<p>1</p>
<p>D</p>
<p>4</p>
<p>10 chars</p>
<p>
[quote]
Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as "racial" differences.</p>
<p>"The 15 percent is well below the threshold that is used to recognize race in other species," Templeton said. "In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of. There's lots of genetic variation in humanity, but it's basically at the individual level. The between-population variation is very, very minor."</p>
<p>Among Templeton's conclusions: There is more genetic similarity between Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans and between Europeans and Melanesians, inhabitants of islands northeast of Australia, than there is between Africans and Melanesians. Yet, sub-Saharan Africans and Melanesians share dark skin, hair texture and cranial-facial features, traits commonly used to classify people into races. According to Templeton, this example shows that "racial traits" are grossly incompatible with overall genetic differences between human populations.</p>
<p>"The pattern of overall genetic differences instead tells us that genetic lineages rapidly spread out to all of humanity, indicating that human populations have always had a degree of genetic contact with one another, and thus historically don't show any distinct evolutionary lineages within humanity," Templeton said. "Rather, all of humanity is a single long-term evolutionary lineage."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is true that the genetic differences between humans are remarkably less than those between other species of animals. In fact - this is an interesting observation in terms of itself. We know that humans are quite adept at genocide. It's entirely possible that there was more genetic diversity among humans in the past - but that the competing tribes wiped the more "different" tribes out. This may have resulted in the remarkable amount of genetic homogeneities within the human race.</p>
<p>HOWEVER - the issue is a matter of perspective. Even if differences between human populations are smaller than those between other species of animals - the differences still do exist. AND - the differences may be significant enough to produce variations such as differences in intelligence. Now - humans are all fairly genetically similar to each other - that still does not prevent them from realizing all sorts of different personality and intelligence profiles.</p>
<p>As I have pointed out above - MINOR DIFFERENCES in genetic profiles can produce remarkable differences. A single mutation that has had some selection advantage can do just that - as we see in the case of the DRD4 receptor.</p>
<p>"Seriously, if the average for blacks is 85, that would psychologically classify them as mildly retarded. An entire group like that is not mildly retarded."</p>
<p>Mild mental retardation is generally regarded as less than 70 on tests like the WISC, although functional abilities are generally factored in . An "average", even if accurate in what it is trying to measure, does not define a group. (i.e. a schools stats give a range not an average). BTW, I appreciate what you are trying to say.</p>
<p>Race does exist. If you're trying to say, "well, we're all humans, same species," then you're right. We're the same in that sense. But biologically, race does exist. If you've ever been to a hospital and had to fill out forms, they ask your race, it's not because they want to treat you better or worse, but because race matters. </p>
<p>My biology teacher went over this in class once and explained it. I don't want to just act as though I'm taking his word for it, because I understood what he was saying, I just don't feel like explaining it. The entire questioning is sort of flawed though. Usually there's correlation between genetics and environment, but whatever.</p>
<p>Success is most influenced by one's definition of success.</p>
<p>Your definition of success might be happiness, health, and a wonderful group of friends. Or it could be going to Yale, or winning a game of NetHack, or owning a farm of your own, or making it to the US Physics Team in 8th grade.</p>
<p>Some of these are easier to achieve than others. Those with the least achievable desires are usually least likely to be "successful."</p>
<p>Intelligence, of course, is another fuzzy term.</p>
<p>i'm not gonna write along paragraph because I have enough o f alife to not read the ones that came before me, but this, this is just ridiculous. Generalization is wrong because there aren't just minor outliers. Alot of people don't fit generalizations, so I suggest you all stop because you're debating something that is unsolvable and a complete waste of time.</p>
<p>so blacks are mostly low iq and dumb.</p>
<p>Intelligence:
2) roughly equal combination of genes and environment, lots of variation</p>
<p>Success:
c) roughly equal combination of genes and environment, lots of variation</p>
<p>Secondary question:
3) mostly environment</p>
<p>
[quote]
Race does exist. If you're trying to say, "well, we're all humans, same species," then you're right. We're the same in that sense. But biologically, race does exist. If you've ever been to a hospital and had to fill out forms, they ask your race, it's not because they want to treat you better or worse, but because race matters.</p>
<p>My biology teacher went over this in class once and explained it. I don't want to just act as though I'm taking his word for it, because I understood what he was saying, I just don't feel like explaining it. The entire questioning is sort of flawed though. Usually there's correlation between genetics and environment, but whatever.
