Quote:The real truth is in fact routinely reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The mainstream view in psychometrics, for instance, is that intelligence is largely hereditary. Scientific journals, especially those dealing with population genetics and those dealing with medicine, also routinely report facts about race. Often (but not always) euphemisms like "geographic ancestries", "population clusters", and "human populations" are used to avoid political attacks.
I'm sorry, you can peddle that somewhere else.
"The claim that a significant portion of the racial IQ gap has an ultimately genetic origin have been advanced by psychologists, including Arthur Jensen, J. Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, and Linda Gottfredson, while others such as Richard Nisbett, James R. Flynn, Robert Sternberg and Jefferson Fish have argued in favor of wholly or mostly environmental causes. The American Psychological Association in a 1996 report stated that the US racial IQ gap was not the result of bias in the content or administration of tests, nor simply reflect differences in socio-economic status. They go on to state that cultural factors may be appropriate but have little direct empirical support, nor is there such support for a genetic interpretation, and that presently no one knows the cause of the differential.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence
It's not as you present. And we do know that persons such as Rushton, Burt and Lynn have abused statistics, have used shoddy sampling, and have told outright lies. They have even misused the very notion of 'heretability' up which they have "mistakenly" used to state that intelligence is largely inherited
We also know that heritability which is based on twin studies has been found are highly flawed and have been attacked by academics and has had them scratching their heads as to why it's rolled out as fact.
"The derivation of heritability from human twin studies involves serious methodological flaws. Heritability is consistently overestimated because of biological confounds of twinning, consistent and often gross underestimation of the environmental variance, and nonadditive genetic influences that can hugely exaggerate heritability values. Despite this bad research design, behaviour geneticists continue to publish results implying that their heritability results are valid.
http://philpapers.org/rec/SEGWTS
Population genetics isn't a euphemism for race. That kind of talk comes from racists not population genetics.
Population genetics is also the most widely misused area of human genetics, sometimes bordering on "vigilante genetics," a term coined by Newton Morton. Persons have mistakenly applied population genetics to "prove" race superiority for intelligence and aptitudes, and have misused it in eugenics. As an educated and, I hope, a respected member of your community you must be alert to "vigilante genetics."
Population genetics is concerned with gene and genotype frequencies, the factors that tend to keep them constant, and the factors that tend to change them in populations. It is largely concerned with the study of polymorphisms. It directly impacts counseling, forensic medicine, and genetic screening.
http://www.uic.edu/classes/bms/bms655/lesson13.html
Quote:With some exceptions (e.g. osteoporosis being more common in europids and mongoloids than in negroids), these findings are largely ignored by the mainstream media, social sciences, and politicians.
You are using the antiquated and disused terminology- a nasty habit of racists.
Quote:There is no conspiracy at all.
I was referring to racists thinking who think that genetic research is using code for folkloric ideas on race. That's conspiracy thinking- it's false.
Quote:No, more or less all the evidence corroborates a polytypic view. A person's race can be identified by craniofacial morphology, hair texture, bone density, musculature, and of course by genetics. The idea that race does not exist is based on the discredited Lewontin fallacy, along with some politically motivated hatchet jobs by self-proclaimed "dialectical biologists" like Stephen Jay Gould.
Why do you suppose police departments employ forensic anthropologists? Even a single hair from a crime scene can be used to determine the race of the perpetrator, allowing police more effectively to search for criminals.
They've associated few recognised characteristics with social concepts of race. So what? That some variation is picked up on doesn't tell us that the variation is something that justifies a categorisations on "race".
Quote:Types are in fact clear and distinct. Anyone can tell a white man from a negro, even if they have the same skin color. Everyone knows they behave different, both between societies and within societies. A century of research from the social sciences corroborates this.
Again that there is some variation that allows you to roughly say where a person is from doesn't warrant the crude historical, and dropped, categories of race. All those characeristics you've cited are superficial characteristics. The fact remains that human beings share in common 99.99% of their DNA. A variation in some superficial characteristics does not imply biologically distinct races in the sense of subspecies.
Forum
Pages: 
