Race exists.

Prove me wrong.

Obviously. The question is how relevant it is.

>>2
Relevant to what, intelligence?
Standardised IQ tests prove discrepancies between races quite well.
And to faggots that repeat the media lie that IQ test scores don't measure anything, they measure g, which is highly heritable.
Genetics is really irrelevant to proving racial differences in intelligence exist, the data gathered is enough. But, in case you're about to play an argument from ignorance, http://www.halfsigma.com/2007/10/race-difference.html enjoy.

>>3
Defensive much?

>>4
Nah, I anticipated your (?) response.
Relevant to what, again?

>>5
Relevant to any given thing people invoke it for. I'm not the OP, so I don't know what he had in mind.

In the case of IQ specifically, I (being >>2 and >>4) personally don't have a problem with accepting that if certain ethnic groups can be more prone to certain cancers (for example), they can also have a higher or lower IQ on average, but to invoke race as the only factor is stupid.
There are plenty of scientists who realise this without necessarily having fallen victim to Gould's straw men, but there also plenty of dumbfuck run-of-the-mill racists who don't.

>>6
Well, race is not the only factor, but it is the overwhelming one in g-loaded IQ test scores, and changing your IQ is *very* hard and won't happened unless you didn't know how to read, are malnourished and several factors that don't matter. I can look for some studies proving that quite easily, Jensen and Rushton did some lately.
Starting from a 80% nature v. 20% nurture model would be good for now ;-)

So there are some genes that are responsible for intelligence. Fine. Then how about the genetic definition of races?

What gene, or what set of genes, determines a race? What's the relationship between the race genes and the intelligence genes? Are they essentially related, or are they just statistically correlated? Is it like, if you have a black gene, you can't have a high-intelligence gene also by nature? Or is it just different liklihood, like if you have a black gene, your chance of getting a high-intelligence is lower? In either way, how exactly are the two kinds of genes related other than the superficial statistical correlation?

If intelligence is so important, why don't they just create a new set of human categories based on intelligence alone, the very quality that they are most concerned about, and get get rid of races anyway.

IQ tests are based primarily on white society's idea of intelligence. Thus, it is biased against people from other cultures.

Chances are, white people would score lower on an intelligence test developed by Kalahari bushmen than Kalahari bushmen would. Does that mean that white people are stupider?

Of course now. Just that they are less familiar with the knowledge base.

>>7
I can pull numbers out of my ass too!
Your 80% figure is bullshit. It doesn't line up with, for example, the observation that blacks in Botswana on average score 20 points lower than blacks in South Africa, despite the fact that they're for all intents and purposes the same ethnic group.

>>9
And now actually look at IQ testing as it's done today, instead of arguing against a straw man from half a century ago.

>>9
Same old bullshit I hear from liberals all the time; that "intelligence is relative" and there's no objective way to measure intelligence. Intelligence is not the same thing as being apt for your environment - your bushmen argument fails. Intelligence is objective. Intelligence is abstract reasoning, g.

If intelligence is relative then you can argue any animal is more intelligent than a human, because it acts "smarter" for its environment. Sure a crocodile might be a better hunter than a human in the wild, and be "smarter" in catching its prey and survive longer. It doesn't mean a crocodile is more intelligent.

On your accusations of test bias, why do Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, and Nordic whites score higher on IQ tests mainly made and standardized to the British population? If environment is so important why do undeducated Chinese people living on $100 a month still score higher than Whites?

>>8
Your creationist argument is obsolete. DNA studies can now determine race with 100% certainty...
http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html Here's how it's defined.

Your questions are retarded, and I doubt you're serious, you just want to deny races for your ideology. Some of them are even answered at the blog itself and you can check HapMap for yourself.

If intelligence is so important, why don't they just create a new set of human categories based on intelligence alone, the very quality that they are most concerned about, and get get rid of races anyway.
Upon breeding, regression towards the mean occurs. This is the reason why seemingly smart Blacks ... tend to have the same dumbarse children as the majority.
And an example with race mixing: If an 120IQ White breeds with an 120IQ White, the output tends to be intellectually superior to an 120IQ White breeding with an 120IQ Black.
That being said, intelligence is not the only trait I'd 'save.'

