Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic

[Chen019]

@rat_avatar

The problem is that there is zero evidence of this, it is all just a product of wishful thinking.

All the pages of this argument are completely based in made up data and confirmation bias.

Can you even demonstrate that we are significantly different from individuals that were alive 10,000 yeas ago?

Some of the recent localized changes were discussed in the New York Times a few years ago.

Another puzzle is presented by selected genes involved in brain function, which occur in different populations and could presumably be responses to behavioral challenges encountered since people left the ancestral homeland in Africa.

But some genes have more than one role, and some of these brain-related genes could have been selected for other properties.

Two years ago, Bruce Lahn, a geneticist at the University of Chicago, reported finding signatures of selection in two brain-related genes of a type known as microcephalins, because when mutated, people are born with very small brains. Two of the microcephalins had come under selection in Europeans and one in Chinese, Dr. Lahn reported.

He suggested that the selected forms of the gene had helped improved cognitive capacity and that many other genes, yet to be identified, would turn out to have done the same in these and other populations.

Neither microcephalin gene turned up in Dr. Pritchard’s or Dr. Williamson’s list of selected genes, and other researchers have disputed Dr. Lahn’s claims. Dr. Pritchard found that two other microcephalin genes were under selection, one in Africans and the other in Europeans and East Asians.

Even more strikingly, Dr. Williamson’s group reported that a version of a gene called DAB1 had become universal in Chinese but not in other populations. DAB1 is involved in organizing the layers of cells in the cerebral cortex, the site of higher cognitive functions.

Variants of two genes involved in hearing have become universal, one in Chinese, the other in Europeans.

The emerging lists of selected human genes may open new insights into the interactions between history and genetics. “If we ask what are the most important evolutionary events of the last 5,000 years, they are cultural, like the spread of agriculture, or extinctions of populations through war or disease,” said Marcus Feldman, a population geneticist at Stanford. These cultural events are likely to have left deep marks in the human genome.

Also, the NY Times more recently covered research by Laland on gene-culture co-evolution (I note you were skeptical about changes to bone density, but that too is mentioned here):

Many genes for taste and smell show signs of selective pressure, perhaps reflecting the change in foodstuffs as people moved from nomadic to sedentary existence. Another group under pressure is that of genes that affect the growth of bone. These could reflect the declining weight of the human skeleton that seems to have accompanied the switch to settled life, which started some 15,000 years ago.

A third group of selected genes affects brain function. The role of these genes is unknown, but they could have changed in response to the social transition as people moved from small hunter-gatherer groups a hundred strong to villages and towns inhabited by several thousand, Dr. Laland said. “It’s highly plausible that some of these changes are a response to aggregation, to living in larger communities,” he said.

Though the genome scans certainly suggest that many human genes have been shaped by cultural forces, the tests for selection are purely statistical, being based on measures of whether a gene has become more common. To verify that a gene has indeed been under selection, biologists need to perform other tests, like comparing the selected and unselected forms of the gene to see how they differ.

As Jonathan Haidt notes, there are likely to be heated debates as the cost of genomic sequencing falls and more research comes in in respect of various traits:

[QUOTE**]
Recent “sweeps” of the genome across human populations show that hundreds of genes have been changing during the last 5-10 millennia in response to local selection pressures. (See papers by Benjamin Voight, Scott Williamson, and Bruce Lahn). No new mental modules can be created from scratch in a few millennia, but slight tweaks to existing mechanisms can happen quickly, and small genetic changes can have big behavioral effects, as with those Russian foxes. We must therefore begin looking beyond the Pleistocene and turn our attention to the Holocene era as well – the last 10,000 years. This was the period after the spread of agriculture during which the pace of genetic change sped up in response to the enormous increase in the variety of ways that humans earned their living, formed larger coalitions, fought wars, and competed for resources and mates.**

The protective “wall” is about to come crashing down, and all sorts of uncomfortable claims are going to pour in. Skin color has no moral significance, but traits that led to Darwinian success in one of the many new niches and occupations of Holocene life — traits such as collectivism, clannishness, aggressiveness, docility, or the ability to delay gratification — are often seen as virtues or vices. Virtues are acquired slowly, by practice within a cultural context, but the discovery that there might be ethnically-linked genetic variations in the ease with which people can acquire specific virtues is — and this is my prediction — going to be a “game changing” scientific event. (By “ethnic” I mean any group of people who believe they share common descent, actually do share common descent, and that descent involved at least 500 years of a sustained selection pressure, such as sheep herding, rice farming, exposure to malaria, or a caste-based social order, which favored some heritable behavioral predispositions and not others.)

