• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Did evolution leave all races with equal mental and physical competency?


  • Total voters
    43
Status
Not open for further replies.
Evidence abounds which invalidates your liberal creationist assumption that all of humanity has an identical intelligence profile..

do you have any GOOD evidence to the contrary?

btw, Creationism has nothing to do with this topic.
 
Prove it's racism. Prove I'm a black racist because I question the assumption that all races were left with equal overall intelligence.

And here you trump all of the ignorant liberal creationists in this thread who love to play like they're smart but they convince themselves to hold a belief based on creationist nonsense. Believing in fairy tales, no matter how puffed up by convoluted reasoning is not really a good sign to signal to people that one is smart.

You're starting with the most parsimonious positions - we see evolution all around us and therefore there is no reason to presume that some magic forcefield has kept the human brain immune from evolution in the last 60,000 years.

You can't have diversity and equality. If everyone is equal then no one is diverse.
 
I have yet to check if this is a peer reviewed article (it may not be as most researchers and achademics would not want to touch the subject with a 50 ft pole) ..
What do you think that tells us? Why shouldn't such science be pursued?
 
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.

So when you say someone is jumping to conclusions, it's okay, but when I show that you are jumping to conclusions I'm "taking an illogical partisan/PC stance". I have no obligation to call out all fallacious arguments, especially ones I didn't read before, or to repeat anything. I can point out any fallacious arguement I see as long as I can show how it is fallacious - as yours was. Ad hominem and being hypocritical doesn't help your arguements.



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.



IOW, Apologetics.

IOW: I have a high scientific standard.


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.


Your post contain probabilities, not simple numbers. Heuristic and probability are not bull****. People who cannot understand it (even PhD researchers and doctors) make mistakes reading statistics all the time. My arguement was genuine and correct - you couldn't point out anything wrong other than to attack me and use emotional appeals. It was the longest part because I actually believed that I could explain the concept of representative bias to you. Some posters don't get that benefit because I believe they are too narrow minded to understand why they are wrong. But obviously I'm wrong and that was a complete waste of time. You are already convinced that IQ is genetically determined despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. All the evidence provided by you from that article shows a statistically insignificant difference coupled with study design that do not properly control for other variables. Science is about evidence before faith, you already have faith in your theory, anything that contradict that you just dismiss as PC-bull****, even though no one here has said anything about scientifically proving that genes determine intelligence being morally or politically wrong - you just keep argueing with your own strawman.


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.

1 std deviation is insignificant for the current standard. If I'm wrong, show where it is accepted that 1 std deviation is statistically significant.

Secondly do you understand how statistical testing is done? Please show me the article where you claimed they found 3 std deviation difference, or even this 2 std deviation difference instead of you just doing ad hoc arithmetic, and I'll interpret the results for myself, because I don't think you know how to interpret them properly.
 
Even an adoption study would add the new variable of the effects of adoption. Intelligence tests, IQ or otherwise, are very difficult to use as objective measurements of intelligence and mental capacity.

I agree .. but its probably going to be the best you'll get (most variables are cut out and would likely be deemed sufficient - this is because adopting at birth allows for analysis of both genetic and environmental factors) - general practice in psychology is to allow for small possibly confounding variables - i.e. they state their conclusion and also add that there may be a possibility of confounding variables - it is up to other researchers to prove that said variables could cause a significant effect - i.e. researchers have to start somewhere - one research study cannot address all factors of a large issue in one study alone
 
Last edited:
If everyone is equal then no one is diverse.
So our diversity is at stake if we don't agree with you that blacks are less intelligent than whites? Oh I see.

I better tell everyone I know that their nationalities, appearances, fashion style, music interests, economic backgrounds, academic interests, speaking patterns, political opinions, cultural ideas about manners, talents and so on are all at stake if we don't accept that races have unequal mental capacity.
 
Evidence abounds which invalidates your liberal creationist assumption that all of humanity has an identical intelligence profile.

I'm not a Creationist. We are who we are account of evolution. Not once did I dispute evolution.

