Luiz Henning

Dear Inow. you fit perfectly in one sentence: I recognize that both genetics and the environment play important roles in human outcomes. However, what you are doing is creating a narrative that simply has no substance. You are ignoring my points raised above, and looking only at yours, to the point of creating a scarecrow to attack my text (as you demonstrated when talking about environmental factors) So, until I contrast my points raised above, and disregard this, I simply will not answer. When you consider the points raised in the topic, then yes, we can start a debate, on the contrary, I will simply ignore you. And no, I'm not the guy above. Lol "but then I would have to write another topic just about that"..........I have life off the internet.

What absurd reduction are you making to my topic? I didn't spend days looking for these studies to put this text together just to ignore it, and put something that just matches your thinking is right and ready. I have already come across this, and I can point out a series of mistakes made there, but then I would have to write another topic just about that, the information and sources that you added in my text, already contain empirical evidence, that, in fact, homosexuality is largely influenced by environmental factors.

No, you didn't show anything, you just took specific parts of my topic to say that you were disregarding other factors, which in fact you weren't. And I’m not even taking it personally, I’m just answering anyone who doesn’t read it and has no interest in it. What other data? Bailey? Ganna? For the rest, I only saw a scientific babble, already answered in the topic above.

Frankly, I try to be respectful of people, but you make it impossible and undesirable. However, I will try to be respectful here. First, what time did I say that these two factors are decisive? Lol, I just said, that it could give at least two environmental factors that are closely related in large part to homosexuality And another, I do not deny that the uterine environment actually influences, I talk about it in the food hypothesis. Lol, and alias, this part of the wikipedia is very wrong, especially in this part: This is not what the data I pointed out really mentions (The ones you probably haven't read, won't read, and are angry with those who read it) No man, you can continue debating the will here, I'm even happy about it, it just changes that in the psychology part I won't be able to support you, since my knowledge is very limited in this area But this debate can continue at will. I don't see any problem, and in fact, it only enriches this topic even more.

No problem, I'm just sad to know that I couldn't contribute to this debate on psychology and homosexuality, it seems to be very interesting.

I would like to have some basic knowledge of psychology, however, unfortunately I do not, so I prefer to abstain only from the Genetic / Biological part of the thing.

I believe that two things happened here 1) did not understand my text 2) or I expressed myself poorly Anyway, what I say, briefly, was: Homosexuality is largely influenced by the environment, despite having a genetic basis, genetics is not a good explanation at that time. That is why I criticize people who think that Homosexuality is 100% or largely influenced by genetics / Biology, disregarding major factors such as the food hypothesis I mentioned. There are many more things in the family / social environment that influence this, than genetic things themselves. Beautiful reflections. And they make total sense, I had never looked at that perspective. Thank you very much.

I made this topic more like a criticism of people who think that homosexuality is strictly genetic or hereditary. Some even come up with chaotic statements like the so-called "gay genes"

