Did evolution leave all races equal in terms of mental and physical competence?

Well.... as a whole, some races -are- more 'backwards' than others.
Has to be a reason for it.

PzKfW IVe said:

Well.... as a whole, some races -are- more 'backwards' than others.
Has to be a reason for it.

Click to expand...

What do you mean by 'backwards'? This is extremely vague.

David D. said:

What do you mean by 'backwards'? This is extremely vague.

Click to expand...

It's a broad term as there are many parameters. Use it as you like.

PzKfW IVe said:

It's a broad term as there are many parameters. Use it as you like.

Click to expand...

Ok so we'll say the first race was comprised of a bunch of high school-aged kids running north on the street, and this coincided with a second race where people were biking in the opposite direction (south, & it was a bike race, middle aged & some retirement aged people), so in essence the second race was 'backwards' when compared to the first.

GOT IT.

RiverDad said:

OK, then. Please define for us the processes of evolution as they work at the population level such that they generate genetic variance and MORE IMPORTANTLY please list for us the factors other than those which operate under the engine of evolution which work to generate population level genetic variance.

Don't dodge this question. You're making a serious claim here, at least to me, that I don't understand what I'm writing about. You would be doing a great service to your fellow liberal creationists on this board to show me up as the fool that you think me to be. Your mouth has led you to make this challenge so demonstrate for us that you understand the process of how population level genetic variance is induced and what processes outside of evolution you have in mind when you made your charge.

Click to expand...

It's not "dodging" to refuse to answer a question which is itself a red herring, a strawman, and a loaded question. Come back with a fallacy-free question and I will gladly answer it.

You are claiming that intra-species genetic variance is caused by evolution.

I'm correctly pointing out that this claim is backwards.

If you actually know what you are talking about, then you know this.

There is only one process that could plausibly be considered "outside" of the processes which comprise the driving factors of evolution which is powerful enough to induce some population level genetic variance and even this process is rightly a subset of one of the principal drivers of evolution.

Click to expand...

The part in bold actually shows that you do understand that the driving factors of evolution are not themselves evolution. In this statement, you even acknowledge the fact that it is not evolution which induces the intra-species genetic variance, but that it is actually the processes that allow evolution to occur that induce the variance.

Redress said:

IQ is a horrible measure of overall intelligence and problem solving ability. Best example: I spent most of my life around farmers. The medium to big farmers are mostly high school educated if they finished and do not perform well on IQ tests. However, these guys can plan out crops for several thousand acres and figure out seed needs in their heads for that. They can weld and machine on mills and lathes. They can do small and large engine repair, fix hydraulics, and program programmable controllers. They can manage betwen 5 and 20 farm hands. They can look at a weathermap and make predictions as good or better than meteorologists. They follow and understand the markets that they deal in. They handle all their businesses finances, including taxes and paperwork for their employees. In the last 15 to 20 years they have also learned to be computer literate and some of them can do more with a computer than most people. In a couple cases you can add livestock management to their abilities, with all that goes with that. And yet if you talked with them outside of those areas you would immediately note their small vocabulary and ignorance of on things we take for granted.

Click to expand...

And this is a great example of Fallacious 'debate' by Anecdote.
Additionally, Confusing Education and IQ; As well as making unbacked claims about farmer's IQ.
(btw, alot of Not so smart farmers went broke when things got tough. 'Farmaid' ring a bell?)
And of course the debate here is about Racial IQ, not urban vs rural.

If there's 1% difference between human and primate, it still doesn't "demonstrate" that "there's still Plenty of room for things like IQ difference among human 'strains'." It's jumping to conclusion to say that. That human is 99% like primates genetically just doesn't lead to the conclusion...

Click to expand...

My post was made Merely to show donsutherland's claim of "99.9"%" was NOT definitive or even logical in being able to 'demonstrate' if there Could be IQ difference among humans.
You have deconextualized my statement.
In doing so, you have unwittingly re-enforced My point about His claim.
The whole "percent" idea, which HE said precluded significant IQ difference .. does NOT.
I assume you agree despite yourself taking an illogical partisan/PC stance on who to oppose.

nonpareill said:

And what are these studies? Link please.

Click to expand...

There are Hundreds/thousands of IQ studies.
Richard Lynn used over 600 with a sampling of over 800,000 people globally in his 2006 book.

Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis; Table 16.2 (indigenous populations) said:

Richard Lynn, "Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis" 2006 Table 16.2 (indigenous populations) Estimated average IQ

Arctic Peoples - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - 91
East Asians - - - - - - - - ---- -- -- --- - 105
Europeans - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -100
Native Americans (north & south) -- -- 86
Southern Asian & Northern Africans - - 84
Bushmen (southern Africa) - - - - - - - -54
Africans (subsaharan) - - - - - - - - - - 67
Native Australians (aboriginals) --- --- 62
Southeast Asians - - - - - - - - - -- - - -87
Pacific Islanders - - - - - - - - - - - - - -85

Click to expand...

nonpareill said:

There are questions about the validity of the studies that claim the 50% heritability of IQ as well: The heritability of IQ. [Nature. 1997] - PubMed - NCBI

A lot of studies in the past don't properly account for the womb environment and the mother's physical condition during pregnancy. Studies that measure IQ after birth will tend to have this problem since it's very hard to isolate these factors and genes without actually looking at the genes itself.

Click to expand...

IOW, Apologetics.

nonpareill said:

me said:

4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.

Click to expand...

This is a common heuristic problem. It's like saying: P(A/B) > P(A/B') and P(B/C) > P(B>C') and therefore P(A/C)>P(A/C'), P(A/C) might be bigger than P(A/C') but you have to measure that to know for sure, inferring from the probability of the first two is not always correct.

If I gave you these statements:

Probability of getting false positive is higher with ovary cancer than non-ovary cancer
Probability of getting ovary cancer is higher in older women than in younger women
It doesn't follow that the Probability of getting a false positive is higher in older women. ....

Click to expand...

Your comparison Inapt, and for someone of your intelligence I would say.. Disingenuous.
My post contains the 3 sizes and differentials which correlate to IQ.
Not just abstract verbal leaps as you posted/needlessly muddied, mine contains Numbers where If 6>4:::: 4>2 ::: 6>2. We know this even without the middle number.
That's why this section of your reply was longest. It took More BS to attempt to bury a simple fact.

Additionally, from a Wiki mirror site, not completely updated/PCed yet.

Mean cranial capacity (cc)

Measurement -- East Asian European African
Autopsy - - - - -- 1351 1356 - -- - 1223
Endocranial volume 1415 1362 1268
External head msrt 1335 1341 1284
Crrt'd for body size 1356 1329 1294
Mean - - - - - - ----- 1364 1347 1267
Redrawn from Jensen 1998b, Table 12.1

Cortical neurons (billions)

East Asian European African
13.767 - 13.665 - 13.185
Source: Rushton 2000

Redrawn from Jensen 1998b, Table 12.1rl=http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence]Race and intelligence - Metapedia[/url]

Click to expand...

nonpareill said:

This is the same roughly 1 std deviation difference and still doesn't account for what happens in the womb and before adoption, or the effect of racial identity. The author themselves wouldn't say that it's due to genetic differences.
The fact of the matter is that these studies all have differences that are not statistically significant and do not properly control for other environmental factors. To use them as if they proof anything conclusively is unscientific.

Click to expand...

IQ researchers have corrected for variables, including socioeconomic ones. IQ remains consistent not only say, in Subsaharan Africa, or Rural china, but intercontinentally with the same populations in North America.
Additionally your statement is wrong on a statistical basis. Not just that 1 SD is "insignificant", but if one looks at Asians vs Blacks we move comfortably over 1 SD.
ie, Compare East Asian vs Subsaharans we move over 2 SDs. See the Lynn IQ Chart above.

Tucker Case said:

It's not "dodging" to refuse to answer a question which is itself a red herring, a strawman, and a loaded question. Come back with a fallacy-free question and I will gladly answer it.

Click to expand...

Don't play games. Initially I didn't want to get involved in a pissing contest with you and I was willing to let your error slide, but you couldn't leave well enough alone and take the graceful option I presented and you had to turn it back on me. You bluffed, now I'm calling your bluff. Show your ****ing cards. If you want to posture like you know enough about what is going on, then explain yourself.

You are claiming that intra-species genetic variance is caused by evolution.

I'm correctly pointing out that this claim is backwards.

