Does it not seem likely that a small group of people would have interbred with others they encountered in their expansion?   
  

Andy's right.  Every newspaper has a business section, only some have a science section and none have a physics section.  Also, the academic blogosphere, up until a few years ago, was massively dominated by economists.

There's a very good book by David Raup, The Nemesis Affair that addresses the kind of stuff going on with climate and HBD. 
 
People mostly pay attention to the "Death of the Dinosaurs" part, but the important stuff is in "the Ways of Science". 
 
Worth a read.

I think that most scientists do not understand the extent to which religious people, even the fairly well-educated, regard much of science as an attempt to establish an arbitrary leftist "reality" of the type represented by blank slate behaviorists. I live in the "buckle of the Bible-belt" and I see a lot of this. I suppose most of the readers of this Blog regard that as an gross misunderstanding of science as they see the blank-slaters as a vanquished, shrinking, minority, but that is not how they are seen by ordinary people. 
 
I realize that this discussion is about Behe, but I agree that one cannot understand Behe without understanding his audience, because that is who is "buying" his argument. 
 
People who do not think much about science do not see distinctions in schools of scientific thought except as proof that scientists don't really know what they are talking about.

If the societies of the nomads were so superior, why were they constantly seeking to invade and plunder the "peripheries" of sedentary civilization and not the other way around.  
 
Because the could, and the sedentary peoples couldn't.  
 
Nomads honored violence, but so did the Greeks, Romans, and medieval Europeans.

Higher body fat means higher estrogen. The leaner the man (the lower his body fat %) the more testoerone he will have with all other factors controlled for such as race.

I find the numbers for Bulgaria and Ukraine surprisingly low - do people in those countries mostly max out at two children voluntarily or is there some other factor in play there? 
 
I was also surprised by the China numbers, but as pointed out above the one-child policy is not strictly enforced in rural areas.

The commenter who compares the discussion to one at Brad DeLong's blog is being highly unfair to Cowen... 
 
I agree, but shutting down the comments while the conversation was informative, friendly, and very, very active was stupid and obviously done because Sailer's supporters were showing up with the facts.  
 
There wasn't a single environmentalist who was making a good case, iirc. This obviously bothered him, and made the whole "prove Sailer wrong" idea look more and more like an impossibiity.  
 
It's not as bad as deleting comments, true, but it's lame and motivated by the same impulse.  
 
BTW, I'm a daily visitor to Marginal Revolution. I have no grudge againt Tyler Cowen. He's actually an intelligent guy.

Sure. But independent of the Sotomayor issue, have you done the calculation? Do you know what fraction of NAMs benefit from AA? 
 
I can quote you AA numbers, both from California in the 90s and in the form of SAT score differentials. None of which pertains to whether a particular person who graduated in the top of the class needed it four years earlier. (If so, incidentally, I'd regard that as an uncontroversial success of the scheme, especially given all the wholly undeserving people of all backgrounds who get in via various carefully maintained backdoors)

Haven't really been paying attention to BSG since season 1 ended and I stopped paying for cable. Is it worth downloading it off of the Internet or should I just not bother?

The data doesn't make much sense -- very high numbers at "zero". For example -- look at the "University Degree" column. 135 with no kids, 50 with kids? Huh? That's not represenative of anything. Most people have children during most of their adult lives.  
 
Is this constrained to some particular ages? If not is there a selection bias.

More people = more variation = more fodder for selection to dig its red teeth and claws in?

I went low carb after reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and some other books. I went from being hungry almost constantly and feeling almost painfully tired a few hours after every meal to having much more energy. I can also go between meals without snacking every hour. I really don't see myself ever going back to my old way of eating. 
The twenty pounds lost effortlessly was nice too but the higher energy levels are the best part of this way of eating. 
A regular (lurking) reader

"A cursory glance at human history makes this correlation seem rather low." 
 
If you want me to elaborate, one can look to rampant civil strife and war among nations and ethnic groups that are considered among the "HBD" crowd to be oh so intelligent now. IE, the middle east, ancient greece and china, etc. 
 
This really comes to mind when the OP is citing trash like Lynn's work.

A cursory glance at human history makes this correlation seem rather low.

At the linked page there is a biography, and more relevantly, a gallery of portraits for each of the queens. Sometimes the portraits are so different that one wonders if this might have been the same woman.  
 
At the Catherine Parr page, there's a portrait that was thought to be one of lady Jane Gray. If this is really Parr, she was quite pretty even by our standards.

When assortative mating is already prevalent, however, sexual selection can itself cause low heterozygous fitness, promoting the evolution of complete reproductive isolation...regardless of the form of natural selection. 
 
The same seems to be true with high intelligence. It tends to create reproductively isolated groups.

Which cultures are dad and cad cultures? 
I've never heard of . What about populations from the Near East or South Asia? How do they compare in their frequencies of the 7R allele? Is it the "caucasoid cluster", and why would East Asians be more of a dad culture than the West Europeans? Are they any less polygymous of a region, historically?

It seems Summers is talking around a point with a very large circumference. He sounds as non-sensical as Greenspan did when he was simply making hedging gibberish while purposely inflating several bubbles. 
 
Summers does not want to be at the center of another media storm like he faced when he simply got to the point.