This Ought To Get Some Replies

[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.

Genetics is responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

If these IQ studies are true, then it logically follows that on average white children will always be smarter than black children.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Genetics is responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

If these IQ studies are true, then it logically follows that on average white children will always be smarter than black children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you joking with this post? What are your sources for any of these statements (78.2146% of statistics are made up on the spot)? Understanding, defining, or testing intelligence is a pretty complex subject on it's own which makes it difficult to link to genetic mechanisms. you really shouldn't make ridiculous statements like that without backup sources.

And, even if the first part was true, that doesn't mean the second part of your past must follow. For the 109432482756 time, there are serious problems with defining "race" ESPECIALLY at the genetic level. Very few alleles (especially the constellation of general ones that are probably neccessary for "intellectual ability") are localized to one "race" or another.

Genetics IS responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

This IS fact, there have been numerous scientific studies done on this subject and I don't have the time to quote the sources, do the research on your own.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Genetics IS responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

This IS fact, there have been numerous scientific studies done on this subject and I don't have the time to quote the sources, do the research on your own.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, the funny thing is, I am a neuroscientist and none of the research I find corroborates your statement.
Don't hide behind the "I don't have time to quote the sources crap." If you are going to make statements as off-the-wall (not to mention wrong) as what you've been saying then you need to back it up with these mystery data. That's how scientific debate works.

[hmkpoker]

If I remember correctly, identical twins separated at birth show a very, very strong correlation in IQ testing, somehting like 90%. Fraternal twins were much lower, almost 50%, and brothers, cousins and down the line were virtually random.

Genetics does play a role, no question about that. But just because it does doesn't mean that one race is significantly genetically superior in intelligence to another.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, identical twins separated at birth show a very, very strong correlation in IQ testing, somehting like 90%. Fraternal twins were much lower, almost 50%, and brothers, cousins and down the line were virtually random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this argues for a very strong environmental influence. If normal brothers are significantly less correlated in IQ scores than are fraternal twins, then the difference in the environment during the upbringing of the brothers must make up the difference in correlation, since fraternal twins are no more distant genetically than regular siblings. The identical twins get the double whammy of identical genetics and identical environments.

[hmkpoker]

Exactly.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly, identical twins separated at birth show a very, very strong correlation in IQ testing, somehting like 90%. Fraternal twins were much lower, almost 50%, and brothers, cousins and down the line were virtually random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, this argues for a very strong environmental influence. If normal brothers are significantly less correlated in IQ scores than are fraternal twins, then the difference in the environment during the upbringing of the brothers must make up the difference in correlation, since fraternal twins are no more distant genetically than regular siblings. The identical twins get the double whammy of identical genetics and identical environments.

[/ QUOTE ]

And all that prenatal stuff.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Genetics is responsible for over 50% of a child's intellectual ability.

If these IQ studies are true, then it logically follows that on average white children will always be smarter than black children.

[/ QUOTE ]

And asians smarter than whites.