>>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?