Oh, now you want to go back to discuss the subject of this thread despite pages of you arguing that race exists and also trying to distance yourself from the survey you linked in the OP which you falsely believed supported your assertion that IQ is somehow connected to race, when the survey results themselves clearly show that environmental factors play a much bigger role? And who are you quoting? Links? Anything scientific? So in direct contradiction to what has been clearly demonstrated throughout this thread with scientific evidence which clearly shows you are wrong, you still expect people to go by just your say so? You have not supported your claim in any way. You demand and expect others to provide evidence, while you provide nothing whatsoever. There have been numerous studies posted in this thread, clearly showing adoption studies which absolutely prove you wrong. For example, from a paper posted earlier in the thread: Adoption studies may tend to underestimate the role of environment and overstate the role of genetics due to the restricted social class range of adoptive homes. Adoptive families are generally of relatively high SES. Moreover, observation of family settings by the HOME technique (Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment; Bradley et al., 1993; Phillips, Brooks-Gunn, Duncan, Klebanov, & Crane, 1998) shows that the environments of adoptive families are much more supportive of intellectual growth than are those of non adoptive families. [...] We can be confident that the environmental differences that are associated with social class have a large effect on IQ. We know this because adopted children typically score 12 points or more higher than comparison children (e.g., siblings left with birth parents or children adopted by lower SES parents), and adoption typically moves children from lower to higher SES homes. A meta-analysis available at the time of the Neisser et al. (1996) article found an effect of adoption of lower SES children by upper-middle-class parents of 12 points (Locurto, 1990). A subsequent adoption study by Duyme, Dumaret, and Tomkiewicz (1999) found that the IQ difference between children adopted by upper-middle-class parents and those adopted by lower SES parents was about 12 points. A recent meta-analysis by van IJzendoorn, Juffer, and Klein Poelhuis (2005) found an average effect of adoption of 18 points. However, these authors considered some studies in which adoption was compared with extremely deprived institutional settings. Your comments are unfounded and not supported by scientific studies. If you scroll down to page 146 of the paper quoted above and read about the difference between whites and blacks and adoption studies, you will see just how and why you are wrong. If you wish to argue environmental factors, which include discrimination, stereotyping (which you clearly demonstrates exists), the effect of poverty, lack of proper nutrition for the parents and their offspring, breastfeeding, upbringing and where, education of the parents and the children, etc, and the varying rates of availability of these important environmental factors to minority groups, then have at it. Because that is what you are left with and it has everything to do with institutionalised bigotry and "racism" based on ideology which you have espoused in this and other threads on this site. But support your claims with actual science. Your say so means absolutely nothing. You have provided virtually nothing scientific and you have demanded others support their arguments while refusing to do so yourself. This makes you a troll and your time here is quickly running out. Support your claims with scientific papers and studies. Provide links to what you are quoting. Or stop wasting people's time because we are trying to discuss this with you. But you need to support your claims and arguments. You keep saying you are, but you have not. You have made claims about IQ and race that are not supported by science. Hell, it isn't even supported by your own OP. You have made claims about race and "shared ancestry" that is not supported by science.