Scarr also was involved in the study “Absence of a relationship between degree of white ancestry and intellectual skills within a black population”. In it, they found no correlation between African admixture (among self-identified black children) and test scores.
I know this study really peeves the “blacks are dumber” crowd, but if they really had a scientific objection to it, then they would just recreate the study. They haven’t. I don’t think they’re actually interested in science.
“Blah blah blah Sorry, I still don’t have an African/Outside phenotype split example” would be less verbiage.
And I don’t need someone who doesn’t know what a gene properly is, lecturing me on what population geneticists and other scientists do and don’t mean when they talk about gene pools, thanks. Not when I can read the scientists’ own organizations’ statements on race.
And good job on ignoring the other post, the one that demolished your pitiful use of cites that don’t actually say anything like what you think they say (again).
Says you. I’m not convinced. Whatever was the cause of the difference in results across decades could also be responsible for differences across population groups.
“What doesn’t change…” in a tiny, tiny period of time, with rather weak efforts to correct it. We’ve only been studying this with any degree of reasonable accuracy for a few decades, and the efforts to actually do something about it have been mostly pathetic. So this tells us nothing. Throughout history, we can find periods in which nearly every group was on the top or bottom of the socio-economic pyramid in various regions.
Flynn hasn’t said that the cause of the test-score gap is differing genetics for intelligence. He hasn’t said that black people have inferior genes for intelligence on average. I’m sure you’d like to pretend you secretly know what he thinks – just like you’ve repeatedly asserted in the past that you know what I secretly think – but it’s not true. You don’t have any special insight into the thoughts of people who don’t actually accept that black people are inferior.
Nope. That’s not it.
That lower IQ is a contributing factor to socioeconomic underperformance.
It’s possible, and it’s also possible that they are both symptoms of some other cause.
I’m pretty sure Flynn had an idea whether or not the Maori or Pakeha were at the top or bottom end of the educational spectrum when he made his comments… 
Best wishes trying to explain human migration to the masses while dancing around the out of africa branching along with introgression of archaic lineages.
'Cuz we’re just one big homogeneous family descended in a radial fashion from a central hub. Out of africa was no different from any other separation; evolution doesn’t tinker with neurophysiology, migration doesn’t separate branches, and every human on earth has exactly the same genes. :rolleyes:
If we can wordsmith away “race” it must be the case that average gene pool differences for phenotypic outcomes don’t exist for africans and non-africans. (But don’t try telling that to the guy who is convinced he got stopped for driving while black.)
Your surety has no bearing on whether or not something is true. Unless and until Flynn says that he believes black people are inherently intellectually inferior, on average, due to genetics, then I’m inclined to assume that he doesn’t think that they are.
Most people don’t secretly agree with you. You have no special insight into the thoughts of me and others who disagree with you.
No-one’s denying out-of-Africa branching happened. What we’re denying is that it makes a significant enough difference, that it was strictly one-way migration, or that picayune SNP differences amount to any significant 2-way split in humanity that’s non-clinal.
Easily shown by there being no phenotype differences that are strictly African/Non-African. Especially the major ones racists have always used, like skin colour, hair texture, eye shape - all that obvious shit. None of them line up along continental lines. So now it’s down to penny-ante bullshit like it’s down to how many percentage points difference there is between creatine levels in Africa vs Out Of (but let’s only use endpoints in our studies :rolleyes:)- “Biological Race” has become a God of the Gaps
Thanks for the reference. That study is mentioned in the review by Lee I mentioned earlier. Lee comments:
You’re right, someone should do an updated study. The late David C Rowe suggested a study design in his final paper.
Geneticist Daniel MacArthur noted a few years ago that NIH funding for such a study would be unlikely, but the information may become available anyway:
And some bloggers have certainly looked at admixture mapping & associations with education & other outcomes.
So what – are you moderating your view from “blacks are definitely inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics” to “blacks might possibly be inferior, intellectually, on average due to genetics”? If so, I suppose that’s progress of some sort.
I think the “definitely” is something you’ve been injecting into every aspect of this discussion.
Love that “strictly” because it is such a nice haven…
What differentiates modern pools is “average” and not “strictly.”
