Race is Real?

[river]

Race is real and I like it .

Cultures , what is there not to like ?

 

[Yelena McMullen]

You should.
China has a higher rate of gun violence and gun related murders than the Democratic Republic of Congo. And the DRC has only 1% more of a murder rate, compared to China.
I mean, you are comparing a country that has been in the midst of a civil war for more than 10 years (not to mention the involvement with the Rwandan genocide's aftermath, the famines and spread of disease, the fact that a large portion of its population was decimated throughout its history due to German rule and control), to a country that is not in a civil war and has been stable for decades.
Violent crime rates will of course be higher with the DRC, due to the fact that it has been in a state of war for over 10 years.
What is laughable and frankly repulsive, is the general gist of white supremacism in your post and writings, David. You should be aware that it is not tolerated on this site. So watch yourself. And that is not a friendly request, but a direct warning.
And welcome to the forum.

Greetings!

First, I am not a 'white supremacist', but I am a 'Race Realist'.
The previous Race advocate's posts were, alas, white supremacist.
But that's not what virtually ANY scientifically literate Race Realist's position would be.

NE Asians are the most significant macro group in the IQ hierarchy.
Generally/Short version, it's:

NE Asians (China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea) - 106.
Caucasians/Euros/'White' - - - - 100
'Hybrid Race' American Black - 85
sub-Saharan - - - - - - - - - - - -- 70
(I can, and probably will get more detailed but don't wan to get too intricate yet)

It should also be noted early on that, while there ARE human Races (aka, subspecies), 'Black' is not a Race, it's a colloquialism.
Race is Not based on melanin either, tho it can be one component.
The two genetically furthest apart Races are both people of Color: sub-Saharans and Australian Aboriginals.
That's right, Congolese are closer to Finns than Aboriginals, as time, distance, and relative isolation, not just Melanin, would dictate.
Races are Sets of features born of separate geographical evolution.

It's true most scientists, especially non-Biological ones, don't believe/won't admit to Race.
But it's all pretty academic, as many other scientists such as archaeologists and Physical and Forensics anthropologists, actually Use "non-existent" Race every day in the course of their profession!


Oh, and you are (to be kind) 'Wrong' about the DRC's Murder rate v China's, unless you are trying to make a trick claim about only those committed with guns.

DRC's Murder Rate is - 13.36 per 100,000
China's Murder rate is - 0.74 per 100,000
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
They both had about 10,000 murders but China has 16x the population

And that's the rule, not exception, for Murder in NE Asia vs sub-Sahara/Afro-Carib

`
I think I covered/Debunked alot for one post, with alot more elaboration to come.
thx to all.
+

 

[Yelena McMullen]

NOVA | Does Race Exist?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
with two Differing opinions. I post the latter from someone who necessarily/Practically/Forensically deals with race.
George Gill, the Hands-on proponent:

Slightly Over Half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the Traditional view that human Races are biologically valid and Real.

Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The Other Half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
[......]
Bones don't lie

First, I have found that forensic anthropologists attain a high degree of accuracy in determining geographic racial affinities (white, black, American Indian, etc.) by utilizing both new and traditional methods of bone analysis. Many well-conducted studies were reported in the late 1980s and 1990s that test methods objectively for percentage of correct placement. Numerous individual methods involving midfacial measurements, femur traits, and so on are over 80% accurate alone, and in combination produce very high levels of accuracy. No forensic anthropologist would make a racial assessment based upon just one of these methods, but in combination they can make very reliable assessments, just as in determining sex or age. In other words, multiple criteria are the key to success in all of these determinations..... My students ask, "How can this be? They can Identify skeletons as to Racial origins but do not believe in Race!" My answer is that we can often function within systems that we do not believe in.

"The idea that Race is 'only skin deep' is simply not true."
Deeper than the skin
[.......]The "reality of race" therefore depends more on the definition of reality than on the definition of race. If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity
​

I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual Legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing Race from skeletal remains than from Looking at living people standing before me.

Seeing both sides
Where I stand today in the "great race debate" after a decade and a half of pertinent skeletal research is clearly more on the side of the reality of race than on the "race denial" side. ... Morphological characteristics, however, like skin color, hair form, bone traits, eyes, and lips tend to follow geographic boundaries coinciding often with climatic zones. This is not surprising since the selective forces of climate are probably the primary forces of nature that have Shaped human Races with regard not only to Skin color and Hair form but also the Underlying Bony structures of the Nose, Cheekbones, etc.."

On political correctness
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the Clinical perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and Not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the Politically Correct Agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the Evidence.

How can we combat racism if no one is willing to talk about race?"
Consequently, at the beginning of the 21st century, even as a majority of biological anthropologists favor the reality of the race perspective, not one introductory textbook of physical anthropology even presents that perspective as a possibility. In a case as flagrant as this, we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship. But, you may ask, are the politically correct actually correct? Is there a relationship between thinking about race and racism?
[.......]​

 

[Yelena McMullen]

Perhaps the world's foremost expert in Evolution/Genetics/Speciation, and author of the Standard Text 'Speciation'!