I believe that the “Bell Curve” wars of the 1990s, over race differences in intelligence, will seem genteel and short-lived compared to the coming arguments over ethnic differences in moralized traits. I predict that this “war” will break out between 2012 and 2017.
[/QUOTE]

[Chen019]

@iiandyiiii

That sounds like stuff you made up. Is it your own opinion, or do you actually have evidence that one race has “evolved faster” than any other? And how on earth is evolution “speed” measured?

Well, there is evidence that there was an increased rate of changes in response to novel environments (e.g. Williamson et al below). Although that research is at a relatively early stage and as Williamson and colleagues note their sample only looked at african-americans - there could be other changes within africa that haven’t been picked up.

Here we have presented a comprehensive scan for selective sweeps across the human genome. Several general patterns emerge from the analysis. We find much more evidence for selective sweeps in Chinese and European-American populations than in the African-American population. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that, as anatomically modern humans migrated out of sub-Saharan Africa, the novel environments they encountered imposed new selective pressures, which in turn led to an increased rate of population-specific selective sweeps [54–56]…

Considering that numerous factors suggest that selective sweeps will be much more difficult to detect in the African-American sample, compared with the non-African populations, it is premature to conclude that the rate of adaptation has increased in non-African populations.

Another factor since this paper is research on neanderthal & denisovan introgression.

[Chen019]

One interesting example is that of Australian aborigines. They appear to have adapted particularly for their unique environment.

There is now evidence, however, that one group of people may indeed have a superior mental capacity, in at least one respect, to everyone else – and some of it comes form the eight-year old Sherilee.
Sherilee has an astonishingly accurate visual memory. She scores 100 per cent on tests designed to measure how much individuals can remember of what they see. The only clue to the cause of her remarkable ability is her race: she is an aborigine, and aborigines have a proven ability to remember the exact location of objects that far exceeds that of other ethnic groups. They can find their way across deserts, locate water holes and identify animal lairs with an uncanny accuracy. They also perform about 50 per cent better on visual memory tests than, for instance, Caucasians.

What is the aborigines’ secret? To some evolutionary psychologists, the answer is relatively straightforward. The aborigines were, for about 4,000 generations, or 80,000 years, hunter-gatherers in the deserts of Australia.
That is enough time for natural selection to have worked on increasing the accuracy of aborigines’ memory, because if you could not find your way through the desert, or to the waterhole, you would starve, and so would your children. In the competition to stay alive, an accurate memory would – to put it mildly – have been an advantage.

Are today’s aborigine children the inheritors of that process? It has certainly been speculated that their extraordinary visual memories are the result of genes selected over thousands of years by evolution..

By Clive Harper, a professor of pathology in Sydney, may have discovered evidence that it is more than just a theoretical possibility. He found that the visual cortex – the part of the brain used in processing and interpreting visual information – was about 25 per cent larger in aborigines than in Caucasians.

[Kobal2]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Blacks and whites differ most obviously by appearance. In addition they can be identified by skeletons and DNA.

Quick question: is President Obama black ?

[Little_Nemo]

@Chen019

One interesting example is that of Australian aborigines. They appear to have adapted particularly for their unique environment.

To the surprise of no one, this evidence is nonsense.

The writer is claiming the Australian aborigines are adapted to their desert environment. Really? And when did that happen?

The aborigines lived in Australia’s coastal region up until two hundred years ago. They only moved to the desert when they were driven out of the coastal regions by European settlers.

