*sigh*
>>28, >>33
Taken from the Race Thread
>>335
"Finally, you are never going to get around the race thing with your talk of haplotypes and allele frequencies. With your very arguement you operate under the false "if-then" assumption that: IF race is a surrogate for unknown genetic mechanisms, THEN observed racial differences in IQ and "achievement" can be explained by genetic differences. I just don't see how you can arrive to that conclusion with all of the blank spots in our understanding of human traits controlled by many genes in concert with environmental factors. I.E - INTELLIGENCE.
On top of all that, your "pan-ethinic" allele frequencies do not casually mean that there is a clear pattern of ethnic differences in allele freqencies alone. They definately can't be absolutely co-related to different phenotypes- don't know where you're getting the data that says that. Anyway, by definition ethnic groups are defined socially FIRST- not biologically (which comes SECOND). The whole thing is a poor effort on your part to biologically define race- but guess what? It doesn't exist. The very term "negroid" greatly over-generalizes and over-simplies a contenient of people who have the greatest number of haplotypes in the world. Different allele frequences only mean that a different parts of a continuum has been sampled.
You can't divide IQ among "racial lines" that don't exist. IQ isn't a good universal guage of intelligence. You have no proof of your ancestors IQs, but considering that we're judging them based on the modern IQ test, we know they'd fail. You have no proof that leaps in civilization required a high IQ.
Finally, you can never come at intelligence under the idea that genetics have absolute control. This is fundamentally wrong. It's always both nurture and nature. Always. So your entire argument is bunk based only on that.