Credentials

Jerry Allen Coyne (1949) is an American professor of biology, known for his commentary on the intelligent design debate. A prolific scientist, he has published dozens of papers, elucidating on the theory of evolution. He is currently a professor at the University of Chicago in the Department of Ecology and Evolution. His concentration is speciation and ecological and evolutionary genetics, particularly as they involve the fruit fly, Drosophila.[3] He is the author of the standard text Speciation and the bestselling science popularization Why Evolution Is True and maintains a website by the same name.

Coyne graduated with a B.S. in biology from the College of William & Mary in 1971. He started graduate work at Rockefeller University under Theodosius Dobzhansky before logistical complications (draft) forced a hiatus. He then earned a Ph.D. in biology at Harvard University, studying under Richard Lewontin, and went on to do a postdoctoral fellowship at the University of California, Davis with Timothy Prout.

He was awarded the Guggenheim Fellowship in 1989, was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2007, and received the "Emperor Has No Clothes" award from the Freedom from Religion Foundation in 2011.

Coyne has served as President (2011) and Vice President (1996) of the Society for the Study of Evolution, and as Associate Editor of Evolution (1985–1988; 1994–2000) and The American Naturalist (1990–1993). He currently teaches evolutionary biology, speciation, genetic analysis, social issues and scientific knowledge, and scientific speaking and writing.

His work is widely published in scientific journals as well as in such mainstream venues as 'The New York Times, the Times Literary Supplement', and The New Republic. His research interests include population and evolutionary genetics, speciation, ecological and quantitative genetics, chromosome evolution, and sperm competition.
Coyne is a critic of creationism[4] including theistic evolution[5][6] and intelligent design, which he calls "the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions."[7][...]

Article
Jerry Coyne
Are there human Races?
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

One of the touchiest subjects in human evolutionary biology- or human biology in general — is the question of whether there are human races. Back in the bad old days, it was taken for granted that the answer was not only “yes,” but that there was a ranking of races (invariably done by white biologists), with Caucasians on top, Asians a bit lower, and blacks invariably on the bottom. The sad history of biologically based racism has been documented in many places, including Steve Gould’s book The Mismeasure of Man (yes, I know it’s Flawed).
But from that sordid scientific past has come a backlash: the subject of human races, or even the idea that they exist, has become Taboo. And this Despite the Palpable morphological Differences between human groups — differences that MUST be based on Genetic Differences and Would, if seen in Other species, lead to their classification as either Races or Subspecies (the terms are pretty interchangeable in biology). Racial delimitation could, critics say, lead to a resurgence of racism, racial profiling, or even eugenics.

So do races exist? The answer of Jan Sapp, a biology professor at York University in Toronto, is a firm “no”, as given in his new American Scientistpiece “Race finished,” a review of two new books on human races (Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth by Ian Tattersall and Rob DeSalle and Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture, edited by Sheldon Krimsky and Kathleen Sloan). As Sapp notes, and supports his conclusion throughout the review:

Although biologists and cultural anthropologists long supposed that human races—genetically distinct populations within the same species—have a true existence in nature, many social scientists and geneticists maintain today that there simply is no valid biological basis for the concept. The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs.

Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier. I do think that human races exist in the sense that biologists apply the term to animals, though I don’t think the genetic differences between those races are profound, nor do I think there is a finite and easily delimitable number of human races. Let me give my view as responses to a series of questions. I discuss much of this in chapter 8 of WEIT.

What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). [u[There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race[/u]. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.

Under that criterion, are there human Races?
Yes. As we all know, there are morphologically different groups of people who live in different areas, though those differences are blurring due to recent innovations in transportation that have led to more admixture between human groups.

How many human races are there?
That’s pretty much unanswerable, because human variation is nested in groups, for their ancestry, which is based on evolutionary differences, is nested in groups. So, for example, one could delimit “Caucasians” as a race, but within that group there are genetically different and morphologically different subgroups, including Finns, southern Europeans, Bedouins, and the like. The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

How different are the races genetically?
Not very different....But since the delimitation of races has historically depended Not on the degree of underlying genetic differences but Only on the existence of Some genetic difference that causes morphological difference, the genetic similarity of races Does Not mean that they Don’t exist...."

 

[iceaura]

It should also be noted early on that, while there ARE human Races (aka, subspecies),

There are not. The genetic distance is not great enough, perhaps because the breeding isolation has been insufficient, to justify subspecies designation on genetic grounds for this large mammal.

Jerry Coyne
Are there human Races?
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/

His argument is based on "morphological differences", but these do not align with the genetic distances. They also conflict with the sociological races. And they are rapidly vanishing geneologically, if they ever existed in that respect, due to mobility and hybridization.

And his nomenclature is vague - look:

What are races?
In my own field of evolutionary biology, races of animals (also called “subspecies” or “ecotypes”) are morphologically distinguishable populations that live in allopatry (i.e. are geographically separated). [u[There is no firm criterion on how much morphological difference it takes to delimit a race[/u]. Races of mice, for example, are described solely on the basis of difference in coat color, which could involve only one or two genes.
- - -
The number of human races delimited by biologists has ranged from three to over 30.