I pointed correctly to the reality that when it comes to the broad category of race that the differences in terms of intelligence are insignificant and not meaningful. Insignificant is not the same thing as identical. Not meaningful is not the same thing as identical. The differences are not statistically significant. Unfortunately, as it is quite apparent from the confusion among those different terms, understanding of the concept of statistical signficance is lacking.

The evidence in support of variance in intelligence is so damn broad it's amazing to behold and all of the different lines of evidence reinforce one another and all of the extremist environmentalist determinist explanations are not able to account for the variance.

Ok, show me the 95% confidence intervals by race for all the major factors that explain a substantial portion of intelligence. If your claim is accurate, you should have no trouble doing so. I highly doubt that I'll see the myriad factors, the portion of intelligence that they explain, much less the 95% confidence levels by racial group. The empirical evidence, not unsubstantiated assertions, is what is required to support the claim.
 
please post a data from a widely-accepted study showing the 95% confidence intervals for various measures of intelligence (not just IQ, a test that explains only a portion of it, but enough measures to explain most of intelligence) by racial group.

And don't forget that the paper has to have been published in red ink, the type font must be Copperplate Gothic, there can be no more than two authors on the paper, and the paper must have a publication date that falls on a Tuesday.

This tactics of specifying that proof must be delivered in very precise forms is one that I grew very tired of back in my undergrad school days when I was very active in TalkOrigins circles and was battling religious creationists. The same denialist tactics bind the religious creationist camp to the liberal creationist camp.
 
I agree .. but its probably going to be the best you'll get (most variables are cut out and would likely be deemed sufficient - this is because adopting at birth allows for analysis of both genetic and environmental factors) - general practice in psychology is to allow for small possibly confounding variables - i.e. they state their conclusion and also add that there may be a possibility of confounding variables - it is up to other researchers to prove that said variables could cause a significant effect - i.e. researchers have to start somewhere - one research study cannot address all factors of a large issue in one study alone
I agree it's the best we have - it's just not without flaws as you've already pointed out. I personally think that we'll never really get the issue resolved completely until environmental factors are equal - which, at best, will take a long time if that ever happens.
 
Thank you for the compliment, Riverdad. I think you're very intelligent. The ironic thing, though, is that I don't even believe in evolution. I favor some of Rene Descartes theory on logic and God.
 
do you have any GOOD evidence to the contrary?

btw, Creationism has nothing to do with this topic.

Of course it doesn't. But one shouldn't be surprised by the diversion from the thread's question. Superficial claims cannot be sustained for long when evidence is lacking.
 
This thread is amazing. Just wanted to point that out. Sorry for the interruption.
 
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.

In all of your post, only this was worthy of pursuing further.

Question: If someone's genes undergo a mutation, would you consider that evolution?
 
And don't forget that the paper has to have been published in red ink, the type font must be Copperplate Gothic, there can be no more than two authors on the paper, and the paper must have a publication date that falls on a Tuesday.

This tactics of specifying that proof must be delivered in very precise forms is one that I grew very tired of back in my undergrad school days when I was very active in TalkOrigins circles and was battling religious creationists. The same denialist tactics bind the religious creationist camp to the liberal creationist camp.

As expected, the data wasn't provided, as well it couldn't be furnished given the absence of such data. Without the data, one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the races are not unequal in terms of intelligence. Science is rigorous. Posturing over some article of faith for which data is lacking is not.
 
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.
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:
So when you say someone is jumping to conclusions, it's okay, but when I show that you are jumping to conclusions I'm "taking an illogical partisan/PC stance". I have no obligation to call out all fallacious arguments, especially ones I didn't read before, or to repeat anything. I can point out any fallacious arguement I see as long as I can show how it is fallacious - as yours was. Ad hominem and being hypocritical doesn't help your arguements.
Incorrect and emptily argumentative.

I merely used HIS "99.9%" "percent" routine to show his premise was wrong.
As I pointed out, it did NOT preclude racial IQ difference.
Just more hostility.
You still don't take stance on the correct position.. merely TRY to be technical in service of your bias.

