Race and IQ gap

Hybrid vigor is used in livestock breeding to get a stronger and more disease resistant animal. A good example would be pigs. Show pigs tend to have large hams that get in the way of breeding and some cattle are being crossbred between beef and dairy cattle to ease the birth problems with beef cattle and to make sure calves are weaned properly.

So yes, there is such thing as hybrid vigor.

 

"there is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves, and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings."

http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2008/06/more-genetic-variation-within-than.html

Dogs breeds have different levels of intelligence, so, therefore, why can't humans?

Do you have data to support your claim?

I've read White-Asian hybrids have higher levels of mental illness than Whites or Asians.

 

Admixture studies - for both Blacks and Hispanics - have shown correlation with European heritage and intelligence.

http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/2...d-test-of-the-colorism-hypothesis-in-the-gss/

http://humanvarieties.org/2013/04/27/self-reported-white-ancestry-among-us-blacks-a-jensen-effect/


http://humanvarieties.org/2013/03/29/cryptic-admixture-mixed-race-siblings-social-outcomes/

http://humanvarieties.org/2013/05/13/iq-advantage-of-multiracials-a-jensen-effect/

 

Genetic engineering is not eugenics.

 

mtDNA or Mitochondrial DNA, is the DNA of the powerplant of the cell. It has NO bearing on the rest of the organism since mtDNA does not control eye color, skin color, intelligence or morphology. It also only contains about 16,600 base pairs (vs the 3 billion in the standard human genome) and is only inherited from the mother so having more or less genetic diversity in the mtDNA is meaningless when comparing dogs and humans.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/educa...key-to-survival/2008/02/22/1203467395770.html
http://www.csrees.usda.gov/newsroom/research/2007/bee_diversity.html
http://www.ohio.edu/ethics/2003-con...at-to-the-survivability-of-human-populations/
http://assoc.garden.org/courseweb/course2/week2/page18.htm
https://www.boundless.com/biology/m...variation--2/genetic-variation-and-evolution/

And I can go on an on...

 

Autosomal genetic distances between wolves, coyotes and dogs are comparable to humans and they are all interfertile. It's a good analogy.

Obviously genetic diversity is not always beneficial. Why do genes go to fixation? Some genes, in fact most of them, are harmful. There is a break even point between "diversity" and good genes. "Diversity is always good" is complete nonsense. For humans the balance point between outbreeding depression and hybrid vigor is around 4th cousin.

Please do not link to many articles and expect people to make your argument for you. Please try to construct a point in your own words.

 

I see you don't understand the difference of mtDNA and DNA. mtDNA does not have any direct influence on the organism as a whole so whether dogs and coyotes or the different races of humans have greater differences in their mtDNA is meaningless. Also, I hope that you are not trying to imply that because dogs and coyotes offspring are infertile, that multiracial offspring are infertile too.

Most genes are harmful? Really? Where did you get that whopper? As for outbreeding depression, that is only valid in isolated populations. In a interbreeding population like humans, it is not a problem.[/QUOTE]

You obviously didn't read the back posts or you would have known that I was merely answering rayznack's question "Do you have data to support your claim?", a challenge to my assertion, "...populations that have a greater variety in their gene pool do better than "purebred" populations.". It was a yes and no question so I really only had to answer yes or no, but I thought I'd save some time by giving links. The reason I gave so many is to show that there is so much evidence in support of my position that I could pull scores of them without any effort. However, if you want me to explain it in terms you would understand, I will humor you.

When a population does not have a lot of genetic variation, it is more susceptible to bad genes. Think of it this way, say you have a deck of cards and you are playing a game where you take turns turning over the cards one-by-one. If you get a Joker, you lose. Now assuming you have a standard 52 card deck and it has two Jokers, making it a total of 54 cards, that means you have a 1:27 chance of getting a Joker. Now reduce the number of cards by 25% and you have a 1:20.25 chance of getting a Joker so your odds of losing have increased. It works the same with genes. With fewer genes, the odds of getting a bad one increases. Then on top of this, a population with small genetic variation has a less chance of surviving a major environmental change since the gene that would have allowed the organism to survive is not present in that population.

 

Where exactly will this genocide take place? we should be on guard against it and protect that race or races from it.

 

I wrote: "Autosomal genetic distances between wolves, coyotes and dogs are comparable to humans and they are all interfertile." You know what autosomal means right? You know what interfertile means right?

Well obviously. The proportion of mutations that are delterious far outweighs advantageous mutations. As Dawkins said "there are many more ways to be dead than alive". "Diversity" in itself is totally undesirable. Some diversity in a qualified sense can be useful.