Does anyone think a difference in single-gene coat color of mice justifies a designation as a subspecies?
Does anyone think something like "coat color" would be a valid taxonomic distinction between human beings? We tan.
Where is he finding allopatric groups of morphogically distinguishable human beings? How about the Hopi and Navajo? The Japanese and Koreans (they can morphologically distinguish each other)? Are the Maori a subspecies? This is a muddle.

And if the biologists can't agree within an order of magnitude on the number of human "races" anyway, what's wrong with "1" ?

There are always, in biology, lumpers and splitters. It's a judgment call. But in the case of human beings there is no real reason to split like that - the species is too homogenous genetically, famously bottlenecked a mere few thousand years ago, famously not isolated in breeding populations (the opposite, in fact - humans outbreed by preference, de-isolate themselves at considerable effort, cost, and risk).

And while there is no good biological reason to split, there are excellent sociological reasons not to,

or if you insist on separately naming these vague and variable and vanishing types at least come up with a different name. "Race" is taken.

Breed?

 

[iceaura]

Meanwhile, because here it comes again:

NE Asians are the most significant macro group in the IQ hierarchy.
Generally/Short version, it's:

NE Asians (China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea) - 106.
Caucasians/Euros/'White' - - - - 100
'Hybrid Race' American Black - 85
sub-Saharan - - - - - - - - - - - -- 70
(I can, and probably will get more detailed but don't wan to get too intricate yet)

1) Your stats are old - the Western black/white IQ gap has closed several points recently, the Flynn effect continues, and so forth.
2) Nobody knows what IQ tests measure. They do know the scores are strongly influenced by various environmental and cultural circumstances, which also interact with biological ones. (For example: Your IQ test gradient would be predicted as well by wood smoke cooking, heavy metal exposure, and omega 6/omega 3 fat ratios in the diet, as by those ad hoc and unsupported "race" labels).
3)Your IQ categories there do not match any established racial classification based in biology.
4) They do match the typical classifications of American racial bigots, first developed in the early 1800s by the slavery-based corporate agribusiness interests of the United States. Calling the Americans "hybrids" while the European admixtures of Moorish and Mongoloid are designated "white", for example, has no other origin. Neither does the lumping of the Han with the Japanese while excluding the Malaysians.

 

[Yelena McMullen]

There are not. The genetic distance is not great enough, perhaps because the breeding isolation has been insufficient, to justify subspecies designation on genetic grounds for this large mammal.

His argument is based on "morphological differences", but these do not align with the genetic distances. They also conflict with the sociological races. And they are rapidly vanishing geneologically, if they ever existed in that respect, due to mobility and hybridization.

"genetic distance is not great enough"?
LINK?
In fact, many species have Races/Subspecies with less genetic distance/difference than humans races do.
I Will be posting Links with some of those distances soon.
In the meantime, the burden is on YOU to do so because of your positive claim.

And his nomenclature is vague - look:
Does anyone think a difference in single-gene coat color of mice justifies a designation as a subspecies?

Apparently so.
Scientists have designated/delimited it.

Does anyone think something like "coat color" would be a valid taxonomic distinction between human beings? We tan.
Where is he finding allopatric groups of morphogically distinguishable human beings? How about the Hopi and Navajo? The Japanese and Koreans (they can morphologically distinguish each other)? Are the Maori a subspecies? This is a muddle.

Not in more complex humans.
Races are sets of features born of Tens of thousands of years of separate evolution.
So that, as I demonstrated/said above, the two Genetically furthest apart races/subspecies are both people of color.

Read my first posting on the board above.

And if the biologists can't agree within an order of magnitude on the number of human "races" anyway, what's wrong with "1" ?
There are always, in biology, lumpers and splitters. It's a judgment call. But in the case of human beings there is no real reason to split like that - the species is too homogenous genetically, famously bottlenecked a mere few thousand years ago, famously not isolated in breeding populations (the opposite, in fact - humans outbreed by preference, de-isolate themselves at considerable effort, cost, and risk).
And while there is no good biological reason to split, there are excellent sociological reasons not to,
or if you insist on separately naming these vague and variable and vanishing types at least come up with a different name. "Race" is taken.
Breed?

"Race' is not 'taken'.
Race, is just traditionally used in humans rather it's synonym 'subspecies.'
That's it.
This will answer several of your misimpressions/mistakes.

Race (human classification) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)#Morphologically_differentiated_populations

Morphologically differentiated populations

Traditionally, subspecies are seen as geographically isolated and genetically differentiated populations. That is, "the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence" One objection to this idea is that it does not specify what degree of differentiation is required. Therefore, any population that is somewhat biologically different could be considered a subspecies, even to the level of a local population. As a result, Templeton has argued that it is necessary to impose a threshold on the level of difference that is required for a population to be designated a subspecies.

This effectively means that populations of organisms must have reached a certain measurable level of difference to be recognised as subspecies. Dean Amadon proposed in 1949 that subspecies would be defined according to the 75% rule which means that 75% of a population must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining morphological character or a set of characters. The 75% rule still has defenders but other scholars argue that it should be replaced with 90 or 95% rule.
....
In 1978, Sewall Wright suggested that human populations that have long inhabited separated parts of the world should, in general, be considered different subspecies by the USUAL criterion that most individuals of such populations can be allocated correctly by inspection.