Click to expand...

It's backwards? Now your argument is that evolution is caused by population level genetic variance? I'd really LUV to hear an explanation for how this works. The EFFECTS are now driving the CAUSE.

The part in bold actually shows that you do understand that the driving factors of evolution are not themselves evolution.

Click to expand...

You're just playing meaningless word games because you've boxed yourself into a corner. The three principal drivers of evolution are mutation, selection and drift/draft. The principle requirements underlying population level genetic variance are reduced gene flow between populations on a cline, founder effects, and degrees of inbreeding. For two populations to increase the degree of genetic variation between them the actual processes all fall under the broad term of evolution. The outcomes that see today are the result of reproductively isolated groups expanding in number over time from their initial founding group and so carrying forward in time that initial genetic profile and to varying levels inbreeding amongst themselves to an extent that overwhelms the effects of introgression from outside populations and all the while mutations arise, they are selected or not and drift/draft occurs. If you take these processes to extremes you are well on the road to speciation.

Religious creationists get quite in a tizzy about speciation and we all recognize that speciation is the result of evolution. Speciation cannot develop if there is enough gene flow between populations. Evolution is a pretty big term and it can be viewed on multiple levels. That is the basis of your mistake, or that's what I'm assuming from reading between the lines - you have some level of layman's knowledge of what you think evolution is and you're leveraging that limited understanding to put yourself into some self-proclaimed level of authority. I do my best to engage in conversations in the colloquial when these issues come up but when you write "the driving factors of evolution are not themselves evolution" you leave me no option but to get more technical. The facets of evolution which play out at the population level do not register at the gene level - founder effects and introgression and inbreeding don't matter to the question of whether a mutation propagates or dies out. There are whole other factors in play, like adaptive traits and adaptation, kin selection, etc which occor at higher levels of analysis and which I'm skipping here but they also fall under the umbrella of evolution.

In this statement, you even acknowledge the fact that it is not evolution which induces the intra-species genetic variance, but that it is actually the processes that allow evolution to occur that induce the variance.

Click to expand...

Because I hate being the pedant who is correcting everyone on minor definitional points - I was giving you some slack so that we could progress beyond nitpicking and get to the point that you wanted to make but you force me to a pendentic position by this game of yours, so yes, evolution is the process which drives population level genetic variation. Prove me wrong. Explain to us what factors apart from "evolution" are driving population level genetic variance.

Hatuey said:

What is harder, surviving in a South American jungle or surviving in Siberia? I don't know. I know the pool knowledge required to survive in either one is different. The mental capacity remains constant for both individuals.

Click to expand...

Its much easier to survive in a hunter / gatherer society in Siberia (outside of the most extreme areas) than it is in the Amazonian Rain Forest in a hunter / gatherer society. The climate may be more harsh in Siberia, but large game is far more plentiful. In Amazonian Rain Forests large game is hard to find and there are all kinds parasites that can kill you. Victorian era explorers faired far better on polar and sub-arctic expeditions than they did in amazon expeditions. They could not even keep a horse alive more than a month or so in the rain forests.

Not that this is very topical to the thread, but just thought I would throw that out there.

mbig said:

And this is a great example of Fallacious 'debate' by Anecdote.
Additionally, Confusing Education and IQ; As well as making unbacked claims about farmer's IQ.
(btw, alot of Not so smart farmers went broke when things got tough. 'Farmaid' ring a bell?)
And of course the debate here is about Racial IQ, not urban vs rural.

Click to expand...

Btw, alot of very smart high IQ people go broke when economic conditions change. Nice job of not addressing the overall point, but then again, I didn't expect you would.

RiverDad said:

Don't play games. Initially I didn't want to get involved in a pissing contest with you and I was willing to let your error slide, but you couldn't leave well enough alone and take the graceful option I presented and you had to turn it back on me. You bluffed, now I'm calling your bluff. Show your ****ing cards. If you want to posture like you know enough about what is going on, then explain yourself.



It's backwards? Now your argument is that evolution is caused by population level genetic variance? I'd really LUV to hear an explanation for how this works. The EFFECTS are now driving the CAUSE.



You're just playing meaningless word games because you've boxed yourself into a corner. The three principal drivers of evolution are mutation, selection and drift/draft. The principle requirements underlying population level genetic variance are reduced gene flow between populations on a cline, founder effects, and degrees of inbreeding. For two populations to increase the degree of genetic variation between them the actual processes all fall under the broad term of evolution. The outcomes that see today are the result of reproductively isolated groups expanding in number over time from their initial founding group and so carrying forward in time that initial genetic profile and to varying levels inbreeding amongst themselves to an extent that overwhelms the effects of introgression from outside populations and all the while mutations arise, they are selected or not and drift/draft occurs. If you take these processes to extremes you are well on the road to speciation.

Religious creationists get quite in a tizzy about speciation and we all recognize that speciation is the result of evolution. Speciation cannot develop if there is enough gene flow between populations. Evolution is a pretty big term and it can be viewed on multiple levels. That is the basis of your mistake, or that's what I'm assuming from reading between the lines - you have some level of layman's knowledge of what you think evolution is and you're leveraging that limited understanding to put yourself into some self-proclaimed level of authority. I do my best to engage in conversations in the colloquial when these issues come up but when you write "the driving factors of evolution are not themselves evolution" you leave me no option but to get more technical. The facets of evolution which play out at the population level do not register at the gene level - founder effects and introgression and inbreeding don't matter to the question of whether a mutation propagates or dies out. There are whole other factors in play, like adaptive traits and adaptation, kin selection, etc which occor at higher levels of analysis and which I'm skipping here but they also fall under the umbrella of evolution.



Because I hate being the pedant who is correcting everyone on minor definitional points - I was giving you some slack so that we could progress beyond nitpicking and get to the point that you wanted to make but you force me to a pendentic position by this game of yours, so yes, evolution is the process which drives population level genetic variation. Prove me wrong. Explain to us what factors apart from "evolution" are driving population level genetic variance.

Click to expand...

Just a couple points. One, the irony of saying "you have some level of layman's knowledge of what you think evolution is and you're leveraging that limited understanding to put yourself into some self-proclaimed level of authority" is overwhelming.

Two, the whole "prove my unproven assertion wrong" thing is incredibly lame. Here is a thought, offer actual evidence you are right. Bonus hint: your post contains two conflicting arguments, see if you can figure out what they are.

Modern humans have been around about 200,000 years or so. We started migrating out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. This means that racial divergence happened over the course of the last 2000 generations. From an evolutionary perspective, 2000 generations are really not that many. However, when you consider that humans have colonized virtually every ecosystem on the face of the earth other than the polar icecaps, several significant physical adaptions have occurred in the last 60,000 years based upon where given populations resided. You also have to take into account that until the last hundred years or so, the vast majority of humans never traveled more than a hundred miles or so from their home over the course of their entire life and thus populations were very isolated genetically. This was especially true since most non-equatorial groups transitioned from hunter gatherer societies to farming societies around 10,000 years ago. That said, we are still evolved to be hunter gatherers as the ultimate endurance athletes of the animal kingdom.

So I don't know. I suppose there could be an evolutionary difference between races in terms of mental capacity, but for a such a difference to exist, we would have to start with identifying the environmental factors that would have resulted in such an adaption. The physical differences between races can easily be attributed to environmental factors (the European environment / ecosystem is far different than that of sub-saharan Africa). However, the mental capacity needed to be a primitive farmer is not as much as the mental capacity needed to be a hunter gatherer in most environments. The hunter gatherer requires a near biologist understanding of their environment (especially in tropical environments). It is much harder to survive in a primitive society in most tropical environments than it is in most temperate environments.

Redress said:

Btw, alot of very smart high IQ people go broke when economic conditions change. Nice job of not addressing the overall point, but then again, I didn't expect you would.

Click to expand...

I addressed your silly post which basically said something like 'Because I know a few smart black guys, then they can't be less smart as a group than whites'.. Even though you didn't show the IQ's of farmers you CLAIMED had lower ones.
and Also.... confused/Conflated IQ and Education.
Like I said- it's silly/illogical debate by anecdote and containing nothing on whether those/or any farmers in fact had lower IQs.

I then addressed nonpareill with alot of meat on the bone [knowing I would more fully] answer many here-- unlike your utterly illogical And empty post.

I cannot believe people are still trying the supremacist angle. We are all the same species even if all but black populations are found to have genetic links to Neanderthals. Sure East Asians score the best in IQ tests but that is only because learning and achieving in these areas is given a top priority. What leads to ability more than anything else is practice. Why do you think people talk about 'stretching' their minds. Learning increases intelligence. IQ tests test learned skills.

There is always going to be some people trying to prove that some human beings, there own, are smarter than others. The rise of the right wing may mean this is on the increase for the time being. Thankfully despite all their heavy tries, they cannot prove that there is any significant inherent or genetic variation between blacks and whites because there is not.

When the New Republic devoted almost an entire issue (10/31/94) to a debate with the authors of The Bell Curve, editor Andrew Sullivan justified the decision by writing, "The notion that there might be resilient ethnic differences in intelligence is not, we believe, an inherently racist belief."

In fact, the idea that some races are inherently inferior to others is the definition of racism. What the New Republic was saying--along with other media outlets that prominently and respectfully considered the thesis of Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein's book--is that racism is a respectable intellectual position, and has a legitimate place in the national debate on race.

-snip-

Nearly all the research that Murray and Herrnstein relied on for their central claims about race and IQ was funded by the Pioneer Fund, described by the London Sunday Telegraph (3/12/89) as a "neo-Nazi organization closely integrated with the far right in American politics." The fund's mission is to promote eugenics, a philosophy that maintains that "genetically unfit" individuals or races are a threat to society.

Click to expand...

Racism Resurgent

as for the Minnosat Twins study that was heavily flawed are all these grandiose claims to supremacy


The Bell Curve is a top-level work of science

The Science behind the bell curve has been denounced by both the American Psychological Association and the Human Genome Project but dream on, it is all you have.

mbig said:

II addressed your silly post which basically said something like 'Because I know a few smart black guys, then they can't be less smart as a group than whites'.. Even though you didn't show the IQ's of farmers you CLAIMED had lower ones..
and Also.... confused/Conflated IQ and Education.
Like I said- it's silly/illogical debate by anecdote and containing nothing on whether those/or any farmers in fact had lower IQs.

I then addressed nonpareill with alot of meat on the bone answering many here-- unlike your utterly illogical And empty post.

Click to expand...

So the problem is my point went over your head.

alexa said:

I cannot believe people are still trying the supremacist angle. ....

Click to expand...

But I Can believe (and Fully Expected) the PC are spinning "acknowledging Differences" (we all know exist), and SPINNING it into the Accusatory "the Supremacist angle."

As when I brought it up previously:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-and-technology/71748-looming-un-pc-crisis-human-genetics.html

"...We will also identify the many genes that create physical and mental differences across populations, and we will be able to estimate when those genes arose. Some of those differences probably occurred very recently, within recorded history. Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argued in “The 10,000 Year Explosion” that some human groups experienced a vastly accelerated rate of evolutionary change within the past few thousand years, benefiting from the new genetic diversity created within far larger populations, and in response to the new survival, social and reproductive challenges of agriculture, cities, divisions of labour and social classes. Others did not experience these changes until the past few hundred years when they were subject to contact, colonisation and, all too often, extermination.

If the shift from GWAS to sequencing studies finds evidence of such Politically Awkward and Morally Perplexing facts, we can Expect the usual range of Ideological reactions, including Nationalistic Retro-racism from Conservatives and Outraged Denial from Blank-slate Liberals.
The few who really understand the genetics will gain a more enlightened, live-and-let-live recognition of the biodiversity within our extraordinary species—including a clearer view of likely comparative advantages between the world’s different economies....

Click to expand...

SouthernDemocrat said:

Modern humans have been around about 200,000 years or so. We started migrating out of Africa around 60,000 years ago. This means that racial divergence happened over the course of the last 2000 generations. From an evolutionary perspective, 2000 generations are really not that many.

Click to expand...

How do you define many? In the span of about 2,000-6,000 years Northern European whites went from 0% to 80%-98% levels of lactose tolerance while Asians and Native Americans are about 90%-95% lactose intolerant and Africans are between 60%-80% lactose intolerant.

Funny, I remember reading that IQ tests were discounted as an accurate measure of intelligence a decade ago because it ended up testing white culture and specific knowledge, rather than problem solving, learning capability, or knowledge retention.

RiverDad said:

How do you define many? In the span of about 2,000-6,000 years Northern European whites went from 0% to 80%-98% levels of lactose tolerance while Asians and Native Americans are about 90%-95% lactose intolerant and Africans are between 60%-80% lactose intolerant.

The frequencies of lactose maldigestion at ages 2–3 y, 6 y, and 9–10 y, respectively, are 0%, 0%, and 6% in white Americans; 18%, 30%, and 47% in Americans of Mexican descent; 25%, 45%, and 60% in black South Africans; ≈30%, 80%, and 85% in Chinese and Japanese; and 30–55%, 90%, and >90% in Mestizos of Peru.​

Click to expand...

The defining factor in that is how many cows live there, not skin color.

mbig said:

My post was made Merely to show donsutherland's claim of "99.9"%" was NOT definitive or even logical in being able to 'demonstrate' if there Could be IQ difference among humans.

Click to expand...

You're taking my statement into a much broader context than I ever intended. My point is not that evolution left everything identical among various groups of people, but that the broad differences are insignificant. Without doubt there are some differences. Moreover, human populations are continuing to evolve.

However when one gets to broadly defined categories e.g., intelligence, as was a subject of this poll/thread, the differences are insignificant. Mean differences in IQ among the races are not sustained when one considers high confidence levels e.g., 95%. That a flawed study on IQ differences, flawed on account of deficiencies in statistical sampling that make it unreliable as to whether the samples adequately reflect the populations they purport to represent, has been cited does not change that, even if IQ were a perfect indicator of intelligence. But it isn't. IQ explains a portion of intelligence and that portion is less than 100%. Moreover, only a portion of IQ is heritable.

In the whole scheme of things, the differences that resulted, to date, from evolution of humans are insignificant when it comes to broad attributes such as intelligence. If the poll were worded accurately, the correct answer based on the preponderance of scientific research would be that the races (a broad socially-constructed grouping, but a grouping nonetheless) are essentially equal in terms of "mental and physical competence (sic)." The differences among the broad groups of people cited for broad attributes listed are statistically insignificant.

RiverDad said:

How do you define many? In the span of about 2,000-6,000 years Northern European whites went from 0% to 80%-98% levels of lactose tolerance while Asians and Native Americans are about 90%-95% lactose intolerant and Africans are between 60%-80% lactose intolerant.

The frequencies of lactose maldigestion at ages 2–3 y, 6 y, and 9–10 y, respectively, are 0%, 0%, and 6% in white Americans; 18%, 30%, and 47% in Americans of Mexican descent; 25%, 45%, and 60% in black South Africans; ≈30%, 80%, and 85% in Chinese and Japanese; and 30–55%, 90%, and >90% in Mestizos of Peru.​

Click to expand...

The polling question had nothing to do with narrow, specific areas where significant differences exist. It dealt with very broad attributes (mental and physical "competence"). A bait-and-switch to the very specific issue of lactose maldigestion proves nothing, absolutely nothing, with respect to the broad questions raised in the poll. No one in this thread has argued that human populations are identical. Therefore, the existence of differences in narrow, highly-specific areas is irrelevant to the broader question.

I don't think anyone said we evolved exactly the same. I clearly disagree with the OP and his friends, but I did vote "No". I think they have a basic misconception of race and evolution.

OscarB63 said:

what I always find amusing is that people have no problem admitting that environment has affected physical evolution, but if you dare suggest that environment might have affected mental evolution you are suddenly a flaming racist.

Click to expand...

well...yes.

without any good evidence that can be replicated, that Evolution has left some races more intelligent than others, all we have is racism.

EDIT: I'd love to see a comparison of 10,000 middle-class European kids, 10,000 middle-class African kids, 10,000 middle-class Asian kids, give them all the exact same IQ test, and see what we get.

unfortunately, no such tests exist.

the ONLY way one can honestly argue that blacks are dumber..or whites are smarter..is by comparing thousands of kids from each race, having them ALL be of the SAME socio-economic status, having gone through the SAME level and competency of education.

any other test is BS.

Thunder said:

well...yes.without any good evidence that can be replicated, that Evolution has left some races more intelligent than others, all we have is racism.

Click to expand...

Prove it's racism. Prove I'm a black racist because I question the assumption that all races were left with equal overall intelligence.