Thousands upon thousands of SNP variations occurring after the out of africa split, which was not “strictly” separated but was separated for the vast majority of changes, for the vast majority of sub-saharans. 1.6% of the entire Perlegen database representing evolutionary-driven changes for 1,800 genes in the Wang study I gave you. Not random and isolated SNPs; not founder effects; not bottleneck differences. Changes for 1.6% of the entire Perlegen database (1.6 Million SNP mappings). Changes that cluster by SIRE group. Changes that created a reproductive advantage. Changes in genes for “biological themes … including host– pathogen interactions, reproduction, DNA metabolismcell cycle, protein metabolism, and neuronal function.”
DNA research is not going to be kind to those of you who cling to the idea we are all sort of a mish mash of equivalent pools. If it turns out to be correct that most post-african lineages have exposure to a Neandertal ancestor (and that is pretty much now broadly accepted), that will be introgression of an entire hominin genome into the eurasian pool, with hundreds of thousands of antecedent years of evolution for those gene variants. That’s a pretty nice library of genes for evolution to allow those descendant lines to choose from. We already know some of the genes weren’t helpful but that of that introgressed genome about 20% were adaptive enough to survive to today, almost wholly in non-african lineages.
It is not going to turn out that there was some secret mass eurasian migration and homogenization back into africa from these out of africa lineages. We have done enough gene studies to know some backflow occurred into east africa, and some into the Sahel; an isolated example that you cite earlier from a semitic group into a small portion of the San.
But not enough to make it inaccurate for modern population geneticists to talk about sub-saharan pools, and non-african pools as two average pools.
CP is certain (I believe). He’s never expressed any doubt whatsoever that I can recall. I don’t think Chen has either. If they have doubts, I’d love to hear it.
Yeah, a little emphasis by me - tell me more about how I’m the one using weasel words…
It’s no secret, we’ve already seen the evidence. And “Mass migration” is your strawman. There does not have to be a mass migration to have significant impacts. Didn’t take a mass migration to get Israelites to South Africa or Ethiopia, or Southern European genes into the Kalahari Desert…
That “some” already is enough to make a mockery of any idea of African isolation.
That “some” already shows that the Africa/Out gene map is a distinctly clinal one.
That “some” is enough to show we haven’t done nearly enough to say we’ve done “enough gene studies” in Africa.
And South Africa is neither the Sahel nor East Africa, yet there are the Out Of Africa lineages, in the Lemba and the Bushmen…
I think you’re confused - in this case, between the Southern European genes in the Khoisan, and the Semitic genes in the Lemba, a completely different group. Do keep up. And learn what the word “isolated” means.
Note that first article also says “the finding also shows – for the first time – that genetic material from our extinct cousin may be widespread in African populations.” Which tells me that the actual work on Neanderthal backflow into Africa is still to be done. Because every genetic study on actual Africans (rather than the artificially selected-for US A-A population) in recent years seems to turn up a surprise for race-ists *.
Yeah, I’ve already said I don’t trust you in the least to interpret what geneticists are talking about - your interpretations are as unreliable as your cites (which demolition of, you still are ignoring, BTW) and you always ‘conveniently’ leave off words from your précis, like “Black people” off “Sub-Saharan”. Or you think that European+South Asian = Total Out of African Population. I don’t trust you to correctly convey a cite that the sky is blue.
*which I use here to mean people who believe in the existence of biological races in humans, not necessarily bigots.
Mr Dibble, let’s use your New Scientist cite by Catherine Brahic, then:
And a sweet headline:
“Humanity’s forgotton return to africa revealed in DNA” from the reporter, Ms Brahic, talking about the DNA work by David Reich.
Our egalitarian heroine, Ms Brahic, creates a fabulously wordsmithed closer:
“Not only is western Eurasian DNA ancestry a global phenomenon, so is having a bit of Neanderthal living on inside of you.” (emphasis by CP)
Cue Shangri La musical theme…game; set; match to MrDibble! Told ya!
Oh, wait…asks CP:
“…so we’re saying these sub-saharan/non-african gene pools of which the population genetecists speak are now composed of about the same average frequency for the gene variants which evolved in the 60,000 years between out of africa and back to africa? And that’s why it’s ridiculous to look for genetically-based outcome differences in the two pools?”