Wright argued that it does not require a trained anthropologist to classify an array of Englishmen, West Africans, and Chinese with 100% accuracy by features, skin color, and type of hair despite so much variability within Each of these groups that every individual can Easily be Distinguished from every other.

However, it is Customary to use the term Race Rather than Subspecies for the major subdivisions of the Human species as well as for minor ones."..."

​

 

[Yelena McMullen]

Meanwhile, because here it comes again:

1) Your stats are old - the Western black/white IQ gap has closed several points recently, the Flynn effect continues, and so forth.

The stats are the and and always normed for the white 100.
There was some initial closing of the gap because of the Flynn Effect, but it ceased closing early on and has not done so in 20 years.
IQ researcher acknowledge 3 points right off the top for malnutrition-to-nutrition, which may have been mistaken as Fynn.

2) Nobody knows what IQ tests measure. They do know the scores are strongly influenced by various environmental and cultural circumstances, which also interact with biological ones. (For example: Your IQ test gradient would be predicted as well by wood smoke cooking, heavy metal exposure, and omega 6/omega 3 fat ratios in the diet, as by those ad hoc and unsupported "race" labels).

Yes they do (even if you don't). Most are interested in 'g'.
Life outcomes are strongly correlated with IQ.

IQ researchers are, or course, aware and adjust for socioeconomic and other factors.
In fact, the great equalizer is Trans-racial adoption studies.
That is, the 3-way pattern/gap remains after Black, White, and Asian babies, adopted by white middle class parents.
(Minnesota Trans-racial and others)

3)Your IQ categories there do not match any established racial classification based in biology.
4) They do match the typical classifications of American racial bigots, first developed in the early 1800s by the slavery-based corporate agribusiness interests of the United States. Calling the Americans "hybrids" while the European admixtures of Moorish and Mongoloid are designated "white", for example, has no other origin. Neither does the lumping of the Han with the Japanese while excluding the Malaysians.

Yes they do.

and Many More

 

[iceaura]

There was some initial closing of the gap because of the Flynn Effect, but it ceased closing early on and has not done so in 20 years.

No, it has closed recently from 85 to over 90 in the blacks. Nothing to do with the Flynn effect.

IQ researchers are, or course, aware and adjust for socioeconomic and other factors.

No racially categorized survey of IQ scores has ever been corrected for a major dietary or sociological factor associated with race. None have ever employed biological identification of "race".

In fact, the great equalizer is Trans-racial adoption studies.

That doesn't work, even for most of the known major factors such as gestational toxin exposure, maternal stress, stereotype threat, vitamin and other dietary issues, and so forth. And it is very problematic for extrapolating to a population average - adoption is not randomly distributed in the population on either end, the presumption that adopted black children are treated identically to white children in all relevant respects has never been verified, the necessary control of equivalent adoption of white children by middle class black households has not been run, and so forth.

And of course the racial designation is sociological in the first place, screwing the whole thing up from jump. Of course the IQ test is, also, so it's hard to see how you plan to dig out from that pile, but you could at least start with a biological classification of the test takers if you intend to draw biological conclusions from the results.

3)Your IQ categories there do not match any established racial classification based in biology

Yes they do.

No, they really, really don't. They don't even come close.

Starting with the crude stupidity of deriving "African" as a race from your little chart there, continuing with the split of the "Asian" that does not match your Han/Japanese minus Malaysian "NE Asian" ignorant lumping, and averting our eyes in courtesy from the bizarre Neanderthal -> Sapiens thing (is that supposed to have happened in Europe?), the best we can grant that post is that trying to support the sociological races with such charts is non-standard and non-established biology.

 

[Yelena McMullen]

No, it has closed recently from 85 to over 90 in the blacks. Nothing to do with the Flynn effect.

No Link?
And what's a "black"?
The American mixed race, or sub-Saharans?

No racially categorized survey of IQ scores has ever been corrected for a major dietary or sociological factor associated with race. None have ever employed biological identification of "race".
That doesn't work, even for most of the known major factors such as gestational toxin exposure, maternal stress, stereotype threat, vitamin and other dietary issues, and so forth. And it is very problematic for extrapolating to a population average - adoption is not randomly distributed in the population on either end, the presumption that adopted black children are treated identically to white children in all relevant respects has never been verified, the necessary control of equivalent adoption of white children by middle class black households has not been run, and so forth.

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...es-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx[/B]

...."Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence."

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa.
   
   
2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.
   
   
3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races.
   
   
4. Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks.
   
   
5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89.
   
   
6. Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100.
   .....

And of course the racial designation is sociological in the first place, screwing the whole thing up from jump. Of course the IQ test is, also, so it's hard to see how you plan to dig out from that pile, but you could at least start with a biological classification of the test takers if you intend to draw biological conclusions from the results.

Already refuted several times above.

Starting with the crude stupidity of deriving "African" as a race from your little chart there, continuing with the split of the "Asian" that does not match your Han/Japanese minus Malaysian "NE Asian" ignorant lumping, and averting our eyes in courtesy from the bizarre Neanderthal -> Sapiens thing (is that supposed to have happened in Europe?), the best we can grant that post is that trying to support the sociological races with such charts is non-standard and non-established biology.