Introduction: There is a recurring debate about homosexuality - whether it is an accepted biological genetic cause - or whether it is a "moral deviation" caused by the social environment. In this topic, I come to argue that, although homosexuality does have a genetic basis, it seems to be largely environmental NOTE: I do not believe that homosexuality is a "moral deviation" and it is far from that, but it seems to be largely influenced by the environment without a doubt. Genetic cause: Much like any other trait, homosexuality is a result of genes and the environment. One way to estimate the influence of biology is to use something called twin studies. To do a twin study, researchers get MZ twins, who share 100% of their genes, and DZ twins who only share 50% of their genes. If both members of the MZ twins exhibit the same trait, then one can infer that genetics plays a role in this. If they differ, than the environment may play a large role than genes. When it comes to homosexuality, twin studies have been done to estimate the effects of genetics and environment on someone being gay. The first paper that has been published on this comes from Kallmann (1). In looking at 85 twins, Kallmann found a 100% concordance rate between twins, meaning that homosexuality was 100% genetic. In 1999, Edward Stein criticized the Kallmann study for not showing any evidence that his twin sample was genetically identical, and for using an unrepresentative sample. Kallmann’s sample was drawn from psychiatric patients, prisoners, and others (2). Instead of Kallmann’s sampling technique being random, it was instead a convenience sample that doesn’t allow for generalizations. Although Kallmann’s study was flawed, better studies attempting to measure the heritability of homosexuality were released years later. Bailey et al. (3) looked at 4,901 twins from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Twin Registry, which had a large probability sample which is more representative. Homosexuality was measured through the Kinsey Scale, a questionnaire that measures homosexual tendencies. According to the authors, the heritability of homosexuality was 0.45 for men and 0.8 for women. Shared environment explained 0% of the variance in men, but it explained 0.41% of the variance in women. Nonshared environment was more equal across men and women, with nonshared environment explaining .55% of the variance in men and .50% in women. This means that when it comes to the genetic influence of homosexuality, it was more genetic for men than for women. Homosexuality was more environmental for women, but more genetic for men. Considering the wide CIs, it’s hard to know how reliable their estimates are. Kirk et al. (4) used a sample from the Australian NHMRC Twin Registry, and found the heritability of homosexuality to be 0.35-.40 for men but not for women. The effects of genes weren’t insignificant, but the environment still played a larger role than genes. Still in 2010. Långström et al. (5) looked at 3,826 MZ twins and DZ twins from the Swedish Twin Registry. To measure homosexuality, the researchers used the STAGE questionnaire which measures lifetime same-sex partners. The heritability for at least having one lifetime same-sex partner was 0.39 for men and 0.19 for women. Shared environment explained none of the variance in men but 0.17 in women. Non-shared environment explained 0.61 of the variance in men and 0.64 in women. For total number of same-sex partners, the heritability was 0.34 for men and 0.18 for women. Shared environment explained non of the variation in men but 0.16 of the variation in women; non-shared environment was the same for both men and women at 0.66. Like the last study, homosexuality was more genetic for men and more environment for women. Although, the heritability for men was 0.39 and 0.34, so the environment still played a large role for both sexes. Bearman and Bruckner (6) looked at data from the NLSY, with their sample size being 18,841. When looking at the genetic influence, they did not find significant evidence. Identical twins were 6.7% concordant, DZ twins were 7.2% concordant, and full siblings were 5.5% concordant. It was concluded that a genetic influence, if present, can only be expressed in specific social structures. The authors did find support that “less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same-sex romantic preferences.” Although this study suggests almost no genetic influence on same-sex attraction, more research is needed to support this. In contrast to the studies noted above, Kendler et al. (7) looked at 2,174 people (794 twin pairs and 1,380 non-twin siblings) and measured same-sex attraction through a single item questionnaire. The authors suggests the genetics provide an important influence on same-sex attraction, but caution should be taken when looking at their results because of low statistical power. Only 19/324 identical twin pairs had a non-heterosexual member, with 6/19 pairs being concordant. 