Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

[Great_Antibob]

@New_Deal_Democrat

That does not mean that the central argument is invalid.

But it doesn’t prove it, either.

You seem to continue to misunderstand this fundamental point.

Whether or not an argument is valid, you still have to provide proof of it. While I understand you think you have proof, you don’t actually have any.

And pet theories are fine to have, but you actually have to prove them. Believable scenarios don’t constitute proof. Your example of the Imperial Exam is a perfect example.

While it is a (wildly implausible, actually) possible scenario, you haven’t shown any evidence it changes underlying genetics. Just a supposition that it does. That’s fine as a starting point, but it hardly provides any actual evidence.

In any case, the thread is itself titled “Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic”.

But you contradict yourself elsewhere when trying to explain a difference over the course of a single century:

@New_Deal_Democrat

The criminal justice system was harsher then. Also, the family structure was stronger.

So, apparently, “race differences” are largely genetic, except when they’re not. Care to explain the contradiction? Are race differences largely genetic or are there cases where social and economic factors overwhelm them (meaning race differences are largely NOT genetic in those cases)?

They are mutually contradictory positions, yet you seem to take them both simultaneously.

Your argument style is basically that of a gish gallop.

Further, it’s tiresome when you don’t even respond to any arguments you have no answer for.

We’ve repeatedly stated that there’s no genetic basis for grouping a portion of humanity into various races. You disagree and requested what would be accepted as the evidence for such divisions. It was provided, yet you did not provide any answer.

Here’s the example:

@New_Deal_Democrat

What would you accept as genetic evidence? If you cannot or will not answer that question you are impossible to reason with.

@iiandyiiii

The definition of “race” you use is genetically invalid. But populations do have validity in genetics- so this is the evidence that I would accept:

First, an identification of all the genes that are involved in intelligence (or at least the most important genes) and propensity for criminality, and exactly how these genes are involved (which ones of them are active when “turned on” or combined with specific other genes, and so on), and how they relate to environment and upbringing. Then detailed, broad genetic testing of various populations (not races), showing that certain populations have significantly varying numbers of these genes. Then detailed, broad surveys and testing that shows that the previous analyses have predictive power.

You’ve made several posts since then, but NONE answering this question.

So, you have your definition as to what provides genetic evidence, but you have presented no such evidence.

Care to do so now?