[/quote]
Race is a social construct.
There are no biological 'races' in the human species.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article I posted.</p>
<p>Here:
[quote]
"Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept, and that unfortunately is what many people wrongfully consider to be the essence of race in humans -- genetic differences," Templeton said. "Evolutionary history is the key to understanding race, and new molecular biology techniques offer so much on recent evolutionary history. I wanted to bring some objectivity to the topic. This very objective analysis shows the outcome is not even a close call: There's nothing even like a really distinct subdivision of humanity."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In1950, UNESCO proclaimed that there was no scientific basis for race. I think this really needs to be reconsidered. Researchers, such as Olson (2005) have reintroduced the viability of a genetic basis for race based on the human genome project. Medical researchers keep discovering racial disparities that must be of genetic derivation (Frank, 2007). One example cited by Frank is Rischs finding that African Americans and Hawaiians are more likely to develop lung cancer than other groups when they are moderate smokers. </p>
<p>There is a new field called pharmacogenomics that deals with genetics and drug responses. I cant remember the name of the drug, but I read about a blood pressure drug that was only tested on blacks and is only FDA approved for blacks.</p>
<p>Frank, R. (2007). What to make of it? The (Re)emergence of a biological conceptualization of race in health disparities research. Social Science & Medicine, 64.</p>
<p>Olson (2005). The use of racial, ethnic, and ancestral categories in human genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics, 77.</p>
<p>I was reading another critique of Lynn's book, Race Differences in Intelligence: An Evolutionary Analysis. This reviewer, Rushton of the University of Western Ontario, noted that Lynn reviewd more than 500 research reports in the formulation of his ideas. Rushton noted that Lynn attributes intelligence to 50% environment, 50% genetics. Rushton confirmed that this is consistent with his own 2005 review of the literature. </p>
<p>Regarding Jews, Rushton tells us that Lynn found Israelis have a median IQ of only 95! Ashkenazi Jews = 103, Sephartic Jews = 91, and Arabs = 86. Arabs were found to usually be at that median. </p>
<p>Lynn also suggested that East Asians are more conformist, so, despite IQ advantages, they are not as innovative as Europeans.</p>
<p>Lynn concluded East Asians = 105, but South East Asians = 87, Pacific Islanders = 85, American Indians = 87, Inuit = 91, Pygmies in the Congo = 54.</p>
<p>Lynn also insists that men have a 4-5 point IQ advantage over women.</p>
<p>Source: Rushton, P. (2006). Book Review: Lynn, Richard, Race differences in intelligence: An evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 853-855.</p>
<p>"Washington - The idea of race is not reflected in a person's genes, Brazilian researchers said on Monday, confirming what scientists have long said - that race has no meaning genetically.</p>
<p>The researchers looked at one of the most racially mixed populations in the world for their study, which found there was no way to look at someone's genes and determine his or her race. Brazilians include people of European, African and Indian, or Amerindian, descent.</p>
<p>"There is wide agreement among anthropologists and human geneticists that, from a biological standpoint, human races do not exist," Sergio Pena and colleagues wrote in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.</p>
<p>"Races exist as social constructs," they said.</p>
<p>They found 10 gene variations that could reliably tell people apart genetically, but the differences did not have anything to do with physical characteristics such as skin or hair colour.</p>
<p>Maternal DNA suggested that even "white" people had, on average, 33 percent of genes that were of Amerindian ancestry and 28 percent African. - Reuters"
<a href="http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20021217112750970C124344&set_id=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20021217112750970C124344&set_id=1</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Lynn also insists that men have a 4-5 point IQ advantage over women.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's interesting. Most researchers agree that the variation in IQ is higher for men than women, but that average IQ is the same for both (except for spatial IQ - where men > females)</p>
<p>==</p>
<p>Hmm