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

[LYNN IQ TABLE showing numbers for many groups]

IOW, Apologetics.
nonpareil said:
IOW: I have a high scientific standard.
Incorrect and emptily argumentative again.
IOW, You had to Ignore respected Lynn's numbers summarizing 600+ Studies.


me said:
our 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.

[Cranial size and Neuron Data Table/numbers. Jenson; Rushton]
nonpareil said:
Your post contain probabilities, not simple numbers. Heuristic and probability are not bull****. People who cannot understand it (even PhD researchers and doctors) make mistakes reading statistics all the time. My arguement was genuine and correct - you couldn't point out anything wrong other than to attack me and use emotional appeals. It was the longest part because I actually believed that I could explain the concept of representative bias to you. Some posters don't get that benefit because I believe they are too narrow minded to understand why they are wrong. But obviously I'm wrong and that was a complete waste of time. You are already convinced that IQ is genetically determined despite the lack of rigorous scientific evidence. All the evidence provided by you from that article shows a statistically insignificant difference coupled with study design that do not properly control for other variables. Science is about evidence before faith, you already have faith in your theory, anything that contradict that you just dismiss as PC-bull****, even though no one here has said anything about scientifically proving that genes determine intelligence being morally or politically wrong - you just keep argueing with your own strawman.
This we will have to say is beyond 'incorrect' and a simple Big Lie.
Those cranial numbers are Actual autopsy Measurements, not mere "probabilities."
So you've now [had to] ignore all numbers posted.

mbig said:
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.
nonpareil said:
1 std deviation is insignificant for the current standard. If I'm wrong, show where it is accepted that 1 std deviation is statistically significant.
Show where I claimed you said it was.
nonpareil said:
Secondly do you understand how statistical testing is done? Please show me the article where you claimed they found 3 std deviation difference, or even this 2 std deviation difference instead of you just doing ad hoc arithmetic, and I'll interpret the results for myself, because I don't think you know how to interpret them properly.
1 Standard deviation on IQ is 15 points. Intelligence quotient - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In quoting me you again [Had to] Ignore the Lynn Table showing IQ ranging from a 105 high for East Asians to 67 for Subsaharan Africans as low as 54 for Bushmen.
I assume you can do the math if partisanship/gratuitous argumentation doesn't continue to handicap your replies.
 
Last edited:
I merely used HIS "99.9%" "percent" routine to show his premise was wrong.

I just wanted to add a tid bit .. I am not sure what the 99.9% thing was referring to but ..

I am not sure that everyone completely understands the difference between genotypes and and phenotypes. So I will provide a definition:

Genotype:

The genetic constitution of an individual organism
(Google)

Phenotype:

The set of observable characteristics of an individual
(Google)

Most would look at chimpanzees and humans and guess that there are much more genotypical difference differences that the 1.5% difference in genotype that has been found by researchers.

The point is that it only takes fractions of genotypical differences to produce a large phenotypical difference between organisms.

This is quite evident when we observe the differences between different breeds of dogs for example. All breeds of dogs still remain in the dog species, but can still have minor genetic differences which are considered insignificant; i.e. when researchers say there is no significant difference in genotype, they are saying that the differences that do exists do not warrant declaring that organism as a different species.

We also see this between the different races of humans. Forensics, anthropologists etc. use the known differences, such as skeletal structure, to identify different races within the same human species.
Therefore, because we know that there are these differences and we know that skull is cranium differently shaped between races, we know the brain's shape is related to the cranium shape and because we know that physical differences in the brain can cause differences in functioning, how could we not come to the conclusion that different races have slightly differing brain traits and or functioning?

Additionally, because we know that the brain is a physical part of the body and it is thus affected by genetics, how could extremely small differences between different races not lead one to conclude that is is likely that there is some minor differences in functionality?

This does not mean that one race is "superior" over another, but that they can have slightly different physical and brain functioning traits. Superiority is a subjective term. Each race likely has characteristics that are related to adapting to their environment of origin.