No, outbreeding depression can occur in widely dispersed species. It probably occurs in humans. It was once calculated that 4th cousin mating is optimal in humans.

Your analogy is nonsense. Exactly two genes are bad and all other genes are neutral, so increasing the neutral genes drown out the bad genes? Genes are not just bad or neutral, some genes are good. Increasing genes randomly (increasing diversity) probably won't be neutral, and will probably be bad. Think of randomly changing a complex system. 99 times out of 100 you screw it up. "Diversity" is the anti-thesis of evolution.

 

Well eventually you'll wipe out (for example) the Labradors if keep flooding their homelands with other breeds and only do this where the Labs live. As much as labs are more likely to mate with other labs doesnt matter, eventually they'll wiped out, its just a numbers game.

 

A partial genome sequence of Neanderthals in 2011 revealed that as much as 4 per cent of the genomes of present-day humans were derived from Neanderthal DNA and the Denisovans also contributed to up to 6 per cent of the Melanesian genomes. A study (Abi-Rached et al. 2011) found that the cross breeding between Homo sapience and archaic humans had a positive effect on modern human fitness with the introduction of new variants of immune system genes called the HLA class I genes, which are critical for our body's ability to destroy pathogens. But geneticists pointed out some possible flaws in the HLC's classification of the 2011 study. HLC-C*12:02 is found with relatively high frequencies in both Italy and Japan (10-12%) as well as Eastern Europe (1-4%) and given the geographic distribution of HLC-C*12:02, it may have originated from the Neanderthals not from the Denisovans, who had not left their genetic imprint outside Melanesia according to more comprehensive genetic research on the Denisovans (Reich et al. 2011).

 

I'll be honest I have no idea where the species line is drawn for any biological creature, in reality it's arbitrary, if a biologist decides the line should be draw here or there a new species is created. If you don't believe me perhaps you should read about human interbreeding between Neanderthal and modern humans (also google java man in asia), genetic studies have shown that all human beings outside of Africa have a percentage of their genetic code from Neanderthals.

"Studies indicate modern Europeans share between 1 and 4 per cent of their genes with Neanderthals" read more

This is a silly argument, you're trying to deny race exists as a measurement. I could make the same claim about sex. Lets try it! There is more genetic distance between two individual unrelated females than there are between say a man and a woman who are siblings. So by your logic that means sex is not a useful measurement or definition, yet we know and understand the differences between male and female.

Inequality in biological organisms is fundamental to the breeding process, if breeding didn't produce inequality we'd all be dead from disease. Evolution would be impossible as we'd be statically trapped in your world of genetic equality, no variation because someone might end up at the bottom and some one at the top and that might offend your sensibilities.

I assume your referring to inbred genetic faults and health. This thread is about intelligence, not health. If genetics play a big part in cognitive ability which I believe they do then the 'enthic groups' that hold the 'smart genes' are Northern European and East Asians.

Sorry your not aloud to use that argument we've already established your 'static genetic equality theory" doesn't allow for evolution.

You're right Germany is such a horrible place to live these days and Sweden, never mind their excellent economies and high living standards, I'm off to a Favela in Brazil, adeus!

 

What genocide, I see world that consists mostly of people of mixed race.
Only the genocidal see distinct races as feature of humanity that will survive over time.

 

Unfortunately, none of your articles discussed benefits of inter-racial human mixing.

Your criticism of mtDNA variability is silly. It's a standard method used by scientists to determine genetic differences between animals:

Humans:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274485/

Apes:
http://www.berggorilla.org/fileadmin/gorilla-journal/gorilla-journal-20-english.pdf

Btw, here are two studies on potential problems from race mixing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448064/

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-08/uoc--baa081108.php

 

In every group you have mensa personal, idiots, etc. I'm more inclined to think people have inherent traits that may cause them to seem smarter or dumber than others. You ask people what they think of different nationalities you may come up with something like this:

1. Jewish: - Average intellect, Arrogant, cheap, paranoid, religious fanatics,good sense of humour.

2. Arabs - Below average intellect, Arrogant, distrustful, dangerous, serious minded, religious fanatics.

3. Asians - Smart, rude, impatient, business oriented, enjoy eating, dangerous.

4. Ural ethnic- Above average intellect Rude, dangerous, serious minded, distrustful, godless.

5. European - Average intellect, Layed back, socialists, scared of life, dependent, luke warm towards religion

6. Scandinavian - Intelligent, Easy going, industrius, happy, layed back, godless.

7. South Americans - Below average intellect Passionate, poor, religious, anti-american, dangerous.

8. North Americans - Below average intellect, hard workink, Arrogant, self absorbed, socialist leaning, somewhat religious, anti black and brown.

