Are population geneticists serious scientists?

Geneticists decry book on race and evolution

Excerpt 1): ‘…geneticists have crafted a joint response, concluding that “there is no support from the field of population genetics for Wade’s conjectures.” 

Excerpt 2): “…Wade charged that his critics were “indoctrinated in the social-science creed that prohibits any role for evolution in human affairs” and contended that the book’s central argument “has not been challenged by any serious scientist.”

My comment: Dobzhansky’s claims seem to be relevant.

From 1964 “…the only worthwhile biology is molecular biology. All else is “bird watching” or “butterfly collecting.” Bird watching and butterfly collecting are occupations manifestly unworthy of serious scientists!” https://icb.oxfordjournals.org/…

Are population geneticists “serious scientists?”

From 1973 “…the so-called alpha chains of hemoglobin have identical sequences of amino acids in man and the chimpanzee, but they differ in a single amino acid (out of 141) in the gorilla.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/44…

Do population geneticists know the difference that a single amino acid substitution makes?

See also: Natural Selection Promotes Antigenic Evolvability “…no mutational mechanism that is biased toward amino acid substitutions has been described.”https://dx.doi.org/10.1371%2Fjo…

Do population geneticists know how cell type differentiation occurs in species from microbes to man?

Until a mutational mechanism is discovered that might possibly somehow link mutation-initiated natural selection to the evolution of biodiversity, all we have to explain biophysically-constrained biologically-based biologically plausible cause and effect is facts. Have the facts been considered by population geneticists in the context of Darwin’s ecological approach to biodiversity: his ‘conditions of life?’

If Dobzhansky’s amino acid substitutions are nutrient-dependent (a fact?) and the physiology of reproduction is pheromone-controlled (a fact?), amino acid substitutions link Darwin’s ‘conditions of life’ from the epigenetic landscape to the physical landscape of DNA in the organized genomes of species from microbes to man via conserved molecular mechanisms.

The obvious link is from ecological variation (e.g., nutrient availability) to pheromone-controlled nutrient-dependent ecological adaptations. The adaptations are manifested in the morphological and behavioral phenotypes of all species in the context of reproduction that leads to nutrient-dependent amino acid substitutions and cell type differentiation. Cell type differentiation leads to biodiversity (e.g., without the pseudoscientific nonsense added to Darwin’s theory by population geneticists).

Finding support from population geneticists for the denigration of Wade’s approach is the politically correct, albeit academically irresponsible path of least resistance. Finding support from molecular biologists is unlikely because few are willing to become involved in any issue of racial differences.

However, if you ask a molecular biologist about why ecological adaptations seem to typically occur in the context of ecological variation, an explanation could be provided that is based on what is currently known. If you ask population geneticists why ecological variation appears to correlate with racial differences, they would need to explain to you why there is no such thing as a racial difference.

Population geneticists may not know that molecular biologists could explain to them why ecological variation, which leads to ecological adaptations via amino acid substitutions, appears to be manifested in morphological phenotypes that some people still refer to as racial differences. Molecular biologists may not know how to explain biologically-based cause and effect to population geneticists by substituting the term “ecological adaptation” for evolution.