The correlational structure of the genome allows us to classify into broad racial categories without using obvious genes for skin color. As we increase the number of alleles sampled we can parse down to finer and finer classifications of race. See here:
For each person in the study, the researchers examined 326 DNA regions that tend to vary between people. These regions are not necessarily within genes, but are simply genetic signposts on chromosomes that come in a variety of different forms at the same location.
Without knowing how the participants had identified themselves, Risch and his team ran the results through a computer program that grouped individuals according to patterns of the 326 signposts. This analysis could have resulted in any number of different clusters, but only four clear groups turned up. And in each case the individuals within those clusters all fell within the same self-identified racial group.
"This shows that people's self-identified race/ethnicity is a nearly perfect indicator of their genetic background," Risch said.
Those patterns (bolded) are simply another way of referencing the correlational structure of the genome and this is where we find racial variance and those racial clusters coincide almost perfectly with the social definition of race.
Your question addressed the issue of tying race to intelligence but you're not making clear to me why you think that the connection is meaningless. Think about how racial groups formed. We already know that intelligence is highly heritable and races are partially inbred, large extended families. For instance, an Asian person, say a Japanese, can, if they go back enough generations, find a common ancestor to another Asian person, say a Han Chinese. They'll have to go back a lot further to find a common ancestor with a Celt or with a Nigerian. The further back you go in your search for a common ancestor the more genetic distinction that has arisen over the years of separation you have to throw overboard. So what we're talking about here are degrees of relatedness as another way of referencing race. Intelligence is highly heritable and the genetic structure of intelligence, like other genetic attributes, also varies by race. See here:
Genetics of human prefrontal function.
"These observations suggest that some genetic variants that influence g will vary between populations rather than within populations. For instance, certain Asian populations have a frequency of 0.60 in COMT Met158 allele, which predicts lower COMT-enzyme activity and thereby better cognitive performance, while Caucasians have a frequency of 0.42 for the same allele.
You should probably spend a few days (at least) reading up on the subject before you comment further.
I haven't shared any details of my private life with you so it really isn't safe for you to be making unwarranted assumptions about me.IF you are actually a scientist with the advanced training required to rationally challenge the accepted wisdom. But it is the height of folly for someone who is not so trained (you or I, for instance) to imagine that we can know better than the vast majority of experts who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit.
Jon Hunstman is in fact crazy.
Well its because he's trying to get the republican nomination whilst accepting science.
These two things cannot co-exist
Actually I am exactly right. How do you know the heliocentric model is right and not the earthcentric model? Have you performed the calculations yourself? I don't think so. You think you know it's right because you read it in a gradeschool textbook. And why did it get into your gradeschool textbook? It got there because a very large consensus of the scientific community, over many years, decided that Copernicus was right. In fact, unless you are a scientist, and it's pretty obvious you're not, that's how you've acquired virtually ALL of the scientific knowledge that you have. That's generally how knowledge works. We wouldn't have much time if we had to independently verify each and every scientific discovery ever made.Wrong. Totally wrong. What you're painting is a social process that rides alongside the scientific method. The social process plays no part in determining the validity of science. It was the data and the scientific model that Copernicus released that allowed us to better understand the cosmos, not the popularity of Copernicus or his theory amongst fellow scientists. If they had rejected his model and stuck with the geocentric model, the fact that a poll of all scientists showed that the geocentric model was widely accepted (and it was the dominant model for a long time) would not tell us anything about the validity of the geocentric model. The fact that scientists came to support the heliocentric model also tells us absolutely nothing about the validity of the model. The science rises and falls on the merits of parsimony, model validity and reliability. Popular opinion plays no part in the process. Popular opinion amongst scientists is a sociological issue on how science is conducted. Look at the current happenings in anthropology where they've decided to jettison the scientific method so that they can better play advocates for the groups that they study. What's going on in that field has nothing to do with science, facts, theories, and everything to do with politics and human drama.
In this case I'm quite comfortable inferring that you don't have much scientific training.I haven't shared any details of my private life with you so it really isn't safe for you to be making unwarranted assumptions about me.
You're comment focuses on how knowledge is disseminated, not on the validity of the knowledge. These are two very separate issues.
I'm surprised that you've heard of Galilieo so I'll pass along this recommendation for you - read his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. He directly challenges your view on how science is conducted. His dialog pits two models of how science is conducted against each other - the scientific method versus the appeal to authority. It's quite an interested read, especially so because of how old the work is and how insightful it is today as so many people still remain clueless about the methods of science.
I'm not so sure about that last bit. RD frustrates me regularly, but he's got a lot of knowledge at his fingertips, so he's at least self taught to an acknowledgeable degree. Arrogant, belligerent, possibly deliberately obtuse, but not ignorant.
That was weird.
A post I liked part of enough to like but took issue with another part in defense of someone I'm consistently arrayed against. (Gotta stop doin drive-bys)
Anyone wondering what I'm talking about start here:
The Psychology of Persuasion