Talk:The 10,000 Year Explosion/Archive 1

Isolation line
"Cochran and Harpending also argue that populations that developed agriculture more recently and were genetically isolated from the rest of the world, have not yet gained all of these genetic adaptations, and so are less able to function as modern states and economies than others."

I have this book, and while Cochran and Harpending are hereditarians, they don't really seem to argue that behavioral adaptions to civilization came much from things like spreading the alleles for personality or cognitive profiles or whatever.

Weasel word
In the sentence "... the authors explain the genetic basis of their view that human evolution is accelerating, illustrating it with some unexpected examples", the word "unexpected" is a matter of opinion.

Book and authors proponents of Race Realism
Should we mention that on this page and the authors' pages?70.49.45.161 (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would we? --JorisvS (talk) 09:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems incredibly prudent to point this out that these authors and their book supports HBD, look at their blogs for example. We should not exclude any information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.45.161 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * HBD?? What does race realism have to do with this article? I do not have to discover your line of reasoning, you should tell it. --JorisvS (talk) 09:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In short the authors are proponents of Human Biodiversity. You should look at their blog.74.14.73.37 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There was something I added about them and Rushton, so i think it is something to look into, the book is certainly not race neutral or mere biodiversity, it has serious racist overtones and implications. --Inayity (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that we should include in the "reviews" section exactly what is being mentioned above, that the authors are "race realists" and other race realists champion this book. I've tried to make edits in this regard before, but they keep getting deleted, I assume out of an assumption of bad faith. See for yourselves though:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/cochran-and-harpending-update-darwin-human-evolution-is-continuing

http://www.toqonline.com/archives/v9n2/TOQv9n2Devlin.pdf

http://www.amren.com /ar/2009/05/index.html#article1

http://takimag.com/article/how_the_jews_got_their_smarts_and_other_adventures_in_biohistory/print#axzz3EkIcHDvS

AlEmory (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)AlEmoryAlEmory (talk) 22:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


 * By a well established content guideline that precedes my time here and yours, Wikipedia does not ordinarily post links to blogs except in articles about the blogs themselves, if the blogs are very notable. References to point-of-view print publications should introduce the source's possible bias as part of any permitted use of the source, according to a subsection of that content guideline I was just discussing the other day with another Wikipedian. Anyway, as one curious human being writing to another, I recommend you taking a look at a broader  source list that includes many very readable books and articles about related topics with a lot of information missed by the authors of the links you kindly shared. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)