You said there is NO biological Basis.
Whether it is perfect or not, especially for the cruder mere 'big 3' is academic.
There IS Biological Basis and it can be seen in the Evolutionary tree, Genes and appearance/morphology.
Race/subspecies in all living things, IS morphological difference caused by genetic difference, born of separate geographical evolution.

And You really WHIFFED on all the info in my last showing what does constitutes race in humans, and that burden is easily met
Human races are very strongly marked, and among the easiest to discern in any animal species.
Thus humans easily pass the test for race/supspecies despite some subsequent mixing.
You also had/have your terminology all wrong.

Btw, Your responses have really shrunk to very little compared to my initial posts and subsequent answers/rebuttals.
I put up 3, you answered a smaller two,
I answered the 2, you out up 1.
You don't even contest many of your silly claims in past posts any more.
Thus your frustration/insults.
Poor form.

Oh, and we never got an answer from you about your empty claim that's there's not enough genetic distance for race in humans. (among other beauties)
Still waiting.

 

[iceaura]

Already refuted several times above.

No, it's not refuted at all.

And what's a "black"?

American black, whether "mixed" or not - it's a sociological definition, peculiar to the US and a couple other countries, with no established biological basis and no reality outside of US influenced Western culture.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect.

That's stupid. Children learn a great deal before the age of three, from many sources of "teaching", there are large sociological racial differences in such opportunity and education that no such "matching" has ever dealt with, and the other environmental influences with known racial disparities haven't even been mentioned.

To repeat: no such IQ survey has ever been corrected for the known racial disparities in the major known environmental influences on IQ. I listed a few, there are more, they remain as unmeasured influences of unknown - but definitely present - effect.

They haven't even bothered to begin with biologically defined "race" classifications. Whatever those bozos are doing, it isn't biological science.

Meanwhile, why are you bringing IQ tests into a thread on biological race, in the first place?

There IS Biological Basis and it can be seen in the Evolutionary tree, Genes and appearance/morphology.

You say that even after posting an example of the tree - which is a joke - and no genetic or morphological criteria whatsoever. Are reading what you've been typing?

You said there is NO biological Basis.

Yep. None so far, anyway. No established biological basis for any of the sociological races invented during the slave trade in the US in the early 1800s - to nail it down. And no other proposed races have been introduced here, by you or anyone - you pretend to talk biology, but all your actual presented races are the same old sociological delusions marketed by the swindlers of racial bigots since a hundred years before Darwin blew them out of the water and for a hundred years afterwards.

"African", for example, is not a biological race. Neither is "Asian". Neither is whatever the hell "European/Caucasian/white" even means.

Thus humans easily pass the test for race/supspecies despite some subsequent mixing.

Not the test you posted: morphologically distinguished, allopatric, and geographically separated populations. That one's useless to you - it has the Maoris in one race all by themselves, and the entire Mediterranean basin in one race that looks like the cafeteria at the UN, and the Hopi in a different race than the Navajo, and Cajuns in a different race than Iowans, and so forth - you can for sure kiss your IQ chart goodbye on that criteria for "race" - aka "subspecies" (good lord).

Did you have a different test in mind? Backup bullshit for the blownup stuff?

You've got this, from our old friend and garbage peddler Jensen (you are about the fifteenth purveyor if this same toxic shit since I joined this forum): I'm going to fisk it in line

1. The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. {same outdated US black IQ, same failure to correct scores, same acceptance of sociological race when drawing biological conclusions}
   
   
2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). {same sociological races, same failure to correct scores, etc etc}
   
   
3. The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. {heritability only applies to genetically - geneologically - linked entities. Projecting it across genetically disparate groups, such as the US black race, is a basic error. That is the error people used to make about height, for example - back when they were proving the Japanese race was short and had bad eyesight. All Asians were short then, even the Chinese in the US - and height was heritable, which proved it was genetic. Until their diet changed, whereupon everybody stopped talking like that and pretended they never had).
   
4. Brain Size Differences. {Actually false. Google - they were careless}
   
   
5. Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. {handled above, prior post. Meaningless}
   
   
6. Racial Admixture Studies. {even less meaningful than adoption - no correction for actual environment, etc}

Tip: find better intellectual company. There are people doing real work in this area, and they could use some of the attention being wasted on the Jensen's of this world.

For starters, they aren't trying to define IQ as a racial characteristic - why would anyone even bother to try doing that? There isn't even a consensus on what an IQ test measures. Maybe it's like height - a summary stat for the cumulative effects of a wide variety of interacting mishaps and life stressors in the last couple of generations. Maybe it's not even fundamentally biological at all.

And it would be nice to have somebody show up on this forum, broach this topic, and then not post the same old disreputable and debunked detritus.

 

[spidergoat]

First, I am not a 'white supremacist', but I am a 'Race Realist'.

Which means a racist who pretends to use science to justify their pseudoscientific views.

 

[Yelena McMullen]

No, it's not refuted at all.
American black, whether "mixed" or not - it's a sociological definition, peculiar to the US and a couple other countries, with no established biological basis and no reality outside of US influenced Western culture.