[Blake]

@Little_Nemo

The aborigines lived in Australia’s coastal region up until two hundred years ago. They only moved to the desert when they were driven out of the coastal regions by European settlers.

Not even remotely correct.

People have continuously inhabited the inland desert regions of Australia for at least 40, 000 years.

ETA: I’ve seen this factoid on the boards a few times. Where does it come from?

[RickJay]

@tomndebb

Your argument is part and parcell of Lynn’s phony claims. He wants to assign Nigerians an IQ of 67, yet Nigeria has a literacy rate of around 68% and the nation has a lare number of productive industries. With a (median?) IQ of 67, no country could provide enough labor to engage in anything more complex that hunter-gatherer subsistence, yet Nigeria sustained significant industry for years, with only an unemployment rate around 11%.

I wanted to comment on this point, as I have before.

Anyone who can take, seriously, claims of entire countries having IQs in the 50s or 60s clearly does not understand IQ scores and had, equally obviously, never been to Africa.

A person with an IQ of 60 is not just “Dumb.” a person with an IQ of 60 is really, clearly, no-question-about-it mentally disabled. A person with an IQ of 60 probably could not live entirely on his own or organize her or his life without a lot of help - not here, not in Nigeria, not anywhere. This is the kind of person who lives in a group home, or never leaves their family’s home, and gets a job mopping floors in Burger King. Kids with Down Syndrome can have IQs higher than 60, significantly higher. (They can get into the 70s in some cases.)

It’s just not possible for a rational, intelligent person to conclude those people are all mentally deficient, that the average IQ is below Corky from “Life Goes On.” It’s inconceivable any of those countries could function at all, or economically progress, and yet some of them HAVE progressed - Botswana is much richer than its neighbours, and Namibia has grown dramatically since its civil war ended. The heck with the oil industry in Nigeria; a person with an IQ of 60 couldn’t run their own household. With a nation of mentally retarded people none of those things would be possible. The countries would not function at all, ever; they’re not well run countries for the most part, but if the average IQ was 60-65 they would not be countries at all.

Furthermore, it’s simply beyond belief an intelligent person could GO there, look around, and say “almost all these people are dumber than Forrest Gump.” They quite obviously are not. I mean, NDD can’t possibly have MET any Africans beause if you just go meet some one thing you’ll notice is they’re not all retarded. In his essay on visiting Kenya, P.J. O’Rourke’s first observation was that Kenyans were obviously no idiots, inasmuch as virtually all of them spoke two or three languages as well as he spoke one. You will never, ever hear anyone come back from Africa saying “wow, the whole country was retarded,” because it just isn’t so. And yet a country with an average IQ of 60 would be precisely that.

The entirety of “IQ and the Wealth of Nations” is based on the assumption that those IQ scores are accurate, and that, in fact, the average Kenyan is mentally disabled, and yet that’s just not something that jibes with the plain facts and common sense.

[Ludovic]

…but they do water their crops with Brawndo, right? That part’s accurate at least?

[Little_Nemo]

@Blake

Not even remotely correct.

People have continuously inhabited the inland desert regions of Australia for at least 40, 000 years.

ETA: I’ve seen this factoid on the boards a few times. Where does it come from?

It comes from people who know what they’re talking about.

Yes, there were a few pre-contact Australian aborigines who lived in the desert. But the overwhelming majority lived in the coastal regions. Pretty much in the same areas where modern Australians live. And for the same reasons - it’s the best place to live in that country.

Of course, you and Chen might be saying, “But we proved you wrong. You admit some aborigines lived in the desert.”

No such thing. The claim “Australian aborigines lived in the desert” is not equivalent to “some Australian aborigines lived in the desert”. The first implies it was the general rule which isn’t true. It’s like the difference between “people in the United States speak French” and “some people in the United States speak French”. The latter is true but the former is not.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Kobal2

Quick question: is President Obama black ?

A DNA test would demonstrate that he is half white, and half black.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@New_Deal_Democrat

A DNA test would demonstrate that he is half white, and half black.

Please define “white” and “black” since most scientists don’t believe that those terms are biologically meaningful.