Uhhhhh…not exactly. Not exactly. It’s just that sub-saharans aren’t strictly sub-saharan. Not strictly. But there’s “some” eurasian DNA there.
Let’s poke behind the clever wordsmithing from Pollyanna Brahic, and look at data.
You might start with doing some additional reading about David Reich’s work around the incidence of prostate cancer in blacks versus whites.
“Reich and his colleagues found seven genetic risk factors, which together constituted a hot spot of cancer risk. African American men who had the European version of all seven of the markers were no more likely to get prostate cancer than Europeans were; the African versions, though, were associated with elevated risk.”
Perfectly ordinary language reflecting two completely different average gene pools, because the topic is disease, and no need for Ms Brahic to add breathless wordsmithing that leads the masses to think shared DNA is “a global phenomenon” that might somehow erase that difference.
Here’s the takeaway in understanding averag genetic pools:
These are two different average pools. And when we are talking about average differences in genetically driven outcome, all of a sudden we need to care about to what extent those pools are intermixed in the last 3,000 years, having been separated by 60,000 years prior. Was there such a huge mass migration that the two pools should be considered roughly the same? Maybe one really busy guy or busy group that boinked every sub-saharan group to give them eurasian genes after 60,000 years of separation?
Methinks not, and methinks you don’t think so either.
What you want to do, Mr Dibble, is find the exception and suggest it may well be the rule because not every sub-saharan has been tested for their degree of non-african admixture.
Dream on, and keep adding “strictly” or other wordsmithing modifiers to hide behind.
I don’t know how interested you are in reading source material instead of pap for the masses massaged by pollyannas, but here’s some of the language from David Reich’s paperwhich underpins your cite:
“First, we show that all Khoisan populations have some nonzero proportion of west Eurasian ancestry…
" We applied this method to all Khoisan populations and included southern African Bantu speakers for comparison.
The highest levels of west Eurasian ancestry are found in Khoe– Kwadi speakers, particularly the Nama, where our estimate of west Eurasian ancestry reaches 14% (although note we cannot distinguish between the impact of recent colonialism and older west Eurasian ancestry in the Nama using this method). Other populations of note include the Khwe, Shua, and Haikom, whom we estimate to have ∼5% west Eurasian ancestry.”
I recommend you look at Table 1 on page 5 of the original paper, where admixture percentages for southern africa range from 0-5% for the most part (with an exception for a single Khoe Kwada subgroup at 14%), and east africa, where the percentages in groups studied range from 0 to 50% (the higher percentages being in the Cushitic and Semitic groups).
Look; “non-africans” is not a “race.” “Sub-saharans” is not a “race.” And no population is pure anything.
But what out of africa did is broadly separate two genetic pools such that it’s perfectly reasonable to suggest that average outcome differences we see today are driven by average differences in those genetic pools.
Ms Brahic’s earnest implication that, because “shared DNA is a global phenomenon,” we are one big DNA family, is useful only as reassurance to those uninterested in educating themselves with facts.
That’s the first correct thing you’ve said.
Only if you’re predisposed to ignore the obvious clinal nature of the genetic map, especially around the Horn/East Africa.
No, it’s not. Bad assumptions and bad (or no) data give the lie to any notions of reasonableness.
Nope. Unless you have an intelligence geneset you wish to point out to us (Ooh, is it hiding in the Neanderthal genes?), this is all just smoke-and-mirrors.
I still don’t understand CP’s argument about this region. I thought it was extremely well known that, when traveling from village to village from (say) Somalia up the coast to Egypt and across to the Levant, the population of each village would be extremely similar, genetically, to the neighboring village along the way. Is he really arguing that there’s a break somewhere? I don’t get it.
Silly iiandyiiii, knowing that would require actually being in Africa and doing studies there.
Why do that when one has an obviously genetically identical pool of African proxies right on one’s doorstep?
That seems to be his argument - the Red Sea and the Sahara are unique barriers in a way no other geographical features are. Oh, they’ll let people through, but only in one direction and just that one time, of course…
Nile? What Nile?
It’s easy - if all the studies you cite are about endpoints, why, a clear split is as obvious as … say … the sky being blue. Clines are for scientists who do transect studies, not populations geneticists, who all agree with CP on everything, always, don’tchaknow?