Upon breeding, regression towards the mean occurs.
If that were always true, evolution couldn't happen. Eugenics are bullshit, but that's not the reason why.

>>13
If that were always true, evolution couldn't happen.
That's a straw man.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
June 2005 Vol. 11, Section 9

Sample of 900 Whites, 500 Blacks:
White Sibling at 120: Mean near 110
Black Sibling at 120: Mean near 100
White Sibling at 70: Mean near 85
Black Sibling at 70: Mean near 78

Eugenics are bullshit, but that's not the reason why.
Of course that's not the reason why, the reason is your fucking libtard religion.

To answer OP, he majority of evolutionary biologists accept human races, see: Lieberman, Leonard; Hampton, Raymond E.; Littlefield, Alice; and Hallead, Glen. "Race in Biology and Anthropology: A Study of College Texts and Professors." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 29, No. 3: 301-321.

ITT 14-year-olds and social darwinist wannabes with a 1930s understanding of biology at best.

>>16
nigger and/or libfag

>>17
It's interesting how it's always conservatives who can't separate facts and real science from their ideology. Global warming, evolution, and now the classic, eugenics.

>>18
It's interesting how you're a nigger and/or libfag.

>>12
What research showed that "regression towards the mean" occurs for human races? What exactly is causing this if it really does anyway?

Do the race genes affect the intelligence genes? If so, how and in what manner? Please explain the mechanism in genetic terms.

What if the parents, grandparents, and all the ancestors of the IQ 120 Black person have IQ 120 also?

>>19
why are you in a science board

>>17
>>19
trollthread attracts trolls

>>12
That link is "the race FAQ"? What the fuck is that?  I then looked into the name on the site, John Goodrum:
John Goodrum (1960–2002) was an African American transgender civil rights activist.

Some kind of freak who thought he was a chick.

>>14
evolution hapens because creatures need to adapt to their enviorment
since the human races enviorment is pretymuch stable and spans the globe theres nowhere for people in difrent areas to evolve since noone dies of due to cold ect. so the human races will just converge into one species because non are superior to otheres

>>24
Dear god, what? A lack of selective pressure means evolution happens at the base mutation rate, so if anything it speeds up and humans would diverge at a monstrous rate.
Good thing our environment isn't stable, there are plenty of selective pressures left, and your premise is bullshit.

>>18
Sorry, it's ALWAYS liberals who can't separate facts and real science from their shitty pipe dreams. They smugly think they are on the right side of science in everything partly due to their approval and influence in academia since the 60s, and partly due to their being severely retarded and denounce anything else as pseudo-scientific (without having a clue what the word means), non-credible (because the only people that are credible for them are those that support their faggotry), or "racist".
Global warming,
Libfags made it too political.
evolution,
Libfags distorted it for their ideology.
and now the classic, eugenics.
Libfags push the opposite, dysgenics, through the welfare state at an idiotic rate.
>>20
What research showed that "regression towards the mean" occurs for human races? What exactly is causing this if it really does anyway?
It occurs in genetics all the time, not just at IQ test scores... such as at height. I posted one study ... I could look for more. You should read Rushton's book, here's an abridged version: http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf
The full book is much better sourced though, and much better. There's a chapter on that IIRC, but he calls it "average" instead of "mean".
Or Jensen's magnum opus, "The g Factor", he talks about it a lot there a lot.
We've been knowing about regression towards the mean since Francis Galton wrote about it, heh.

Do the race genes affect the intelligence genes? If so, how and in what manner? Please explain the mechanism in genetic terms.
I don't really understand what you mean by race genes. Some high intelligence genes occur with either greater or lesser frequency in different racial groups. If by race genes you mean genes such as the ones regulating skin colour (which, btw, are a very very small part of racial differences), no they don't directly affect high intelligence genes.

