slow clap
How many genes affect height?
How many genes affect the shape of one’s body?
One does a pretty good job. Just like “dress size” does a passable job of describing the shape of a girl’s body.
Besides which, assuming for the sake of argument that intelligence is very complex and affected by a lot of different genes, why does it follow that unlike other traits, (genetic propensity for) intelligence is distributed equally among races and ethnicities?
It certainly contains a lot of useful information. Just like dress size.
But let’s do this: Define “intelligence-prime” as intelligence as measured by an IQ test. Is it your position that unlike other genetically informed traits, genetic propensity for intelligence-prime is distributed equally among all races and ethnic groups?
Funny that your “factual statement” happens to be a baseless insult as opposed to an actual response on the merits.
Certainly among Leftists who post here. Who will attack anyone who dares challenge their dogma.
You’ve just described yourself pretty well. Project much?
Oh, Gingers are defo “Untermenschen” 
WTF?
Are you really trying to tell me now, that the moon is not made out of cheese?
That’s as ridicules as saying that Santa Clause is not real, which is so wrong. Why else would we make movies about him, have a holiday for him and why would my parents lie about something like this? Or why are my neighbours lying about this to their children.
So Santa Clause is fact – he is REAL, for crying out loud.
Since you refuse to acknowledge the existence of Santa Clause, your statement of the moon not being made out of dairy cheese must also be wrong. So far not a single person has been to the moon, there is no proof of ever a human being being to the moon.
After all, everybody knows, that the moon landing is a fake!!!
FAKE!
No one has made any claim about any trait being “distributed equally” among all races and ethnic groups. There has been no evidence provided that any “race” or population has any genetic tendency towards higher crime rate or lower intelligence. And all the evidence shows that “black” or “negro” is not a distinct genetic group from the rest of humanity- by this I mean that one cannot group all “black” populations together by most recent common ancestor (which can be tracked using the tools of genetics) without also including all Eurasian populations.
If genetic tendencies toward intelligence and crime are not distributed equally among all racial groups it logically follows that well documented differences in racial crime rates and average IQ are at least partially determined by genes that vary among the races.
In other words, some races really do have genetic tendencies toward crime and stupidity, just as other races have genetic tendencies in the opposite direction.
You’ve provided no evidence of this, only evidence of an “achievement gap”. And the “races” are not genetically distinct from each other. Are you ever going to even acknowledge that phylogenetic tree that shows how many African populations are closer to Eurasians than they are to many other African populations?
Is this the NDD gen-based race? That race definitely has a strong tendency to stupidity!
Intelligence is clearly not spread equally across every human, regardless of race.
You are a clear example of a stupid individual with a poor IQ for reasoning and a strong tendency to ignorance and stupidity.
“That phylogenetic tree that shows how many African populations are closer to Eurasians than they are to many other African populations,” does not change the fact that Negroes have much lower average IQs than whites of European descent and Orientals. Such a tree would demonstrate that Australian Aborigines are further apart from Negroes than Caucasians, but the Aborigines have even lower average IQs.
Average intelligence and crime rates are determined less by genetic closeness than by differing population pressures since the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago in the Near East, and the beginning of civilization there five thousand years later.
There is plenty of evidence that racial groups differ by average ability levels and behavior. When you deny this you are really saying that specific genes determining ability and behavior have not been discovered yet. They will be.
Before genes were discovered, and indeed before egg and sperm cells were discovered it was universally understood that closely related organisms resembled each other more than less closely related organisms. That is how it was possible for humans who knew nothing of modern science to breed domestic plants and animals.
And that explains the reason, why your parents had experiments with sheep, in Ireland we call them “Sheep-shaggers”.
However, it seems that you (NDD) were the first successfully conceived child of this cross breed. Which also explains your plain stupidity.
And you are absolutely right, a black sheep is clearly dumber and prone to more violence and crime than a white sheep.
Then obviously, as that phylogenetic tree shows, many African populations (like the Yoruba) should more closely resemble Eurasians then they do the many other African populations that they are farther from, right?
So you’re STILL choosing to ignore me, rather than engage with my data. What does that say about your intellectual honesty?
So, in summary, in NDD-land:
“It doesn’t matter that there’s no actual genetic evidence - only that there should be genetic differences because that’s what I desperately hope to believe.”
Gotcha.
Just wanted that admission. Took its time coming, though.
The second sentence invalidates the first. There is no genetic evidence that “racial groups” (which you have failed, miserably, to define) having different genetic tendencies towards intelligence or criminal behavior. You have no evidence of anything except for the existence of an achievement gap, which is not being denied.
Whites and Orientals tend to perform better on all tests of mental aptitude and academic performance than Negroes. That is what I mean by the race gap. Those who maintain that the race gap is environmental need to point to an environment that has substantially reduced it.
As I have pointed out on many occasions the races are distinguished by appearance, places of origins, and DNA testing.
This seems to be the focus of your “hypothesis”- that somehow, the “races” (not clearly defined, and having no genetic relationship) that are descended from “great civilizations” (which is also extremely biased and ignores any achievements that don’t fit your narrative) are genetically inclined to greater intelligence and less crime.
There’s no evidence of any of this- even for the assumptions (like the “races” you use, or the “great civilizations” that you pick and choose from)- but I want to go further than this… it’s just stupid. Why would it somehow require more intelligence to be successful and have lots of children in a “civilized” society than a hunter-gatherer society? Have you tried hunting and gathering? It’s not easy. A smart hunter and gatherer will get more food for his family than a stupid hunter and gatherer. A tribal leader (or just tribe member) who is smarter and better at getting his fellow hunter-gatherers to cooperate will be more successful than a stupid one, and his family and his tribe will have more food, resources, and children. So what is “special” about civilization that it makes intelligence more of an adaptive advantage?
[quote=“New_Deal_Democrat, post:1611, topic:623489”]
“That phylogenetic tree that shows how many African populations are closer to Eurasians than they are to many other African populations,” does not change the fact that Negroes have much lower average IQs than whites of European descent and Orientals. Such a tree would demonstrate that Australian Aborigines are further apart from Negroes than Caucasians, but the Aborigines have even lower average IQs.
And so we have the proof extraordinary that NDD is entirely insensible to any logical thinking or any of the data all. He prefers to make up strange and entirely unscientific fables of Esope. He may not even understand how his own statements self-contradict and are nonsensical.
The DNA testing is patently false- DNA might be able to tell something about what population parts of your ancestry hail from, but populations are not race. Many “black” populations are genetically more similar to Eurasians than to other “black” populations, as is clear from that phylogenetic tree. So why are a Yoruba and a San person both “black”, if the Yoruba is more closely related to Eurasians than to San? How does this make sense at all?