[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
All that needs to be said is that a major factor in the IQ of a new born child is the genetics he inherits from his parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pre and postnatal nutrition, enrichment, etc. play no role?

[ QUOTE ]
With this said, if a particular race already has a higher overall IQ (and this has already been tested)

[/ QUOTE ]

There are some flaws in those studies you are referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
then it follows that the offspring of this race will ALWAYS retain the higher IQ based on genetics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, IQ is not just genetics.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone made a point earlier about different breeds of dogs, and I think it is exactly the same here. Some dogs are more athletic than others and other dogs are much more intelligent than others. I see no reason why this cannot also be true in humans.

[/ QUOTE ]

While it may be a cute analogy, you do see large differences between race of humans and breed of dog, don't you? While you can imagine a reproductively isolated group of people where they are selected for mathematical reasoning, etc. could eventually develop into a breed of Sklanskys, there are major, major differences with that and the evolutionary history of the races. Each race (if you can even define them) has elements of it that have evolved in wildly different niches with wildly different selection pressures (I'm reminded of the east africa/west africa running skills post in the race and athleticism thread) and there has been a large amount of confounding factors (outbreeding, culture, etc.) that really ruin the analogy.

Do genetics play a role in nonpathological intelligence differences? Most likely. Can you apply these genetic differences to race? No way.