Not at all
American 'Black' is, on average, 25% white due to Slavery.

That's stupid. Children learn a great deal before the age of three, from many sources of "teaching", there are large sociological racial differences in such opportunity and education that no such "matching" has ever dealt with, and the other environmental influences with known racial disparities haven't even been mentioned.
To repeat: no such IQ survey has ever been corrected for the known racial disparities in the major known environmental influences on IQ. I listed a few, there are more, they remain as unmeasured influences of unknown - but definitely present - effect.

Yes they have been done as well as the proxy for IQ, the SAT, and 'Blacks' still have a Large deficit in spite of circumstance.
This according to the JBHE/Journal for Blacks in Higher Education.
I may post it.

They haven't even bothered to begin with biologically defined "race" classifications. Whatever those bozos are doing, it isn't biological science.
Meanwhile, why are you bringing IQ tests into a thread on biological race, in the first place?
You say that even after posting an example of the tree - which is a joke - and no genetic or morphological criteria whatsoever. Are reading what you've been typing?
Yep. None so far, anyway. No established biological basis for any of the sociological races invented during the slave trade in the US in the early 1800s - to nail it down. And no other proposed races have been introduced here, by you or anyone - you pretend to talk biology, but all your actual presented races are the same old sociological delusions marketed by the swindlers of racial bigots since a hundred years before Darwin blew them out of the water and for a hundred years afterwards.

And yet you totally WHIFFED on my post #163 (NOVA/PBS link) where it is shown that Physical and Forensic anthropolgists not only believe in Race, but Use it every day.
They, and the courts they testify in, will be even more amazed by your Blinding denialism.

Conspicuously, (or should I say As per usual) you never even touched that Post... or other large points.

"African", for example, is not a biological race. Neither is "Asian". Neither is whatever the hell "European/Caucasian/white" even means.

It is understood to mean the group/s that stayed in Africa/sub-Sahara (not later N African mixes), vs those who split off after leaving.
Even YOU can understand that, even if you piss and stink as you do in every post.

Not the test you posted: morphologically distinguished, allopatric, and geographically separated populations. That one's useless to you - it has the Maoris in one race all by themselves, and the entire Mediterranean basin in one race that looks like the cafeteria at the UN, and the Hopi in a different race than the Navajo, and Cajuns in a different race than Iowans, and so forth - you can for sure kiss your IQ chart goodbye on that criteria for "race" - aka "subspecies" (good lord).
Did you have a different test in mind? Backup bullshit for the blownup stuff?

All your obtuse and bluster posts are disingenuous attempts at ambiguation among micro-groups citing Nothing.
It's really Disingenuous (to be kind) to suggest anyone (but you) is saying Hopis and Navajos are different Races, though they are probably distinct enough to be measured genetically.

[/b]You've got this, from our old friend and garbage peddler Jensen (you are about the fifteenth purveyor if this same toxic shit since I joined this forum): I'm going to fisk it in line
Tip: find better intellectual company. There are people doing real work in this area, and they could use some of the attention being wasted on the Jensen's of this world...
[/b]And it would be nice to have somebody show up on this forum, broach this topic, and then not post the same old disreputable and debunked detritus.

In addition to Jensen and my News-Medical Link, I have cited, NOVA/PBS citing Forensic anthropologists, Wikipedia- Twice, Perhaps the world's foremost Evo/Speciation expert- and author of the Standard text 'Speciation'.
You have cited NO ONE.
You hypocrite Clown.
You are Full of Crap with NO sources.

You conspicuously WHIFFED Totally on my 163/Nova-PBS, AND last Half of my 167/Wiki which explains the standard criteria for Race. And demonstrates 'Race' is a word you didn't even understand.
All your dishonest and goofy posts attempt is ambiguation among larger groups/races.
But as noted in the last part of #167, Larger Races can EASILY be told apart with 100% accuracy.

Despite me asking/challenging you to justify your claim that "there isn't enough genetic distance for race among humans" you Dishonestly whiffed - twice.
And this, of course, obviously isn't true or we wouldn't be able to easily tell Asians from Scandinavians, from Pygmies.
(see the Sewall Wright Wiki section I posted in #167)

Which means a racist who pretends to use science to justify their pseudoscientific views

Immediately above in this post I cited my sources.
They are NOT "pseudo", and your post is empty/contentLess trolling.
Even worse than iceaura's
.

 

[iceaura]

"American black, whether "mixed" or not - it's a sociological definition, peculiar to the US and a couple other countries, with no established biological basis and no reality outside of US influenced Western culture."
Not at all
American 'Black' is, on average, 25% white due to Slavery.

In the first place, that's nonsense - the two categories are both sociological conventions, not genetic categories, and all those black people are black in US society unless they can pass, in which case they can become - actually change into being - white. There is no "25% white" racial category (there used to be, in some States, based on registered parentage, but the legislatures involved found themselves in difficulties - they got rid of it right quick).

The US races are not biologically defined. Genetics, geneology, and so forth, are irrelevant except as proxy indicators of sociological race.