[Blake]

@Little_Nemo

Yes, there were a few pre-contact Australian aborigines who lived in the desert. But the overwhelming majority lived in the coastal regions. Pretty much in the same areas where modern Australians live.

Cite! Please present your evidence that most Aborigines lived in coastal regions pre-settlement.

Then present evidence for your claim that at any point after contact a majority of Aborigines lived in the desert regions.

I really would like to see evidence for these claim. There is no doubt that the highest population *densities *of Aborigines lived in coastal and sub-Coastal regions. But that is very different from claims that the absolute population was highest in coastal regions. Top be generous We’ll allow “coastal regions” to encompass a band up to 150km inland. So please show your evidence that >51% of aborigines inhabited less than 5% of the continent.

Then you can show your claim that at some point after settlement, >51% of Aborigines lived in desert regions.

Then you can show your evidence that a majority of the Aborigines living in the desert regions after settlement were forced to move there from coastal regions. Shit, just show me evidence that *any *significant number of Aborigines moved into the deserts from coastal regions. Doesn’t need to be >51% as you claimed. Just show me evidence of a few thousand formerly coastal dwelling Aborigines who moved to the desert.

Since you claimed to have this information from “people who know what they’re talking about”, these requests shouldn’t be difficult.

The simple fact is that most Aborigines prior to settlement lived in semi-arid and arid regions, simply because the vast majority of Australia is semi-arid and arid. Even with the higher population density in coastal regions, most people still lived in drier regions.

After European settlement, the population of Aborigines across the continent declined at about the same rate. So there was never any change in relative abundance of Aborigines in different ares.

The idea that Aborigines were *geographically *displaced to any significant degree is just bizarre. I have no idea where it came from and look forward o your evidence fo the claim. Aborigines were widely *culturally *displaced, being unable to practice their traditional lifestyle. But that almost universally involved moving into “Blacks Camps” on the fringes of *local *towns and stations or into missions. There was no geographic movement involved.

The only geographic movement were some small attempts to relocate people to missions, but these relocations usually involved taking inland people and moving them to coastal and sub-coastal missions and settlements. Not the other way around. I can not recall even a single incident of a group Aboriginal people moving, voluntarily or otherwise, from a coastal region to a desert region.

So I look forward to your evidence for this hidden chapter of Australian history.

The claim “Australian aborigines lived in the desert” is not equivalent to “some Australian aborigines lived in the desert”. The first implies it was the general rule which isn’t true. It’s like the difference between “people in the United States speak French” and “some people in the United States speak French”. The latter is true but the former is not.

So humans do not hunt deer. Because most people in the world have never hunted deer. And to claim that humans hunt deer implies it is the general rule which isn’t true.

And humans do not drive cars. Because most people in the world have never hunted driven a car. And to claim that humans drive cars implies it is the general rule which isn’t true.

:rolleyes:

Anyway, you just provide the references that have been requested, and we can easily see that you garnered these facts form people who know what they’re talking about.

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Ibn_Warraq

Please define “white” and “black” since most scientists don’t believe that those terms are biologically meaningful.

The belief that race is a social construct is a fairly recent liberal dogma. Races differ significantly, not only in terms of appearance, but average aptitude, behavior, and susceptibility to diseases and medical ailments.

[Blake]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The belief that race is a social construct is a fairly recent liberal dogma. Races differ significantly, not only in terms of appearance, but average aptitude, behavior, and susceptibility to diseases and medical ailments.

Well then, name these races and then tell us how they differ significantly in appearance.

You have made the claim that races exist, and that they differ significantly in appearance, so why can;t you just answer the simple question: what are these races, and how do the differ in appearance?

[iiandyiiii]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The belief that race is a social construct is a fairly recent liberal dogma. Races differ significantly, not only in terms of appearance, but average aptitude, behavior, and susceptibility to diseases and medical ailments.

I just don’t get how you can call “black” a race, when “blacks” have more genetic diversity than all the other “races” put together. Any random two black Africans may be farther apart, genetically speaking, than one of them might be to a white European.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The belief that race is a social construct is a fairly recent liberal dogma. Races differ significantly, not only in terms of appearance, but average aptitude, behavior, and susceptibility to diseases and medical ailments.

Ok, then please define “black” and “white”.

Thanks

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Ibn_Warraq

Ok, then please define “black” and “white”.

Thanks

I already have, but I will do it again. The Negro race evolved in Africa. It is characterized by dark skin, thick lips, and black kinky hair. The white race evolved in the Near East and Europe. It is characterized by light skin. The eyes may be blue, or brown. The hair varies from blond to black. It may be straight, or curly.

[Blake]

Why are you ignoring me?

Can you or can you not name these races and then tell us how they differ significantly in appearance.

You have made the claim that races exist, and that they differ significantly in appearance, so why can;t you just answer the simple question: what are these races, and how do the differ in appearance?

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Blake

Why are you ignoring me?

Can you or can you not name these races and then tell us how they differ significantly in appearance.

You have made the claim that races exist, and that they differ significantly in appearance, so why can;t you just answer the simple question: what are these races, and how do the differ in appearance?

I have already explained how whites and Negroes differ in appearance. I am tired to repeating myself. Orientals have light skin, slanted and dark eyes, and straight black hair. Other Mongoloids, like American Indians, and those who live in Indonesia do not have slanted eyes.

Australian aborigines look similar to Negroes, but genetically they are very dissimilar. One difference in appearance is that the men are able to grow full beards. The children often have facial features that are similar to those of Caucasian children.

[GIGObuster]

@New_Deal_Democrat

I have already explained how whites and Negroes differ in appearance. I am tired to repeating myself. Orientals have light skin, slanted and dark eyes, and straight black hair. Other Mongoloids, like American Indians, and those who live in Indonesia do not have slanted eyes.

Australian aborigines look similar to Negroes, but genetically they are very dissimilar. One difference in appearance is that the men are able to grow full beards. The children often have facial features that are similar to those of Caucasian children.

Not as dissimilar as you assume.

Retired Site | PBS

The average person on the street thinks that race consists of differences in physical appearance, in particular things like eye color, eye shape, skin tone, hair type, and aspects of body stature. They also think that from looking at a person’s physical appearance, in the way we just described, that they can find out or know more subtle thing about them such as their potential intelligence or their likeliness to be aggressive, to commit crime, predisposition towards disease

The conventional biologist has a similar, though much more rigorous definition of what they mean by race. Those biologists view race as a subdivision of the human species, that can be consistently defined either by a set of physical characteristics or differences in gene frequencies between those populations, so that the term race in a biologist’s sense usually refers to a subspecies level of division. And subspecies are actually groups on the way to forming new species.

Now, what I’ve pointed out, and many others have pointed out for years, is that race is simply not a level of biological division that we find in anatomically modern humans. There are no subspecies in the human beings that live today. So when we use the term race in the biological sense, there’s no scientific support for such groups existing.

Human populations do differ, but they don’t differ in the ways that most people think, and they certainly don’t differ in the ways that 19th century race scientists thought.

How much genetic diversity exists in humans?

The measured amount of genetic variation in the human population is extremely small, and that’s something that people need to wrap themselves around, that genetically we really aren’t very different from each other. Most of that genetic variability can be found within populations. For example, about 93% of all of the genetic variability that exits on this planet occurs within Sub-Saharan Africans. So, if there were a catastrophe which destroyed the rest of the world’s population, 93% of the genetic variability in the world would still be present in Sub-Saharan Africans.

The reason why we don’t define races in the human species is because the within-group genetic variability is greater than the between-group genetic variability. Now, that’s an elementary component of any statistical tests. If the within-group variability is larger than the between-group variability, then we say that the groups are not different. Now, the way we measure genetic variability in humans, we can do it at a number of levels. You can even use physical variability, and we still wouldn’t reconstruct racial groups. If we looked at even skin color and ask ourselves, “Does skin color map consistently to racial groups?” the answer is no.

Joseph Graves, Jr. professor of evolutionary biology at Embry-Riddle University