15/240 same-sex fraternal twins had any non-sexual members, and only 2/15 of the pairs were concordant. Because of these issues, it’s hard to draw any conclusions from this study. Another way to estimate the effects of genes on a trait come from GWAS. In this method, researchers get some genes that correlate with a trait, and see their estimated effect. One study like this has been done on homosexuality, but the media talk surrounding it seems to be misinterpreting how genes for traits work. When it comes to the genotypic influence on a trait, almost all traits are polygenic. All this means is that multiple genes are responsible for a trait rather a single gene. Although this is well known, it hasn’t stopped some people in political circles from showing this as evidence that “no single gene is responsible for homosexuality”, even though this doesn’t mean that genes do not have an effect on homosexuality. Ganna et al. (8) analyzed genome data from 477,522 individuals in the U.K and United States, with a replication in the U.S. and Sweden with 15,142 people. In all their genetic variants tested, they explained 8%-25% of the variance, a number substantially smaller that what twin studies give. These results should not be used to show that twin studies are wrong, rather than of the known genes known to correlate with homosexuality, they explain a small percent of the variance. Even then, the genes used have to have a certain effect size; meaning that other genes which may influence homosexuality that have smaller effects are being left out, leaving the heritability estimate as an underestimate. In conclusion, the genetic cause seems to vary between men and women, the genetic cause is not insignificant, but for both sexes, the environment is a major watershed when it comes to this issue. In all, the heritability of homosexuality for men appears to be <0.45-0.50, and for women the estimate is much lower. For women, the environmental influence is> 0.50 and for men it is the same - just about a few 0.Xs. The effects of genes are homosexuality are not insignificant, but the environment certainly outweighs the effects of genes. GWAS gives lower estimates due to its nature, so we should not rely on its results for the time being. Possible environmental causes: We know, then, from previous information, that homosexuality can be largely environmental. I cannot speak of all environmental causes with 100% clarity, but I can point out some, two to be more precise, which seem to be much more connected to this. Child Abuse: Looking at 1,001 adult homosexual and bisexual men who attended STD clinics from May 1989 to 1990, Doll et al. (9) found that 37% of participants reported that they were encouraged or forced to have sexual contact with an older or more powerful partner before age 19; 94% of these cases occurred in men. The average age of the participants' first contact age was only 10 years. Of the cases examined, 51% involved the use of force and 33% involved anal sex. Harry (10) analyzed 17 gay men and 67 heterosexual males from a large midwestern university, with questionnaires given to gays from the local LG student organization. A subsample was created so that the distribution of heterosexual students corresponded to that of gay students in the classes. Using a Pearson correlation, homosexuals reported a significantly higher rate of physical abuse from their parents than their heterosexual peers. Runtz and Briere (11) used a questionnaire with 278 female undergraduate students to assess the effects of child abuse. Not only were those who were abused as children more likely to express more negative behaviors, but they were also more likely to have "homosexual contact". Referencing, 2 previous studies - with one finding a positive connection and the other finding no connection, the authors suggest that more research is needed on this subject. But we can already have a good basis for such a statement, and perhaps a possible environmental cause. In general, it probably suggests that there is a small association between homosexuality and child abuse, but more factors probably explain why some people become gay. And perhaps the evidence of the strongest environmental cause is the one I am going to address now. Food hypothesis: One of the environmental causes that can be determinant in the cause of homosexuality today is the food cause. It is known that what differentiates the functioning of the male and female brain (and, consequently, the heterosexual / homosexual brain) is the amount of sex hormones that is absorbed by the brain from pregnancy until close to the beginning of puberty. Industrialized foods and treated water from various locations have a hormone called Xenoestrogen, and it is proven that this hormone can cause hormonal disruptions to individuals who ingest it in excess. So if pregnant women and those born up to 4 years old (age at which the human brain is under-matured) consume many foods "rich" in Xenoestrogen, one can deregulate the "normal" production of hormones typical of the sexes. In my opinion, this is the best hypothesis about the cause of the increase in homosexuality. They recommend that you read the book "The Stolen Future" (Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski and John Peterson) which explains this hypothesis better, including showing experiments with oxen, dogs, crocodiles and mice. (12) Conclusions: Homosexuality has a genetic basis, but it appears to be largely environmental, rather than genetic.