9. Africans - Below average intellect, lazy, dependent, lawless.

10. Pakistani - Below average intellect, humorless, dangerous.

Of course not all of the descriptions fit everybodyand not all our included. The point is that it matters not what the IQ is but what the culture is more like.

 

Koreans raised in White culture have higher IQ than Whites, and Blacks raised in White culture have lower IQ than Whites.

 

The relation between ,Race and IQ ,scientifically is this...... Those with an IQ ,say SPECIES ,never Race[except in relation to Athletic Events.].

 

I spent most of the day collecting tons of information to dispute each and every comment when I realized none of it matters. For every article I find you guys are going to find one showing the opposite. I don't have entire websites dedicated to just proving my point at my disposal . So I'm no longer going to fight this, because one, I'm not going to change your minds, and two, the whole point is moot anyway. So one race is more or less intelligent than another, so what? What does it matter? You're talking about averages anyway. That means that not everyone in that race has a low IQ. There are plenty of people in our society that have low IQs and they have the same rights of those who do not, unless you think maybe they shouldn't which is why I creates this thread, http://www.politicalforum.com/human...-low-iqs-have-less-rights.html#post1063024495 where I ask the question, "Do people with low IQs have less rights?".

So if you would like to debate me on that issue, I will be waiting, however I am done with this thread.

 

Well your view here is the general consensus, hence why most Western government are promoting a multicultural mixed race approach.

I think it's important not to get too emotional about all this, the problem with debates about race is they tend to attract idiots who actually have only moronic ideas about why they are against multiculturalism.

My concern is that if you look at the global map of the world today and honestly ask yourself where you'd be happy to live the rest of your life what options do you have? Obviously you want to be safe, you want a strong or decent economy you want health care a certain level of freedom and prospects that your children will have a better life than you do.

From what I can see that gives you, North America, Australia, parts of East Asia (Parts of China, Southern Korea, Japan) Western Europe.
The Arab world is at war with itself and shows little sign of improvement, Africa is a hell on earth with some of the worst economic figures of any region. India shows sluggish growth and has massive social problems with some of the lowest living standards in the world.

Now the major problem I have with this picture is that the places that are good to live are full of Europeans and East Asians, funny that because that matches exactly up with the IQ research. So we can see that stable prosperous societies are those with the smarter people in them, not rocket science is it?

Not buying it?

Lets look at London, massive immigration from around the world and it has some of the lowest living standard in the UK and the highest violent crime rates. Go daily to the bbc websites and look under the England tab you'll see a black face and a story about knife or gun crime. Americans know the realities of race and crime in Los Angeles or New York, across the Western World prisons are disproportionally full of people who are not of European decent. You ever hear about a Chinese or Japanese ghetto or Chinese / Japnese youths causing a knife/gun crime problem?

This isn't about hating or trying to destroy anyone its about calling the cards as you see them. The way I see it you want a prosperous free and good future for your children you need to control immigration.

 

An interesting proposition considering the average height of human males. In the United States which has a diverse racial mix the average male height is about 5'9". When we look at the continent of Africa's using racial criteria for it's black population the average male height varies from 4'11" for the pygmies to 6'4" for the watusi.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5462915_average-height-humans.html
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-tall-is-an-average-pygmy
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_height_of_the_watusi_adult

Human height has varied over history with nutrition and environment having been identified as being the primary factors affecting it and not "racial" genetics.

 

That's complete garbage . Genetics is the primary factor.

 

It's known that adoption into upper-middle class families has a positive influence on the IQ and school performance of adopted children and the unpublished thesis on transnationally adopted Koreans by Linda Gildea (1992) showed that the average IQ of 43 adopted Korean children raised by white American families was approximately 10 points higher than the Korean national average (106). It's obvious that the socioeconomic status of the American parents positively affected Korean children's intelligence as 74% of the fathers and 68% of the mothers were college graduates and 81% of the fathers and 55% of the mothers were professionals. In this kind of environment, adopted children of any ethnic background are likely to have higher IQs than they normally do and Elsie Moore (1986) found that black children adopted by white parents had IQ scores 13.5 points higher than usual.

 

Good. Then compare the IQ of adopted Korean children (there were three adoption studies in three separate nations) to the IQ's of adopted Black children raised by affluent families. The Koreans would *still* have an IQ a standard deviation higher than Blacks. You're making my point for me.

You could also discuss bring up regression toward the mean for White and Black children or the Minnesota Adoption study results of the Black, Mulatto and White children adopted by middle class White families.

 

So you think a Pygmy child brought up amongst the Tutsi would be 6 foot 4 on average because if not you are talking (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

another relevant thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/race-...-not-malnourishment-its-not-income-level.html