MC, the question is not whether there are qualitative differences and changes in organisms over time but whether they could have been accomplished via natural selection or require some other explanation(s). The point about the primitive Parisian is that there would be no selection bias at work in the wilds to produce the attributes needed to adapt to the more advanced cultural setting.

The Ashkenazim theory was examined by Charles Murray in a recent article on Jewish genius and found inadequate. He reluctantly concluded that it looked like the Jews may just be special (i.e. chosen).

Even were the Ashkenazim to have been the product of environmental influences, such examples demonstrate how external factors lead to the expression of different characteristics that are already genetically present, and they almost always regress to the mean eventually.

Natural selection is unable to explain how one thing can turn into something else. That’s the problem, and that’s why Darwinism is a theology rather than science.