Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

No, that is the point that you have completely, utterly, and totally failed to make, despite hundreds of attempts.

Let’s be clear here. From a purely scientific, biological point of view, the following statements are most likely true, meaning that I think most biologists would accept them without demanding proof:
-there are at least some genetic differences between racial groups, even if they are no more than those responsible for the superficial phenotypic differences.
-it is likely that some of the variation in intelligence amongst human beings is at least partially genetic in nature.
-the causes of the full variation in intelligence are likely to be numerous and varied, including socioeconomic variation and cultural pressures.

Let us accept, for the sake of argument, that every word you have said in this thread is the gospel truth. I can’t be more generous than that. Even accepting that, what has not ever been proven - indeed, what you have completely failed to provide ANY evidence for, are these statements:
-The observed differences in intelligence between racial groups are genetic in nature. That is, the influence of genetic variation overwhelms the effects of other non-genetic factors.
And this, I think, is the most important one:
-The genetic variation underlying the variation in intelligence levels segregates with and correlates to the genetic variation underlying phenotypic racial differences.

In other words, you have in no way even tried to provide evidence that the differences you claim to see everywhere you look is genetic in nature. And even if it IS genetic, you have no evidence at ALL that those genetic differences are confined within racial lines.

Now, from a scientist’s point of view, here’s what you would need to do. Start delving into any of the many published databases of genetic variation. The HapMap project would be a good place to start, as they have mapped millions of SNPs across a wide range of ethnic populations. You would need to do a genome-wide association study to identify specific genetic changes that correlate to higher or lower intelligence (we’ll ignore, for the moment, the overlooked fact that no one takes IQ tests at all seriously in the biological world). These changes are unlikely to be causative, but they would identify regions of interest within the genome that could be studied more in-depth.

Once you’ve found a few dozen candidate genes that may be influencing intelligence, you’d have to investigate what those genes do, and where and when they’re expressed, hoping that they’d at least be important in the brain. Once you’ve identified specific alleles of specific genes, you’d have to then do some population genetics to show that those alleles segregate within racial lines.

Until and unless that work is done (and, to be clear, I suspect it would fall apart completely somewhere along the way, showing that those associations do not exist), NOTHING HAS BEEN PROVEN. We don’t know anything for sure, and you don’t either. You can point to your little studies all you want, but none of them show anything more than correlation - and as people keep showing, the majority don’t even do that much. You cannot dissect out correlation from causation without experimental evidence that simply does not exist.

Great to have a working biologist here, thanks Smeghead.

What is really sad is that many of the “examples” NDD is referring are applicable to health matters, not intelligence; on top of that many of the researchers NDD uses as cites already explained, many times even in the cites themselves, how their research should not be used for societal problems. And virtually all do not support the recommend “solutions” that some like NDD think that they are getting when they misrepresent that research.

Will you marry me ?
If not, will this most beautiful of verbal smackdowns marry me ?

Seriously? In the first place, the IQ test in general is probably not a very good test for assessing intelligence as it can be affected by education level, language barriers, environment, etc. Any study which bases its conclusions on IQ testing must be taken with a grain of salt.

Two thousand years ago, the observations of the planets did not give evidence that proved that heliocentrism was more correct than geocentrism.

In any case, your posts on this thread are Exhibit A in rebuttal to the proposition that belief necessarily implies fact.

Evidently so, given that the author’s statements directly undercut your claim:

We’re talking about people who, until relatively recently, were primarily hunter-gatherers – the sort of people your thesis predicts would be mired in stupidity for lack of proper evolutionary driving forces.

It is, hoever, unusual for a theory with pretensions of intellectual seriousness to have no answer for a obvious and fatally undercutting observation.

You’re now claiming that a mere five centuries is sufficient for your alleged genetic effects (or the pizza’s free!).

Five centuries and an effect applicable to only a minority of the populaton. Hokay…

Oh, and I forgot to mention that once again, you have totally failed to respond to any of the criticisms I made back in post #189.

This is a classic tactic of the pseudoscientist: always remain on the offensive. When someone shows that you are wrong about something, do not respond. Simply ignore it and move on to a different argument. Keep throwing out different fallacious arguments, forcing your opponents to respond to point after point after point, while you blissfully rise above it all, not allowing any of their “logic” or “facts” to penetrate.

Also known as a Gish Gallop.

nm

You’ve linked to this page at least twice in this thread. Do you have any other cites that corroborate this evidence?

Forgetting for the moment about how well IQ tests measure intelligence in the first place.

This is not an accurate statement. It appears to be based on a dramatic misunderstanding of the meaning and measurement of IQ.

If it were true, everyone would have a low IQ in Kindergarten and dramatically higher IQs after finishing high school or college. This isn’t the case.

Since the measurement of IQ relies on reference to norms, this makes no sense. Can you point me to the source for the transnational cross cultural norms by which I might convert raw scores to world-referenced scaled scores?

The imperial exam and confucian ideals were shared by South Korea, Japan and Vietnam. These are also the only cultures taht historically used chopsticks.

I think you underestimate the sophistication of the imperial exams. They were more than rote memorization.

I’m TELLING you its the chopsticks. Using chopsticks improves your smart gene so your kids will be smart. Thats why Asian-American kids who can’t use chopsticks still do well on the SATs.

The Imperial exam was mimicked in South Korea, Japan and Vietnam. But that was secondary to chopsticks. Chopstick use is obviously the most important factor in improving IQ, most Ashkenazi Jews I know use chopsticks.

Well, India doesn’t make many Buddhists anymore just like Cupertino California doesn’t make many iPhones anymore.

So when they got rid of all the Jews, did that improve or diminish their average IQ? Maybe they all took the impreial exam.

For a time, horseriding was an element of the impreial exam (the purpose was to limit the imperial exam to classes that could ride horses (peasants could not), the pretext was that government officials would have to be able to travel quickly and lead local military). It wasn’t always the meritocracy that we might have hoped. Oh yeah and test preparation was not only more necessary for the imperial exam than any modern day exam it was financially beyond the reach of all but the very rich. Less propserous mandarins taughts their children themselves.

Maybe we can administer the imperial exam to blacks. that’ll make em smart (I still think that you’d get better results if you forced them to eat with chopsticks).

You would do well on the Imperial Exam. You can have many wives. Can you use chopsticks?

I have not made hundreds of attempts. What I have pointed out is that during the Roman Empire Jews were not considered to be of superior intelligence, but now the Ashkenazim very clearly are.

You are simply wrong. In a large population there are more mutations, consequently there are more beneficial mutations. These spread to more organisms.

Are you arguing that the average IQ for an Ashkenazi Jew is not 112?

Blue eyes are caused by one allele. This one allele spread through Europe and parts of northern Africa and the Near East in about six thousand years. High and low intelligence is caused by many alleles. If one favorable allele can spread so quickly, the many alleles that make up superior can collectively spread much faster.

The Jōmon were not ethnically the same as modern Japanese.

That’s practically Lamarckian, that is.