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race</a></p>
<p>Interesting article. <em>sigh</em> and I never read it before. You have interesting statements. Hm. There are definitely geographical factors that cause people in the same region to become more similar to each other in certain ways (skin color, lactose tolerance, insulin resistance, and possibly IQ) - yet - they may be different in other ways. For example - blood type. The variation in blood type within individual groups is usually greater than the variation in blood type BETWEEN groups.</p>
<p>Race IS a social construct - however, some social constructs can be very accurate. The question, then, is how accurate is this social construct? </p>
<p>Hmm
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza</a></p>
<p>Apparently Cavalli-Sforza notes that our traditional notions of races are incomplete. There ARE ethnic groups with different genotypes - but these ethnic groups do not fit along with our traditional notions of race. </p>
<p>=</p>
<p>BUT - lactose tolerance is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to genetic variation. A simple mutation can make a particular group lactose tolerant - and that lactose tolerant group can be more different from another lactose tolerant group in a completely different geographical region than a lactose intolerant group in a similar region (due to differing agricultural practices).</p>
<p>Okay - you convinced me that race doesn't really exist. :) On the other hand - intelligence differences between ethnic groups cannot be ruled out (and I do believe that differing selection pressures has caused such differences to arise - however - we don't know enough about the genome yet to make any definitive conclusions)</p>
<p>Goodusername, I'm not sure what your rationale for that snappy reply to me was, but if you did ANY reading or research (including on this thread) you would read that race cannot be determined from peoples' genes and is purely geographically based. I'm not sure who your human geography teacher is but he/she should be fired.</p>
<p>UnleashedFury, I don't think you know what you're talking about. African Americans are prone to sickle cell anemia, and Jews to Tay-Sachs, because of historical geographical differences, not inherent differences in genetics/race. That's why hospitals ask you your race.</p>
<p>OK as I understood, it in Biology the definition of species are organisms that can interbreed with one another and produce viable offspring capable of reproducing fertile offspring. This describes Homo Sapiens Sapiens regardless of race (most humans can produce viable offspring). The differences in genetics with regards to humans are the result of mate selection in the human species. The only way to truly gage what impact race would have on intelligence would be to study the intelligence of mixed children compared to the intelligence of both parental groups. </p>
<p>So yes, environment is the main component of both intelligence and success because there is no evidence without exception to prove otherwise.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only way to truly gage what impact race would have on intelligence would be to study the intelligence of mixed children compared to the intelligence of both parental groups.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
One study suggests that hybrid vigor may be associated with increased intelligence in humans. Nagoshi and Johnson (1986) found that children of Japanese-Caucasian cross-ethnic unions scored .26 SD higher on several cognitive tests than the average score of monoracial Japanese and Caucasian unions, despite having virtually identical parental educational and occupational backgrounds (p. 204). (To clarify this point, we will use an example: If the average Caucasian offspring has an IQ of 100, and the average Japanese offspring has an IQ of 105, then the average Japanese-Caucasian cross-ethnic offspring will have an IQ of 104. (not the predicted score of 102.5)) The increase in scores tended to be higher on cognitive tests that were more g-loaded, suggesting that hybrid vigor improves g. Mingroni (2004) has argued that heterosis may be partially responsible for the Flynn effect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>EarlySenioritis -studying mixed children would not be a good solution in itself because of heterosis - - hydridization that enhances vigor</p>
<p>in my opinion combination of genetics and environmental factors</p>
<p>The Flynn effect is rather intriguing. Are people becoming smarter? Then again, what is leading to the cessation or possible reversal of the Flynn effect in Denmark and Norway?</p>