Because there is a lot of interracial sexual/reproductive activity, this issue will likely be a moot point in the very near future. As for now, there appears to be some evidence that there are differences between races on certain functioning levels, such as the IQ test, which was originally developed to asses western individuals and does not account for differences in functioning between races. (see quote below)


5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ Remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
 
This is quite evident when we observe the differences between different breeds of dogs for example. All breeds of dogs still remain in the dog species, but can still have minor genetic differences which are considered insignificant; i.e. when researchers say there is no significant difference in genotype, they are saying that the differences that do exists do not warrant declaring that organism as a different species.

We also see this between the different races of humans. Forensics, anthropologists etc. use the known differences, such as skeletal structure, to identify different races within the same human species.
Therefore, because we know that there are these differences and we know that skull is cranium differently shaped between races, we know the brain's shape is related to the cranium shape and because we know that physical differences in the brain can cause differences in functioning, how could we not come to the conclusion that different races have slightly differing brain traits and or functioning?

Additionally, because we know that the brain is a physical part of the body and it is thus affected by genetics, how could extremely small differences between different races not lead one to conclude that is is likely that there is some minor differences in functionality?

This does not mean that one race is "superior" over another, but that they can have slightly different physical and brain functioning traits. Superiority is a subjective term. Each race likely has characteristics that are related to adapting to their environment of origin.

I think the main problem in the OP is talking about an artificial construction of race to try and define variation. The article below shows that 85% of difference is actually between people who are identified as being of the same national or linguistic group. Only 6-10% of variation depends on what is considered a 'racial group' - that is things like hair, kin colour, nose shape.

The every-day socially defined geographical races do identify groups of populations that are somewhat more closely similar to each other genetically. Most important from the standpoint of the biological meaning of these racial categories, however, most human genetic variation does not show such "race" clustering. For the vast majority of human genetic variations, classical racial categories as defined by a combination of geography, skin color, nose and hair shape, an occasional blood type or selected microsatellites make no useful prediction of genetic differences. This failure of the clustering of local populations into biologically meaningful "races" based on a few clear genetic differences is not confined to the human species. Zoologists long ago gave up the category of "race" for dividing up groups of animal populations within a species, because so many of these races turned out to be based on only one or two genes so that two animals born in the same litter could belong to different "races."

-snip-

In an attempt to hold on to the concept while make it objective and generalizable, Th. Dobzhansky, the leading biologist in the study of the genetics of natural populations, introduced the “geographical race,” which he defined as any population that differed genetically in any way from any other population of the species. But as genetics developed and it became possible to characterize the genetic differences between individuals and populations it became apparent, that every population of every species in fact differs genetically to some degree from every other population. Thus, every population is a separate “geographic race” and it was realized that nothing was added by the racial category. The consequence of this realization was the abandonment of “race” as a biological category during the last quarter of the twentieth century, an abandonment that spread into anthropology and human biology. However, that abandonment was never complete in the case of the human species. There has been a constant pressure from social and political practice and the coincidence of racial, cultural and social class divisions reinforcing the social reality of race, to maintain “race” as a human classification. If it were admitted that the category of “race” is a purely social construct, however, it would have a weakened legitimacy. Thus, there have been repeated attempts to reassert the objective biological reality of human racial categories despite the evidence to the contrary.

Confusions About Human Races

Edit: Also on simply intelligence I am reminded of Jung's experience when he met American Indians. They told him they thought the white man was mad. He asked them why. They said because they said they thought with their heads. Jung asked what they thought with and the man put his hand over his heart. Jung said from that moment onward he viewed Western civilisation anew.
 
Last edited:
I am having a hard time arguing this side of the argument as I realize how touchy the subject can be and I am not saying that you are being touchy; I am just saying that no one wants to be the "bad guy". Additionally, if groups who already harbor racism are told there are any differences between races, they will likely jump at the opportunity. However, if we are going to look at this subject in an objective manner, we have to acknowledge the facts. I will attempt to show how there are predictable differences in genetics between races; of course this variation is very very small (in terms of genetic percentages) and any phenotypical changes that are observed only mean "difference" not "superior" or "inferior".