And yet you totally WHIFFED on my post #163 (NOVA/PBS link) where it is shown that Physical and Forensic anthropolgists not only believe in Race, but Use it every day.

They don't use biologically defined "race" - as you can see for yourself, using your own links here: Ask yourself how many races those anthropologists are using - 3, or 30, or some number in between - and how they picked them. Ask yourself how they are making their racial identifications.
I can tell you that one - they are tracing genetic and other biochemical indicators of geographical ancestry and physical appearance, and using these origins and attributes as proxy indicators of sociological race, tribal membership, etc.

Yes they have been done as well as the proxy for IQ, the SAT, and 'Blacks' still have a Large deficit in spite of circumstance.
This according to the JBHE/Journal for Blacks in Higher Education.

Not a single racially classified population survey of IQ or any IQ proxy has ever been corrected for any - even one - of the major known racial disparities in environmental influences on IQ.

And the researchers don't even know whether their list of major racially disparate influences is complete - just last year somebody noticed that recent quality of sleep strongly affects IQ scores and other such performances, for example, and that on any given day black people in the US are more likely than white people to have had poorer quality sleep the night before.

Despite me asking/challenging you to justify your claim that "there isn't enough genetic distance for race among humans" you Dishonestly whiffed - twice.
And this, of course, obviously isn't true or we wouldn't be able to easily tell Asians from Scandinavians, from Pygmies.

In replying to someone who doesn't even know that physical appearance (to them! sheesh - - - ) and genetic distance are very different attributes, I don't bother with the technical stuff - even when you hand me a softball, like the claim that you can see a large genetic distance between Scandinavians and Asians. https://www.quora.com/How-come-so-many-Finnish-people-look-East-Asian
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicanthic_fold

Epicanthic folds appear in East Asians, Southeast Asians, Central Asians, North Asians, some South Asians, Middle Easterners, North Africans, Polynesians, Micronesians, Indigenous Americans, the Khoisan, Malagasy, occasionally Europeans (e.g., Scandinavians, Hungarians, Samis, Russians, Irish[7]and Poles)[8][9] and among Nilotes.

The Khoisan are "pigmies", btw. They are pigmies who in many respects resemble some tribes of Scandinavians and Russians - you know, the type specimen "Caucasians", people who live in the Caucasus mountains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus - more closely than those Caucasians resemble the Dutch.

Find better intellectual company. This is a science forum.

 

[Yelena McMullen]

In the first place, that's nonsense - the two categories are both sociological conventions, not genetic categories, and all those black people are black in US society unless they can pass, in which case they can become - actually change into being - white. There is no "25% white" racial category (there used to be, in some States, based on registered parentage, but the legislatures involved found themselves in difficulties - they got rid of it right quick).
The US races are not biologically defined. Genetics, geneology, and so forth, are irrelevant except as proxy indicators of sociological race.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans

“You see all of those different ancestries in each of these groups,” Bryc explains. The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American, the team reports online today in TheAmerican Journal of Human Genetics.​

They don't use biologically defined "race" - as you can see for yourself, using your own links here: Ask yourself how many races those anthropologists are using - 3, or 30, or some number in between - and how they picked them. Ask yourself how they are making their racial identifications.
I can tell you that one - they are tracing genetic and other biochemical indicators of geographical ancestry and physical appearance, and using these origins and attributes as proxy indicators of sociological race, tribal membership, etc.

Actually most are probably using just 3 or 4, and if necessary, hybrids thereof.

Not a single racially classified population survey of IQ or any IQ proxy has ever been corrected for any - even one - of the major known racial disparities in environmental influences on IQ.

Genetic Structure, Self-Identified Race/Ethnicity, and Confounding in Case-Control Association Studies
Hua Tang,1 Tom Quertermous,2 Beatriz Rodriguez,4 Sharon L. R. Kardia,5 Xiaofeng Zhu,6 Andrew Brown,7 James S. Pankow,8 Michael A. Province,9 Steven C. Hunt,10 Eric Boerwinkle,11 Nicholas J. Schork,12 and Neil J. Risch3,13

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/

Abstract
We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program).

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of FOUR major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced FOUR Major Clusters, which showed near-Perfect correspondence with the four self-reported Race/ethnicity categories.
Of 3,636 subjects of varying Race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified Race/ethnicity. On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population. Implications of this genetic structure for case-control association studies are discussed.​

Oucher!

The Khoisan are "pigmies", btw. They are Pigmies who in Many respects Resemble some tribes of Scandinavians and Russians - you know, the type specimen "Caucasians", people who live in the Caucasus mountains https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus - more closely than those Caucasians resemble the Dutch.

Whatever you say!

Find better intellectual company. This is a science forum.

I think it's YOU who needs intellectual company, if not a transplant.
I'M the one putting up ALL the science/Scientists.
In this post alone, Science mag, and a published ncbi/nih paper.
You post utter BS pulled from your derriere.
It's rare I have such an intellectually weak/bankrupt opponents to Gut.
I WAS hoping to find "better intellectual company", but after just you and 48 hours, it's a desert.
!

 

[spidergoat]

Immediately above in this post I cited my sources.

Doesn't matter, you are still missing context. You found one scientist who admittedly defines race rather broadly, it lends no credence to your other crackpot notions.

