Misconceptions Based on Race, 'Genetics', et. al.

he is so coinfused he knows not what he does. hehheh

 

East Asians on average carry 15 percent to 30 percent more Neanderthal DNA than Europeans, which is why they are more intelligent than whites by 5-7 IQ scores on average. There would have been some additional interbreeding events involving East Asians, but not Europeans. Neanderthals had bigger cranial capacity than Homo Sapiens, and East Asians have bigger cranial capacity compared to Europeans as well.

 

Taboo Genetics


Probing the biological basis of certain traits ignites controversy. But some scientists choose to cross the red line anyway.

http://www.nature.com/news/ethics-taboo-genetics-1.13858

 

I've done no such thing. ElDiablo on the other hand outright refused to read my PDF links and asked me to write a summary of them. Even after fulfilling the request he still won't read the articles I posted. He is arguing in bad faith and doesn't know how to respond to research.

You are so confused you don't know how to respond to basic arguments and other people have called you out on that in this thread.

The first link in no way gives indicators of the causes of IQ differences between countries.

The opening post of this thread presents Rushton and Jensen's arguments in their "30 years of race research" paper which are addressed in the two sources I requested you to read which you refuse to respond to.

Neanderthal had larger cranial capacities than Homo Sapiens however examination of their cultural characteristics indicates that they were less intelligent as does the fact that they were wholly replaced by Homo Sapiens with slight interbreeding, not enough by the way to be of any evolutionary significance. No study has found a relationship between Neanderthal ancestry in humans and cranial size.

Differences in brain size within the human species are very small and there is no evidence that larger brains afford greater mental power in humans nor could the reported differences in brain size account for racial differences in IQ.

 

You mean you haven't posted long copy paste posts and emails from various professors and I haven't called you on it in the past on numerous occasions for being unable to explain it in your own words?

BTW, is a 8-10% difference in brain volume between whites and blacks very small? How do you know?

I'm also curious for you to support your claim that neanderthal admixture had no real significance in any current human population group.

I also see you repeat your discredited claim regarding brain volume and iq when it's been shown to you the correlation between iq and brain volume is around 0.35 (not 0.20 per Jelte Wichert's fantastic claim).

 

Interestingly, there are sources saying that maternal stress can cause an offspring to have 10-20 IQ points below average. Black women suffer a great about of stress.

http://www.theroot.com/articles/cul...ress_causes_accelerated_biological_aging.html

 

The authors attribute the internal health of blacks on stress induced accelerated aging rather than poorer lifestyles without elaborating on their decision to choose one over the other.

 

I have always been able to explain my position in my own words I only enhance my position with quotes from studies and emails. What ElDiablo does is search the internet for links that appear to support his claims. He often does this out of context and without addressing the actual topic at hand. For example even though I have repeatedly told him that the subject of debate between us is race, genetics and intelligence he continually makes the argument for the strong heritability of intelligence as if that is the real subject which is baffling when you consider how simplistic addressing the actual topic should be. In the rare moment where he stays on topic such as when he cited a blog entry that supported Rushton I countered that with articles that I requested he read and he outright refused to read them! He made excuses not to read them, he asked me to summarize them in my own words and when I did so he still didn't read them.

He's being incredibly dishonest and illogical. Despite your comparison and assertions you have never had that problem with me and you know it.

Just look at the Wichert's quote. The alleged difference in cranial capacity between Blacks and Whites represents only a small fraction of the standard deviation in the range of brain size.

The average degree of Neanderthal admixture in modern human populations such as Europeans is estimated to be about 1-4%. This is statistically very small and certainly would not be enough admixture to account for any differences in the anatomy of the average modern human which differs notably from Neanderthal.

You're confusing the correlation between cranial capacity and IQ (0.20) and brain volume and IQ (0.33). Wicherts cites both figures and shows that even when assuming a causal relationship between brain size and IQ only a tiny fraction of the Black-White IQ gap can be explained by the difference in brain size. Mind you Wicherts does not accept Rushton's figures for brain size differences between races because they are based on outdated studies rather than contemporary MRI data. He's only saying that when taken at face value the reported brain size differences by Rushton are way too small to account for any meaningful difference in IQ. If you read the quote carefully and do the math you should be able to see that Wicherts is correct.