I think the main problem in the OP is talking about an artificial construction of race to try and define variation. The article below shows that 85% of difference is actually between people who are identified as being of the same national or linguistic group. Only 6-10% of variation depends on what is considered a 'racial group' - that is things like hair, kin colour, nose shape.

What that article is saying put in different terms but with the same meaning is .. and I quote:

... by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations

... Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” ...

... The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races

Here is the source originally quoted:


Here we see that between any two people within a national or linguistic population, there will be a certain amount of variation (they did not say what that variation was individuals, but it is a commonly known fact that the variation between individuals is on average 0.5% (Human genetic variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), i.e. on average individuals are 99.5% similar genetically speaking. Therefore we can calculate that of that 0.5% difference, around 85% of 0.5% (0.425% - rounded = 0.4%) is the average amount of genetic variation that will occur between individuals within the same population and the remaining 0.075% (rounded = 0.1%) are represent the genetic racial variation.

While ~0.1% may not seem like a lot, we have to remember that while individuals vary by a total of 0.5%, our genetic difference from chimpanzees is only 1.5% (i.e we are share 98.5% of our genes with chimpanzees and 99.5% of our genes with each other, a difference of only 1%; Humans And Chimpanzees, How Similar Are We?). This means that humans on average differ genetically by 1/3 of the amount of difference between us and chimpanzees; another way of saying this is that humans are only 2/3 more similar (genetically) to each other than than they are to chimpanzees. Additionally, it can be said that the genetic differences between races is 15 times smaller than the difference between humans and chimpanzees; or that our genetic difference to chimpanzees is only 15 times greater than the difference between races. The the ratio of 1 to 15 (0.1/01.5) is not all that small.

If you study a chimpanzee, you will find many many more differences in phenotype than 1.5% - who knows how many physical (phenotypical) there are between us and the chimpanzees .. I am guessing somewhere in the million or more range (just to give an idea of how different Chimpanzees are from humans phenotypically speaking). Because that small 1.5% difference produced such vast phenotypical differences between humans and chimpanzees, it should not come as a surprise that there are indeed significant, measurable phenotypical differences between races. This does not mean one race is "superior" to another; it only means that they are slightly different genetically and to a greater degree different phenotypicaly. And .. there is nothing inherently bad in this fact.

What you may be realizing by now is that extremely small differences in genes (genotypes) can produce large differences in physical representations (phenotypes). If 1.5% genetic difference between us and the chimpanzees can produce such radical physical (phenotypical) then it can not be ignored that there is a 0.1% difference between races which will lead to phenotypical differences (e.g. hair, noses, cranium structure, etc. for the obvious differences as well as not so obvious differences - see article). This being said, the genetic differences are very small, so radical phenotypical differences between races is not likely.

When scientists say there is no need to subdivide the humans into different races, they say this because 1.) this would be very bad for racism and 2.) the difference is really not large enough to make meaningful subdivisions. However, we are all aware of the phenotypical differences and thus we all know that there are genetic differences that cause those phenotype differences. Forensics are very aware of these differences and use them to identify individuals.

Additionally dogs all belong to the same species and there are huge differences in their physical and mental appearances and characteristics. Anyone who would say facts like these are not evidence in support of genetic differences between races is just interpreting findings and delivering them in a way that makes it sound like there are no "meaningful" differences .. however, if you read closely you will see that they are admitting that their are differences but do not "feel" that such differences warrant any subdivisions.

Subdivisions could be done, but there is no application for doing so and as every year goes by, those differences become smaller and smaller due to interracial marriages etc.; i.e. we don't want our children reading that there is 0.1% genetic variation between races - many campaigns have been based on ideas like "different on the outside but the same inside" or "we all bleed red" - encouraging thinking that for everything except appearances, all humans are the same. Unfortunately once someone pays attention in a college biology class, the realize that there is indeed differences and that they are indeed more than just skin and hair.