in my view, sir "DrmDoc" you only read the announcement of the topic, and look at it still, as it seems like even that you have read, let's see the first pointless question. Lol, it is quite obvious that a gene that carries cogenite malformation of the cephalic mass, will come out with a defective brain, however, the genetic link that I claim to exist in the topic (which you have not read) are responsible for the exponential increase of the brain and are also linked to general intelligence. If you are still not satisfied, let's go to some more empirical evidence about genes and intelligence. There is evidence that also points to a genetic explanation. Consider that the fact scores on the IQ test questions vary in their heritability. Some cognitive skills are more hereditary than others and it turns out that the more hereditary a cognitive skill is, the greater the racial gap in that skill tends to be (1) (2) This discovery is easy to explain in the hereditary view, but very difficult to explain otherwise. Many alleles of specific genes have been associated with superior intelligence and, in all cases, these alleles occur more frequently in whites than in blacks. This research comes mainly from 4 articles that analyzed how 14 alleles (variants of the gene) that were previously associated with intelligence, or a proxy for intelligence, vary by race (3) (4) and (5) m a sample of 101,069, 10 of these 14 alleles were found to each predict a higher than average educational achievement (6) The predictive ability of each allele was then tested again on 12 samples, totaling 25,290 people. All 10 alleles were associated with intelligence in several samples, although the associations were not always statistically significant. It is important to note that the samples consisted only of white people, which means that no genes arbitrarily associated with race will be falsely considered to be associated with education just because race does. Here is a brief summary of these studies (because I am sure that no one here will make a point of reading, as only what suits your egalitarian ideology is appropriate, even so, for those who want to see the sources, they are in listed hyperlinks) The studies basically they say that four alleles come from more varied sources. The first is a version of the NPTN gene, which is involved in how the brain changes itself (neural growth and synaptic plasticity). A particular allele of this gene has previously been found to predict lower IQ scores and less cortical thickness. The second allele comes from the FNB1L gene and has been associated with high intelligence in several studies. The third allele is a version of the CHRM2 gene and has been linked to high intelligence in 4 separate studies. Finally, in a meta-analysis of 77 previous studies, it was found that a version of the APOE4 gene predicts better memory, speed of perception and overall cognitive functioning. Each of the studies involving these four genes used different sets of controls and statistical adjustments. nevertheless, you still make the unfortunate statement of: get here, i'll tell you a secret, did you know that big bodies need big brains to manage them? Another curiosity, did you know that you are not looking for variations outside the species but within it? And finally, one last curiosity, did you happen to know that brains of different species are organized differently? I found it curious to mention the Neanderthals, did you know that they were considered in the past as the most evolved and intelligent Hominide than other species of hominids that roamed the world? it is not for nothing that they are known as "the Hellenists of the Paleolithic". In any case, Neanderthals represent the last significant divergence from the main stem of hominid evolution. Both the sapiens and Neanderthal lineages should continue to develop their brains, but the Neanderthal brains developed in a very different direction. Both the sapiens and the Neanderthal lineages developed in order to become more effective hunters. However, Neanderthals emphasized greater development in sensory and motor centers mainly in the posterior half of the brain, while sapiens emphasized an increase in upper centers, that is, speech, imagination and, above all, ethical centers, in the frontal half of the brain, particularly the frontal lobes, which were twice the size of Neanderthals, one of the palpable explanations of why modern humans are more intelligent than Neadertals, it would be that, in the process of evolution, the brains neadertals, they were made for activities such as hunting (planning), and remote skills, depacial and dynamic, that is, in activities that involve movement. But the fact that the modern man is more intelligent in this regard, is due to the fact that the first hominids to develop proto-agriculture, were the large-brain Neanderthals, that is, without them in our evolutionary chain we would never have the capacity to mainly create tools and agriculture. Lol, there is no single variant of this definition of "ethnicity", some authors speak of ethnicity as the assumption of a biological basis, which can be defined by a race, a culture or both; the term is avoided by current anthropology, as it has not received a precise conceptualization, but it is commonly used in non-terminological language don't be so my dear, white brains are 7% bigger (1438 cc versus 1343 cc) which indicates that they also have 600 million more neurons (each one carries about 600 billion synapses, each one carries a bit of information cortical) in the last analysis, bigger brains can carry a bigger amount of neurons, you don’t think such a costly thing, when a big brain would be in vain right? It needs to be of some use. Lol one more curiosity about IQ. IQ is strongly related, probably more than any other measurable trait, to many important educational, occupational, economic and social variables. IQ is also correlated with a number of brain variables, including its size, electrical potentials and glucose metabolism rate during cognitive activity.

