Professor Richard Lynn, who created the chart, argues that high IQs produce wealth, and low IQs produce poverty. Africa is rich in natural resources, but the people of Iceland, with fewer natural resources, have higher average IQs.
Although China has an average of 100, Hong Kong tops the list with 107. Taiwan weighs in at 104. Singapore tips the scale at 103. The average of 100 for mainland China can be attributed to a lower per capita gross domestic product, but as the standard of living in China improves, and as the educational system also improves we can expect the average IQs in China to improve.
Biology is only one factor that influences IQ, but it is the most important.
Nonsense. Chinese and Japanese and Vietnamese and Thais and Koreans and Filipinas are all lumped together in “Asian porn” – google it if you don’t believe me – therefore they are all the same race. What higher anthropological authority could there be?!
You are simply wrong and Rushton is a proven liar. You are dodging, weaving, and squirming to move people into or out of your “three race” claim and you cannot even get your facts correct when you try it.
So you sliced the pie based on (your opinion of who) lack of eye folds? Why is the presence of eye folds so important to your model? Why not another morphological trait? Why use any morphological traits? Why not use measurements of genetic variance directly?
And he had to invent over a third of his purported IQs to force the “data” into his claims.
It makes rather more sense that high wealth produces high IQs and poverty produces low IQs, but that would not allow the people at the top of the economic pyramid to look down on those who did not happen to have the luck, (and the weapons), to possess great wealth.
The problem with that hypothesis is that it is myopically focused on the present time. Many European countries were quite poor not that long ago. Same with many Asian countries.
Then it should be easy to show that African Americans’ IQs correlate with the amount of black/white admixture they have, since that admixture is all over the map-- anywhere from 5% to 60%. Controlling for cultural factors, of course.
The Australoid race is a broad racial classification. The concept originated with a typological method of racial classification.[1][2][3] They were described as having dark skin with wavy hair, in the case of Veddoids from South Asia and Aboriginal Australians, or hair ranging from straight to kinky in the case of Papuan, Melanesian and Negrito groups.
According to this model of classification, Australoid peoples ranged throughout Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, and India. In the mid-twentieth century an argument emerged that Australoids were linked to proto-Caucasoids.
In the out of Africa theory, the ancestors of the Australoids, the Proto-Australoids are thought to have been the first branch off from the Proto-Capoids to migrate from Africa about 60,000 BCE, migrating along the now submerged continental shelf of the northern shore of the Indian Ocean and reaching Australia about 50,000 BCE.
During historical times the Australoids in India were conquered by Indo Europenas migrating from Europe. That is why major Indian languages like Hindi, and Urdo have similarities to European languages.
Whites in the United States have average IQs of 100. Orientals have averages of 106. Ashkenazic Jews have averages of 112. Blacks in the United States, average about 20 percent of European ancestry, and IQs of 85. Blacks in Africa have average IQs of 70.
Prehistorical times, really, and the Aryans migrated to India from the steppes of Central Asia, not Europe. Other branches migrated westward from the steppes to Europe, and others southward to Persia/Iran.
You talk of “Australoids” having dark skin with wavy hair and “Veddoids” having hair ranging from straight to kinky. So then it’s safe to say that: you use various choice morphological traits to lump various populations/groups together with your model of humanity (and guess when they “split”).
Why do you choose the morphological traits that you choose? Why these three: hair form, eye shape, and skin colour? Why are these your preferred morphological markers? Why not height? or genetic similarity or gene variance?
Trust me, amigo, you are not going to teach me anything about genetics and human migration.
I’m asking you to demonstrate that there are populations of dark skinned Indians who are more genetically related to Australians than they are to other populations in and around India.
If poverty produces low IQs why is it that Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe, who were poor when they came to the United States during the turn of the last century produced children and grandchildren who distinguished themselves intellectually? Why is it that after one or two generations Oriental Americans usually earn more than white Americans?
The same island contains Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Blacks are 95 percent of Haiti.
There are many interesting ways that humans differ (genetically -and its morphological results). From ability to digest milk, body shape, eye colour, hair colour, disease resistance, etc.
Why not use any of these traits as your markers? Why is (your personal judgement of) hair form, skin colour, and eye shape the most important? Why do you use one and not the others? Why do you use any of them?
The answer is quite obvious. You use (your own interpretation of) hair form, skin colour, and eye shape because… you want to. You put Vietnamese on one end, ignore the Thai and Burmese people and place Indians on another end because… you want to. For some reason it is important to you.
There is no other reason then that. Why do you want to divide “the global cake” this way? Why do you find that this is the most accurate depiction of humans? I don’t know.
There is one thing that we know for sure. That’s your divisions are certainly not an accurate depiction of human genetic variance. Humans differ genetically, but not in the ways you describe. What does humanity do with outdated or inaccurate models and scientific concepts? We throw them out.
No. That’s what science does with them. Humanity in general tends to be more conservative. Why else is evolution still an issue?!
“Of course, like every other man of intelligence and education I do believe in organic evolution. It surprises me that at this late date such questions should be raised.”
What really matters in determining race is a common genetic origin. This can be determined by examining DNA.
According to the out of Africa theory, which is the scientific consensus, modern humans evolved in Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. From 50,000 to 70,000 one hundred to several hundred of these left Africa. Everyone who is not a 100 percent African Negro is descended from them. They had some children by Neanderthals they encountered, so everyone who is not a Negro has some Neanderthal ancestry. These immigrants from Africa traveled in various directions, acquiring different racial characteristics.
The ancestors of the Neanderthals left Africa several hundred thousand years earlier.
Great. So you understand that any model you base on (your personal interpretation) of these choice morphological differences (hair form, skin colour, eye shape) is simply a roundabout way of measuring genetic variation? And that any human population structure model that you form is heavily reliant on:
a) the above markers you have chosen and b) the ways you have chosen to interpret their degree of importance?
So keeping this in mind…You would see that it would be more accurate to forgo using morphological markers entirely in favour for measurement involving DNA analysis. I mean why use a choice set of morphological features to infer genetic similarity/difference when one can look at DNA directly? You agree right?
But there are populations of black Africans who have a more recent common ancestor w/ non-African populations then they do with other black African populations. So how can they both be “Negro”, when one group is more closely related to “white folks” (for example) than to the other black African group?