What if the parents, grandparents, and all the ancestors of the IQ 120 Black person have IQ 120 also?
Then that means that person would have unexplained(able?) superior genes with a distinct lack of variation, and would aid creationists in disproving human evolution and our current life history theory?

>>23
The guy who wrote the site is most likely a different person. Is an ad hominem the best you can do?

http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/520.html
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/weblog/523.html

>>26
I'm talking about genetic mechanism here, not mere statistics. For if the statistical correlation between race and IQ is not being caused by some fundamental genetic mechanism, then that means that it's just a product of chance.

So what is the genetic factor that is supposedly responsible for the apparent correlation between race and IQ?

Are the high-intelligence genes genetically incompatible with the black genes?

Or, is there some third gene that is somehow preventing the high-intelligence genes from associating with the black genes?

What is the genetic cause here if the correlation is not a mere product of chance?

>I don't really understand what you mean by race genes.

By "race genes" I mean whatever set of genes that are supposed to determine the race of a person (since race can be defined in genetic terms according to yourself).

>Then that means that person would have unexplained(able?) superior genes with a distinct lack of variation, and would aid creationists in disproving human evolution and our current life history theory?

I'm asking about the "regression towards the mean" that is going to occur for the offsprings from a couple of black persons thus characterized (i.e. ancestors all being highly-intelligent). Will a couple of such black persons produce highly-intelligent kids as frequently as a couple of like white persons? If so, then the "regression towards the mean" is resulting only from the intelligence-related genetic background of the persons and not race. If not, why?

Every race is subhuman (well, logic fails but you get the idea).

Race cars exists, therefor race exists. QED.

Asians do better due to cultural reasons, not genetic ones. There's more societal pressure to do well. It's not economics or genetics, it's culture.

There is no biological evidence suggesting a difference in intelligence between races. Genetic differences between individuals of the same race are greater than those between people of different races.

Go back to ranting about how much your 10th grade class sucks because you go to a ghetto school where no one else realizes the supreme awesomeness of Dragon Force and yelling memes at random.

/thread

>>31
Just kill yourself. Now.

"Oh shit! My argument has been trumped! Time for NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERD RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE"

KILL UR SELF OMG GTFO OMG TITS OR GTFO OMF OMF GTFO LOL!

>>31

The genetics that determine our personalities and intelligence are what ultimately create our culture, not the other way around.  If you read the pdf from >>26, the author presents an interesting theory on what causes these differences in the race.

To summarize, the author uses the r-K scale to explain the differences between the three races.  On the 'r' end of the scale, high birth rate and low child care are seen.  A mother spider laying hundreds of thousands of eggs, and providing no parenting after they hatch is an example.  On the other end, 'K' type species give birth to few children, but spend great amounts of energy raising them.  Humans are a prime example of K-strategists.


The climate and environment of Africa made a high birth rate, low child care style of child rearing an advantage.  Sporadic events like disease and drought meant that no matter how much a parent cared for a child, there were a lot of things that would kill off offspring regardless.  This more tropical climate also made it easier acquire food and shelter, making creative/inventive thinking less of an advantage.

Whites and asians on the other hand, who inhabited Europe and Northern Asia faced a much different climate.  Sudden events like disease, which would kill unlucky individuals regardless of intelligence, were no longer much of a concern.  Instead, the ability to see and exploit much more limited resources was needed.  Children demanded more care, and matured slower in order to develop all the skills needed to survive in a frigid environment.

The genetics that determine our personalities and intelligence are what ultimately create our culture, not the other way around.
Lol genetic determinism. It doesn't quite work that way.

Your argument about climate is cute, but not supported by the evidence.

>>35

Once again, read http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/Race_Evolution_Behavior.pdf or is 40 pages of reading a bit too heavy for you?  The article lists plenty of sources which say our mental processes are affected more by our genetics than our environment

There is plenty of evidence that blacks are very much r-strategists when compared to whites and asians.