Here and in the Pit thread (now up to 25 pages), I think NDD is adopting the classic brazil84 strategy: Gish-gallop and PRATT over and over and over again until everybody else gets sick of posting, then get the last post in and declare victory.
As I have pointed out on several occasions, races can be distinguished by appearance, skeletal evidence, and DNA evidence. The races evolved in different locations in response to different population pressures. I am tired of repeating myself to those whose opinions are based on what they want to believe, rather than what the evidence clearly shows.
Where is there evidence that blacks and whites are genetically equal in average intellectual endowment? 
As we’ve shown repeatedly, there is no evidence that they are not genetically equal in “intellectual endowment”. You have shown actually zero genetic evidence. Crime and education statistics show nothing about genetics. The only evidence that tells you anything about genetics is genetic evidence.
NDD- you have decided that the best explanation for why there exists an “achievement” gap in education and crime statistics is a genetic explanation. There’s no genetic evidence for this. It doesn’t matter to you that there are other explanations, including the one favored by the medical and scientific community. It doesn’t even matter (to you) that the “achievement” gap has changed, and by many measures, is shrinking.
It’s pretty clear that your mind was made up regardless of what the data says- you’ve provided no genetic data whatsoever, and most of the rest of your data is awfully weak.
The evidence that races differ in average intelligence and that this is genetic consists of persistent patterns. Members of some racial groups tend to perform better on all the tests of mental aptitude and academic achievement than members of other racial groups. The burden of proof, therefore, is on those who maintain that the races are genetically equal.
Description of Burden of Proof
Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance. This sort of reasoning typically has the following form:
Claim X is presented by side A and the burden of proof actually rests on side B.
Side B claims that X is false because there is no proof for X…
Examples of Burden of Proof
Bill: “I think that some people have psychic powers.”
Jill: “What is your proof?”
Bill: “No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers.”
“You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does.”
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html
It’s not about burden of proof. I’m not trying to prove anything. You’ve shown no genetic evidence- none. All you’ve shown is that an achievement gap exists. That’s it.
Because the achievement gap persists, and exists everywhere in the world it is sufficient evidence. Long before genes were discovered it was understood that children resembled their parents and siblings.
The understanding of genetic resemblance between related organisms is the reason it was possible for humans to breed domestic plants and animals.
There have been many achievement gaps that have disappeared in the past. Just because this one hasn’t disappeared yet (though by many measures it is closing) in only 40 or so years of at least somewhat equal treatment (in the USA) is not by any means evidence that the gap is due to genetics.
All you’ve done is make a hypothesis, and restate it in various ways. Real science is hard.
What appearance characteristics?
What skeletal evidence?
What DNA evidence?
All of this stuff is measurable - please provide the details of your classification system.
Note to all other posters: There is no way NDD will actually provide details here. Either he/she will ignore this post, or answer in some ambiguous manner, never actually revealing how he/she has constructed these races.
So, just to ask something I asked in the Pit thread, you are officially asserting that these supposed differences between the races are bright, measurable, and objectively observable?
If so, please go into more detail and show that these differences hold consistently true enough to be of value. If not, then why do they make a difference in the first place?
You’ve failed to even provide evidence that “blacks” are a genetically identifiable group. You do not even seem to be aware that sub-Saharan Africans are, in fact, broken up into physically distinct groups that cannot logically be classified as the same race.
Well I can.
How about the human race ?
I find these race/genetics "great debates"often make claims on both sides that are unsupported and sometimes get ridiculous. I’d like to know who comprise these distinct physical groups in sub Sahara Africa. Are you referring to the Europeans and Asians as well as the indigenous Africans who all presently live in the region?
Well aren’t you supporting NDD then, or are you arguing for expanding the number of races.
Khoisans don’t look like Somalis. Somalis don’t look like Nigerians. I mean, they are as different as Barack Obama and John McCain.
The point is the NDD’s divisions of “Race” are totally arbitrary. He is asserting that genetic divisions exist along lines where there is no logical basis for saying they exist. I can just as easily break the world up into four, five, six, seven, or eight races by using physical generalities. I could break it up into two races.
His position is flatly, amazingly preposterous because he is asserting genetic traits to the human species on the assumption there are three races. **But there isn’t any logical reason to say there are three races. **
No. The Khoi-san of southern Africa, the Hadza and Sandawe of East Africa, and some Pygmy groups such as the Mbuti are the most ancient splits from the rest of modern humans including other Africans. All these people would be classified as “black” under NDD’s criteria. However, other groups of sub-Saharan Africa such as the Bantu are much more closely related to Europeans/Caucasians and to Asians than they are to these other sub-Saharan African groups.
Likewise, other superficially “black” groups like Papuans, Australian Aborigines, Andamanese, Orang Asliof Malaysia, and Philippine Negritos are all more closely related to Europeans and to Asians than they are to Bantu or other sub-Saharan Africans.
To have anything like cohesive genetic groups, you would need dozens if not hundreds of “races,” and of course this would not account for all the intermediate groups and mixed individuals. So it would be pointless, and not tell us anything useful about human variation. Saying that humans can be broken down into three races is like saying they come in three sizes. It’s just arrant nonsense.
Here’s a recent phylogenetic tree of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). You can see that there are a number of different branches within sub-Saharan Africans, and some Africans are closer to Europeans and Asians than they are to other Africans.
Sorry but you are out of step with the research. The roughly 1 standard deviation gap in the US is one thing that psychologists appear to largely agree on. The debate is about the cause of the gap (also see chapter 4 discussion of The IQ Controversy).
Not necessarily. Just going on the some of the groups used in the US census provide cohesive genetic groups. As McEvoy et al note:
Or as Lahn & Ebenstein refer to the major geographic groups:
How does that square with US Blacks who have >50% European admixture?
Oh, yeah, I forgot - 1 drop rule, right?
It could be possible to use the word race to identify the multitude of human populations. There are other languages and cultures where that continues, today. The problem with trying to use the word “race” in place of the word “population” in English, is that it has been corrupted by the racialists. Linnaeus, in the late eighteenth century, proposed four races. Blumenbach, at the turn of the nineteenth century, proposed five races. Somewhere in the late nineteenth or early twentieth centuries, various writers “lost” some of the races and we wound up with only three.
Cranks such as Rushton have taken the “three race” mythology and run with it, claiming that the “three” races are divided into big genital/poor brain blacks, small genital/great brain Asians, and whites with middle-sized genitals and moderate brains. Folks like NDD have embraced that nonsense and keep pretending that there are only the three races, (even when they have to divide one of them into “smart” “Orientals” and “not-so-smart” “rest-of-the-Mongoloids.”
Unfortunately, Rushton and his ilk have so corruptyed the term that if we actually went out and labeled 60 or more populations as “races,” we would find folks like Rushton, (and, probably NDD), finding an example of one trait of one smaller population/“race” and extrapolating it to mean that multiple populations in the larger artificial “race” all had the same traits. (Heck, we see it now, with NDD claiming that the Mongoloids arethe smartest people, then backpedlaing and tring to limit his “smart” people to just the “Orientals,” (another artifical group that he assembled by the single characteristic of epicanthic folds).
Gee, the tests showed a basic difference on the those tests that rely on the imaginary g. (So we are not even talking about a universal consensus, to begin with, but only among those psychometricists who happen to believe in g.)
Not persuasive.