I'm not saying that you must accept that such variance in intelligence MUST result, I'm saying that you have to accept that this is an entirely legitimate question, that it follows logically from a sound premise, and as my last post argued, that it in fact should be the null hypothesis if you wish to avoid wearing the label of creationist. This still leaves plenty of room for debate on determining how to explain the variance we measure while not rejecting the body of science that has developed around evolutionary principles.
2. Even having accepted standard IQ tests as a fair assessment of general cognitive ability, several sources (provided by mbig and RiverDad) of mean racial IQ data show a relatively small range of variance.
Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata put it better than I can:
Under these circumstances, to claim that the genetic differences between the human races are trivial is more a political statement than a scientific argument. Trivial by what criterion?
For example, The highest performing group cited (Ashkanazi Jews) and lowest (black) differed by only about 2 standard deviations. While that is significant if true, it allows us only to say with certainty that Jews outperform African-Americans on IQ tests.
This is just wordsmanship that you're engaged in. Defining a 2 SD variance as being small and inconsequential is a bold move that might convince some people who are not up to speed on the details of what exactly it is that you're talking about, but a 2 SD variance is not "a small range of variance" when used by statisticians and scientists. You're making a political statement.
I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I was setting out to conclusively make the case. If I wanted to set out on that task I'd have to marshall more than 2,000 papers I have sitting on my hard drive. What I was doing was answering challenges from liberal creationists. I enjoy doing that. I find pleasure in their presenting an objection that they think closes down the debate and I come back and undermine their rejection. This back and forth display is available for all to follow over the two threads that hosted this discussion.It should be clear that the case for race-dependent genetic differences that affect general cognitive ability has not been conclusively made.
That's funny to read. You're taking more authority onto yourself than is warranted considering that this topic seems to be entirely new to you. All you're doing is engaging in a political show which seeks to give cover to liberal creationists to continue on in their ways of rejecting evolution as being applicable to humans and to human intelligence. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with engaging in political polemics, but please drop the act of your position being based on your thorough review of the evidence - this is a discussion board, for pete's sake, and you've just skimmed the literal surface of all the material from a number of disparate disciplines which produce mutually reinforcing evidence in support of the hereditarian position. You have not established any grounds to justify speaking with such reassuring authority.Therefore, all of you "liberals" painted by the broad brush of RiverDad can rest assured that adherence to evolution theory DOES NOT require belief in a race-associated genetic predisposition for high or low cognitive function.