Why is it that science writers for the New York Times seem unable to grasp basic concepts like eugenics? (I'm speaking of course of the claim of evolutionary pr

Why is it that science writers for the New York Times seem unable to grasp basic concepts like eugenics? (I'm speaking of course of the claim of evolutionary proof in human hunting of bighorned rams resulting in rams being born with smaller horns. No shit, sherlock, if I took over Sweden and began hunting down and killing the blondes there will be a whole lot fewer born as the gene markers are winnowed from the available pool.) Has the New York Times joined American police forces in setting a limit on the IQ of their employees lest they be too intelligent? (Just to forestall argument all the mentioned case actually proves is that traits are inherited, and that the subset of rams less desirable to human hunters have outbred the more desirable ones, which is basic common sense. Their greater numbers assure greater numbers of offspring and that their genetic traits will predominate.)