 

Point is that black women suffer from extreme amounts of stress. There could be a case made that maternal stress among black woman is one of the main reasons for the IQ gap.

 

Irregardless of whether a case could be made or not....no case for that has been made. No doubt we could all think of different possibilities.....yet we must rely on genetic research to point the way....aka to conduct studies on the various possibilities.

Now we can all offer 'opinions' on the matter of stress and how it may or may not relate to the i.q. gap....personally I think it could in some cases make some women perform poorer on the test--- if their personal stress is to the level of interfering with their cognitive functions....but this would apply to all races....unless one can prove that black women are under more stress in a general sense than all other women from all other races.....which is doubtful....in fact they may be under less stress....so this is all pure conjecture...no data that I have seen supports any of this.

What some are saying is that they believe genetics determines intelligence except in the case of Africa....where they say culture/environment is the main determinant. This is fallacious as well as illogical....if the genes determine intelligence in one group of humans(it has been proven to do so)then it determines intelligence in all races....though culture/environment does play a role in intelligence --it is a minor role.

A good example of this environment/culture causation vs. heritability can be seen quite clearly in the case of the smartest man in America...scored the highest score ever seen on a i.q. test....over 200 and he was born into poverty....for half of his life he only did menial work....but eventually his innate intelligence was able to display itself and he engaged in activities that proved his high intelligence....the intelligence was always there...it just never had an opportunity to perform or demonstrate its presence for quite a few years.

 

Most talk about the i.q. gap between blacks and whites....but are there any studies regarding the i.q. gap between asians and europeans?

 

No one is saying that. What we are saying is that the cause of racial differences in IQ is 100% environmental. Now how do we know this? There is a lot of evidence for this claim. If you look at the research of Nisbett you see that there are natural experiments verified by the racial admixture studies which show that degree of European ancestry does not highly correlate with high African-American IQ. The racial IQ gap is also getting smaller. As African-American environment improves academic success improves which is what one would predict if the cause of the gap was entirely environmental.

Then there is the fact that there is no evolutionary basis for predicting that there would be genetic differences related to intelligence between races in the first place. As Graves explains multiple genes impact intelligence. While individual differences in intelligence are strongly impacted by genetic differences and intelligence is highly heritable within families there is no reason to assume that genes that control intelligence are unevenly distributed across populations. Population genetics research predicts that a polygenic trait like intelligence would have genes that are scattered across populations with no average differentiation in the trait. Natural selection for intelligence is also favored around the world, meaning that because intelligence is an important trait (having equal survival value) it would be beneficial for all populations within a species to have the trait. It would not be different from population to population as adaptive traits like skin color are.

This quote from a book I read explains all of what I am saying:

 

Irregardless of whether or not the black vs. white i.q. gap is narrowing.....the school performance gap between blacks and white(which is much easier to prove)is not narrowing.

http://www.parapundit.com/archives/003899.html

So what is it about the environment in Africa that may cause the african/european i.q. gap?

 

While there is still a school performance gap including differences in standardized test scores, high school drop out rates, high school completion rates, college acceptance and retention rates etc. ability tests over recent decades have gradually improved for Blacks in America. These ability tests strongly correlate with IQ.

Poverty and poor education standards.

 

There is something odd about the way you presented the question. You start off with the blacks and whites in the US, but then ask about the African environment????? Next, the link you presented talks about testing and not IQ. Lastly, which IQ type(s) are you referring to in regards to Africans and Europeans?

 

I don't need to others have already done so

 

Considering the fact I have made no mention of PC you are yet again vomiting what you desire to be true rather than what is, which is the standard retreat of those with nothing but confirmation bias as their argument.

 

You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding the arguments of your opponents. Intelligence is determined by genetics and environment. I have said this many times. IQ differences between nations and demographic groups are caused entirely by the environment. I have provided plenty of evidence for this which you have not addressed. You examples are meaningless. The fact is that poverty and poor education is more of a problem in Africa than it is other places and this affects the average IQ of these countries.

 

Stress or the effects of unhealthy life styles?

And how do you distinguish stress on your body from smoking or poor diet to a heavy workload?

Am I supposed to believe my lying eyes that Whites - with lower unemployment - work less than the welfare bums in the projects?

 

Lynn's 2006 Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis[34] is the largest review of the global cognitive ability data. The book organises the data by nine global regions,[verification needed] surveying 620 published studies from around the world, with a total of 813,778 tested individuals. Lynn's meta-analysis lists the average IQ scores of East Asians (105), Europeans (99), the Inuit (91), Southeast Asians and indigenous peoples of the Americas each (87), Pacific Islanders (85), Middle Easterners (including South Asians and North Africans) (84), East and West Africans (67), Australian Aborigines (62) and Bushmen and Pygmies (54).[35][36][37]

In a 2010 paper about IQ in Italy,[46] Lynn contends that IQs are highest in the north (103 in Friuli-Venezia Giulia) and lowest in the south (89 in Sicily) and correlated with average incomes, and with stature, infant mortality, literacy and education. The lack of any actual IQ test data in this paper was criticised.[47] According to him "the lower IQ in southern Italy may be attributable to genetic admixture with populations from the Near East and North Africa". In the same way, he thinks that this "also accounts for the IQs of around 90 for several countries in the Balkans whose populations are of partly European and partly Near Eastern origin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lynn#Race_differences_in_intelligence

 

Really? You've recently claimed the differences in racial IQ is due to different teaching methods and your fall back was that you don't know what these methods are because you have not finished reading an author's book.

How do you maintain you can support your claims in your own words when you don't have a defense for at least one of your claims?

And remember how you've been able to explain racial brain volume differences in your own words?

How is it Northeast Asians have larger brain volume than Whites?

Please explain, in your own words.

Dishonest? Like repeating problematic claims by Nisbett regarding his omission of various sources from Korean adoption studies to inter-family head size and IQ?

Based on this source http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0013642 - table 3 - using MRI technology, Whites have a brain volume that is 9% larger than Blacks.

Is having a 9% average larger brain volume insignificant?

You're making unsubstantiated claims. Even if 1-4% of Eurasian DNA is neanderthal, how do you know it is insignificant?

Have you read more recent research on the amount of neanderthal genes humans have?

http://www.sci-news.com/otherscienc...neanderthal-genes-modern-human-dna-01734.html

Actually, Wicherts' figure is off because he uses the 0.20 correlation coefficient instead of the 0.35 correlation coefficient.

If he also takes into account the MRI study showing a 97.6 mL differences in Black-White brain volume his data is even further off.

(97.6/130)*0.35*15 = 3.94

3.94 > 1.8

Wicherts is off by two fold.

 

We all know that intelligence is determined by genetics and environment....where you appear coinfused is you do not appear to know which one is the dominant influence......or perhaps you just do not want to say.......at least in the case of Africa--- which you seem to think is a 'special case'.

So, therefore..............regarding Africa and I will try and make this question as precise as possible so there is no coinfusion..............In africa what percentage of intelligence do you believe is determined by genes and what percent do you believe is due to the environment....that is about as simple as I can make it.

 

Actually what I said is that East Asian and Ashkenazi Jewish differences in their strengths and weaknesses are due to differences in learning styles caused by different teaching methods and not differences in genetics. Admittedly this is a claim I heard from Nisbett and haven't explored it in detail so I will need to read his book where he says he has evidence for all of this.

Now how does that compare to ElDiablo and is unwillingness to read sources?

I've been able to explain most of my claims in my own words and when I read the appropriate information I will be able to explain that one as well.

I am not familiar with any studies using modern methods that established differences in brain volume between Northeast Asians and Europeans.

From an evolutionary perspective it seems that natural selection favors more spherical crania in a cold climate. This would explain why Neanderthal have larger crania than modern humans (they lived longer in a cold climate) and might explain a slighter larger crania for Northeast Asians over other populations but it does NOT mean that Northeast Asians are smarter than other groups because of crania size.

I don't think it is accurate to say that Nisbett omitted the studies from his research. Has anyone ever asked him about them? Perhaps I will do this. First I will need to read his book to assess all of his information and then I will email him and ask him some questions.

First of all the authors admit that the biological implications of their findings is unclear. Secondly the sample size of the populations under study is too small to be representative of African and European populations nor are the authors even trying to claim that there are significant brain volume differences between the populations they studied. Is a 9% difference in brain volume significant? No, it isn't. Not when you consider that racialists claim that racial differences in IQ are 80% due to genetics and 20% due to environment and that the genetic contribution is primarily caused by differences in brain size.

The figures provided by Rushton for brain size by race indicate an 8% difference in size which leaves 91% of the IQ gap left unexplained even if we use the figure of 0.33 for the correlation coefficient between brain volume and IQ provided by McDaniel.

No, I'm not. Here's a source:

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals/interbreeding

Various analyses have examined the amount of Neanderthal contribution to modern human mtDNA. One analysis was unable to find positive evidence for interbreeding, but could not rule out a small genetic contribution (Serre et al. 2004). Other researchers (Plagnol and Wall 2006, Wall et al. 2009) looked at the pattern of variation in modern human DNA to determine whether modern humans mixed with more ancient populations. Their recent models are consistent with between 1-4% archaic-modern admixture in European and American populations, and 1.5% admixture in East Asian populations. Nested clade phylogenetic analysis shows evidence of three expansions out of Africa at 1.9 Ma, 650,000 years, and 130,000 years, which is consistent with the admixture between ancient and modern populations rather than complete replacement (Templeton 2002, 2005, 2007). Other researchers contend that factors such as population structure within Africa could have preserved old haplotypes and produced the pattern found in the nested clade analysis (Satta and Takahata 2002).

Because most of the genes would be non-coding allowing for only a few genetic variants relevant to any aspect of human biology. The higher the percentage the greater the quantity of genes related to human anatomy there would be. It's like a White person being 1/32nd or 1/64th Black (about 3% or 1% Sub-Saharan African ancestry). The less admixture there is statistically the less influence the genes have.

That's interesting but as I said only a few genetic variants would by relevant to any aspect of human biology and there would be virtually no impact on anatomy.

Actually he uses both and the figure provided by McDaniel is 0.33. I don't know where you're getting 0.35 by it's still statistically insignificant.

Even if we use your figures 3.94 IQ points is still only 11.9% of the White European-Black African IQ gap. You still have around 88% of the IQ gap unexplained by differences in brain size. The alleged differences in brain size are still too small to account for differences in IQ.

I didn't say Africa is a special case. I said differences in IQ between nations and demographic groups were entirely caused by environment. You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding the difference in argument over the heritability of intelligence and the cause of group differences in IQ. You continually conflate the two which is incredibly strange because it is a very simple concept to follow.

In Africa and everywhere else both genetics and environment are important factors. Percentage estimates do not matter. Both factors are important and you need both factors to have high intelligence. Heritability estimates put the percentage at about 0.50 (50% genes and 50% environment) with the role of genetics becoming more important in adulthood on the order of about 0.75 (75% genes and 25% environment) so genes become more important as you get older however all of that is irrelevant to the cause of group differences in IQ which you are having extreme difficulty understanding.

Let me put it in the simplest terms I can. What is the cause of group differences in IQ? There are 3 possibilities.

1. Genetic determinism - The cause is 100% genetic.

2. Environmental determinism - The cause is 100% Environment.

3. Hereditarianism - The cause is partially genetic and partially environment.

Possibility #1 is almost universally rejected by scientists. I don't know any credible scholar who says that racial differences in IQ are caused solely by genes. Possibility #2 is the one held by Egalitarians. There are no genetic differences related to intelligence between races and IQ differences are entirely caused by environment. This is the position I support and I have given you my reasoning for why. Possibility #3 is the one proposed by racialists that genes and environment affect racial differences in IQ. Strong hereditarians like Rushton and Jensen propose an 80% genetic and 20% environmental cause. I oppose this position because a partial genetic cause is not based on any sort of direct evidence that has scientific credibility and I have given you my reasons for holding this position.

That's it in a nutshell.