Perhaps we should hide these facts so that extreme racists don't have another rock to throw? I have read articles that support the idea that racism is a natural phenomenon and it is in our roots to exhibit racial behaviors (a good portion of racism is also due to culture as well), whether its feeling like one is superior over the other, or getting involved in lynchings. So for any racists that may read this, I encourage you to embrace our differences; we are all human and there are differences between races, but these differences are dwindling and different does not mean "inferior" or "superior", it just means different. As of this point we don't really know much about the differences other than obvious physical characteristics, some proteins and higher susceptibility to certain diseases among some races. We do know that there are differences most likely due to genetic variables that effect performance on the IQ test, but other than that I do not know of any more research in this area - likely because no one wants to touch the issue and it likely only work to serve the strengthening of evolutionary theory and nothing else.

I would just like to say that I am all for protecting people from becoming more racist. However, I know that when people feel like they are being lied to, they often question things even more. So, in that sense, it may just be better for us to acknowledge that, for now at least, there are genetic and to a greater extent phenotypical differences between races. Each race should be valued for their differences; each race developed different skills based on their environment of origin and thus all races are winners. Some may be able to run faster, some may be able to think in certain ways easier and so on. This of course does not mean that every person in one race is 0.1% different than a person from another race in terms of characteristics as the 0.1% figure is an average and does not take into consideration the individuals within a race that are very similar to individuals in another race. All I ask is that people find positive ways to use this knowledge or not use it at all. I would like a place where differences are respected and even admired.
 
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.

I've successfully discussed this numerous times with no fire-back . . . I think it's a matter of approach and tact.

It's always important to emphasize 'differences' - and when noting differences that are a perceived negative you must pair it with a perceived positive.

Just like comparing siblings - "Jon is superior with math skills though finds he struggles with creativity. Lindsay has excelled with her creativity in art class yet struggles in english"

same thing.
 
Last edited:
I agree it's the best we have - it's just not without flaws as you've already pointed out. I personally think that we'll never really get the issue resolved completely until environmental factors are equal - which, at best, will take a long time if that ever happens.
Testing has Already taken into consideration socioeconomic/environmental factors.
Beyond that we have the Trans-racial adoption studies. Tests remain consistent across continents and circumstance.
What's left?
Can Liberals come to grips?
Here's One who Has.
From the very Liberal Slate.com, 2007.

Liberal Creationism
By William Saletan
Nov. 18, 2007
Race, genes, and intelligence. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

"...I wish these assurances were true. They aren't. Tests DO show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there's strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It's time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out Not to be true.

If this suggestion makes you angry—if you find the idea of genetic racial advantages outrageous, socially corrosive, and unthinkable—you're not the first to feel that way. Many Christians are going through a similar struggle over evolution. Their faith in human dignity rests on a literal belief in Genesis. To them, evolution isn't just another fact; it's a threat to their whole value system. As William Jennings Bryan put it during the Scopes trial, evolution meant elevating "supposedly superior intellects," "eliminating the weak," "paralyzing the hope of reform," jeopardizing "the doctrine of brotherhood," and undermining "the sympathetic activities of a civilized society."

The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are Liberals.
Evolution forced Christians to bend or break. They could insist on the Bible's literal truth and deny the facts, as Bryan did. Or they could seek a subtler account of creation and human dignity. Today, the dilemma is yours. You can try to reconcile evidence of racial differences with a more sophisticated understanding of equality and opportunity. Or you can fight the evidence and hope it doesn't break your faith.

I'm for reconciliation. Later this week, I'll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here's what you're up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the World, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It's been that way for at least a century.
[........]
 
Last edited:
Testing has Already taken into consideration socioeconomic/environmental factors.
Beyond that we have the Trans-racial adoption studies. Tests remain consistent across continents and circumstance.
What's left?
Can Liberals come to grips?
Here's One who Has.
From the very Liberal Slate.com, 2007.

Liberal Creationism
By William Saletan
Nov. 18, 2007
Race, genes, and intelligence. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine
...I never disputed the existence of IQ differences...
 
This question is still left unanswered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom