Culture or Genetics

Culture or Genetics?

In the debate over which is more important, here are two new pieces (both via Arts & Letters Daily, which I suggest you do read daily). Each one is demonstrative and well-informed, but they suggest opposite conclusions -- both of which cannot be true.

"Myths of British Ancestry" claims to demonstrate that the whole of British history has altered the genetic makeup of the folk in England not more than 25% -- that 75% of the genetic makeup remains an unknown pre-historic people, most similar to the Basques.

Yet the history of England is engraved with clear periods in art, language, literature, architecture -- in a word, culture. "Anglo-Saxons" may not have changed the genetic makeup more than five percent, yet they totally dominated the way of life of the people. So too the Vikings, in their time, and especially the Normans.

This is suggestive that culture is predominant, with genetics playing a role so deep in the background as to be almost imperceptible.

Taking the alternative, John Derbyshire argues in "Race and Conservatism" some fairly compelling ideas. I'm not sure how to argue against his main thrust, except by pointing out that it is not compatible with the geneticist's evidence from the above.

Yet consider the argument he puts forward, and tell me where the flaw is. Would he say that the change between Basque and Viking is not enough to trigger the differences he notes? If so, both could be true -- genes are defining, but the difference between various northern European genetic lines is so small that it can host any of several cultures without disability.

We are only really beginning to get a notion of what the evidence holds, so it is too early to make certain decisions. It is not too early, though, to begin thinking about what the possibilities are -- if only so, as we advance in our knowledge, we will know how to winnow down the no-longer likely options.