’t help your racial theories, though.

As for your last paragraph, none of what you said supports a genetic link specifically.

Finally, I just want to revisit your conspiracy theory for a moment because I'm not satisfied with my last response. It's true that humanities departments in universities can be hotbeds for socialist advocacy. But when studies tend to disprove so many of the beliefs of social conservatives, it’s naturally not going to attract as many conservatives in general. They were once there in greater numbers, remember, until the evidence eventually discredited many of their views. Now they just bitch and moan from the sidelines.

As for the ABC, I'm always suspicious of the criticisms there. It seems that those who accuse them of bias would be quite content for it to become another Fox News. At least the ABC usually goes with the evidence. Stations like Fox News, on the other hand, just make it all up as they please.

If you are having difficulty understanding what the terms "species", "subspecies" and "hybrids" mean, Mr Phillips, I suggest that perhaps high school level genetics may be beyond you?

As for your claim that scientists can find no evidence of genetic differences between races, are you seriously suggesting that there is no recognisable genetic difference between a Zulu and a Scandinavian? Are you seriously suggesting that a pathologist scientist can not tell the difference between an African skeleton and an Asian skeleton? Your premise sounds like propaganda to me. And I will bet that you have no idea at all from where that BS originated.

I thought we were making some progress, but your logic seems to keep meandering. First, you correctly claimed (page 9) that "nature and nurture shapes human behaviour". Bingo. Well done, Mr Phillips. This meant that you understood that underlying human personality could be heritable. Then you claimed that whereas selectively bred animals could transfer behavioural traits, this could not happen with humans, because we were not selectively bred and that humans were too "sophisticated" . You had flip flopped to saying that only nurture shapes human behaviour.

My response was, to explain that genetic transfer of heritable traits occurs with every organism on Earth, and humans were not immune to evolution. As for the idea that the transfer of heritable traits could only occur within selective breeding, that was demonstrably wrong. I gave a clear example of the naturally selected Grizzly Bear to demolish your argument.

Next you mindboggingly claimed (page 10) that "Yes, there does appear to be a genetic factor to criminality" and "criminologists recognise a genetic factor to criminal behaviour". You added that you were studying Criminology. But in your last post you claimed that "they don't know this." Now, either you agree with your educated graduate peers, or you don't. You can not claim that behaviour is heritable when you want to, and then deny it when it suits you. You can not concede a point, and then deny it later on.

Continued