Well.... as a whole, some races -are- more 'backwards' than others.
Has to be a reason for it.
It's a broad term as there are many parameters. Use it as you like.What do you mean by 'backwards'? This is extremely vague.
It's a broad term as there are many parameters. Use it as you like.
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.
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.
And this is a great example of Fallacious 'debate' by Anecdote.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.
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.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...
There are Hundreds/thousands of IQ studies.nonpareill said:And what are these studies? Link please.
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
IOW, Apologetics.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.
Your comparison Inapt, and for someone of your intelligence I would say.. Disingenuous.nonpareill said: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.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.
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. ....
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]
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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."I cannot believe people are still trying the supremacist angle. ....
"...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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prove it's racism. Prove I'm a black racist because I question the assumption that all races were left with equal overall intelligence.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.