 

[iceaura]

You post utter BS pulled from your derriere.

But I'm correct - I am making accurate and factual statements.

I'M the one putting up ALL the science/Scientists.

They don't support your claims. They contradict each other. They use old stats. They are famous for racial stereotyping. When they are able and competent, as a couple are, they make irrelevant points and provide irrelevant information for this thread.
For example, the IQ stuff: what are you trying to argue with this IQ bs? What's your point?
The following is a true statement:

Not a single racially classified population survey of IQ or any IQ proxy has ever been corrected for any - even one - of the major known racial disparities in environmental influences on IQ.

Ponder it. What it means is that the genetic, "subspecies", biologically based average IQ of US black people could be anything from 92 (what the current measurements indicate, which would be the minimum) to 120. Nobody knows. A good guess might be about 101 - that would account for the stereotype threat (6 - 8 point suppression in the couple of studies done) and the maternal stress/gestational stress effects (3-4 points) added linearly, without any adjustment for toxin exposure, noise and poor sleep, deficient infant stimulation, dietary inadequacies, and so forth and so on.

“You see all of those different ancestries in each of these groups,” Bryc explains. The average African-American genome, for example, is 73.2% African, 24% European, and 0.8% Native American, the team reports online today in TheAmerican Journal of Human Genetics.

So? They are black, in the US. That's their "race", and they are no other race, in the US.

Actually most are probably using just 3 or 4, and if necessary, hybrids thereof.

Proxies for the standard sociological races, then - just as I pointed out. (There are no "hybrids".)
And they probably aren't using 4) to mark race - it's been debunked.

Whatever you say!

What I documented, you mean. Did you read the link?
Your picture, which you did not link, does not appear to have any Khoisan, or Scandinavians, or Asians, in it, btw - it could be of atypical folks of those kinds, but it doesn't look like it - and the pictured folks lack the epicanthic folds that were at issue. Was it supposed to be relevant, or are you just posting random colonial era paternalistic racial bigotry for entertainment?

I linked you to a more typical picture of a Khoisan man, on the Wiki page. If you care. Here's one of a Khoisan woman: http://htl-wireless.com/Khoisan-woman.jpg - Imagine if this woman looked Asian? Or if these people did: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...f3f8f07bb845aec475fe8a501d7c13a69fcd1dfbf.jpg
That would blow your whole "scientific" racial muddle out of the water, wouldn't it. Good thing they don't.

 

[iceaura]

Continuing:

We have analyzed genetic data for 326 microsatellite markers that were typed uniformly in a large multiethnic population-based sample of individuals as part of a study of the genetics of hypertension (Family Blood Pressure Program).

Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of FOUR major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced FOUR Major Clusters, which showed near-Perfect correspondence with the four self-reported Race/ethnicity categories.

So a genetic indicator for geographic origin, which is a good proxy for US sociological race in the US and Taiwan. Cool.

Especially since it can be used as a fairly simple and increasingly cheap blood test that could warn of vulnerability to high blood pressure in the US (which has long been known to vary by sociological race) and perhaps even point to reasons for it (such as varying sensitivity to sleep quality, salt or fish in the diet, Vitamin D deficiency, or others of the many known or unknown racially disparate influences on hypertension, all of which may have genetic roots).

Hypertension, btw, is a known negative influence on both adult brain function and (in the mother) gestational brain development (including via premature or underweight birth). So add that to the list of racially disparate IQ score factors your "scientific" IQ sources have never corrected for.

Do you have a point, something you were trying to say?

 

[ElectricFetus]

All this is besides the point, yes some people are genetically stronger, or faster, or smarter then another person, so what? Look at people with Down's syndrome, that is a whole extra chromosome, one could even go as far as to say they are a different species, let alone race, none the less we morally and ethically grant them all the same rights as any other person, we even provide them special services of their mental disabilities so that at least some of them can be productive members of society.

All of this arguing over race is defined by the issue of what to do with inferior people, equality under the law and the defeat of the Nazis should have put and end to that question, yet somehow if we admit that some people are different from other people it keeps creeping up.

Anyways I am an advocate for granting all higher apes human rights and stop experimenting on them and putting them in zoos.

 

[iceaura]

Probably ought to let this kind of noxious confusion (notice the bounce between race and genetics) rest in peace:

Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20...es-in-average-IQ-are-largely-genetic.aspx[/B]

...."Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001.

"Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence

1. - - -
2. Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test.

but by coincidence a bit of research landed on my reading table just yesterday, and it pertains:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6346/47/tab-figures-data

- - - In a randomized field experiment with 1540 children (average age 4.9 years) in 214 Indian preschools, 4 months of math game play yielded marked and enduring improvement in the exercised intuitive abilities - - -
- -
but displayed no advantage in subsequent learning of the language and concepts of school mathematics.

In other words, the assumption that the "general intelligence factor" measured by things liked Backward Digit Span is less "g loaded" by superficial cultural factors is dubious, and might need serious revision.

And since these "race realists" are identifying their "races" on sociological grounds in the first place, any such cultural influences are built in to the very base of their analytical framework - they're screwed from the gitgo.