I don't think, racial inequalities are probably a permanent feature of society that we will have to learn to deal with and are not anyone's fault. If society can internalize this truth, we will have made real progress towards understanding ourselves as a species.

the answer to that is in my other topic, if you want to see it there, it's a little out of alignment, but the definition part is very readable. what a pity, but any question or objection against my text may be being asked here, or there, in the recent topic. guys, go to that link and ignore my other topic, this one is more complete and with less alignment errors, and this one with all sources. https://web.archive.org/web/20210216180437/https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124404-race-is-a-valid-scientific-category-answering-questions-and-fallacies/

"america" alludes to Native Americans LOL. by the way, I wanted a help here, whoever is helping me will be grateful, does anyone know how to delete a post here? I wanted to redo the one about races, I don't know what happened but he misaligned everything, thank you very much

Read my entire argument instead of saying "Make up your mind", I said that the concept of race as a whole is still quite obscure in biology, but I follow the current definition.

here is my topic explaining the validity of the race category for humans. Lest they fill me up with meaningless questions about race. in fact, but it does not mean that the two are ultimately alike, they have their divergence.

In this topic, I will argue that human races exist, examine the most common arguments I hear in favor of racial denial, and explain why, in the final analysis, why they are wrong. first of all i want to leave a quote from my previous topic: Biological differences between races can be easily identified with any research method, be it RFLP or SNP. Either method identifies the same racial origin. A white is the white studied by SNP or RFLP. To say that there may be more differences between, of the same race than between, of different races (as deniers tend to lie) is totally false (and I will answer later why this statement is false). Genetic differences between races are reinforced by the study of alleles that influence disease. Of the 3849 alleles under the SNP classification, only 21% are common to all humans. That is, 79% of racial differences.800 white patients and 800 black patients with heart problems took the drug ACE ENALAPRIN and different responses were observed. The drug had no effect on black patients. Codeine, the differences allowed a prediction. Researchers can predict a self-identified race of someone with more than 95% accuracy using their blood and more than 99% accuracy by looking at their genome (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) "No reliable scientist believes in the race" is it ?: Some people think that they do not have the basic knowledge to judge the validation of the race (and even then, some still want to guess about the subject, I call this the Dunning - Kruger effect). So, they submit to the experts, and the experts say that race does not exist. The problem with this argument is that, while most vocal anthropologists and biologists deny race, academic research shows that there is no real consensus on this topic. now for some questions: What is a biological race or subspecies and how is it specified ?: A biological race or subspecies of a species is a population that is distinguished from other biological breeds / subspecies of this species by the following criteria: Each breed is identified in a unique geographical location. Uniqueness does not imply environmental variables not shared with the geographical location of other breeds. Each race has a unique natural history. The members of a race share a set of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters. Phylogeny refers to evolutionary drives; the more recent to the last common ancestral population, the closer two populations are phylogenetically. The phenotype refers to physical appearance, behavior and other manifestations of gene expression. There is a recognizable phylogenetic partition between races. Evidence of phylogenetic distinction must normally come from concordant distributions of multiple characteristics, independent and based on genetics. The above criteria are the phylogeographic criteria for the purpose of race or subspecies. (2) "Subspecies" implies a higher level of differentiation than "race", but these words are used interchangeably. How many races or subspecies are there among humans ?: There are at least five subspecies among humans: European or white, sub-Saharan or black African, East Asian continent, Melanesian Australians and Native Americans. Evidence supporting this notion: All five clusters have historically differed in unique geographic targets. All five groupings have natural histories. The vast majority of those belonging to any of these groups can be easily distinguished from the vast majority of groups belonging to other groups by a) a visual examination of the general physical appearance; b) multiple distances, say 21-24, between craniofacial landmarks; 3) c) 20 discrete cranial lines, 4) etc. This is because members of a race share a set of phenotypic characters consistent with their evolutionary history. There is a recognizable phylogenetic partition between the five clusters in the form of general physical appearance and also neutral genetic markers (3) The simultaneous evidence for the classification of these five clusters as separate subspecies / races comes from genetic studies involving a) 993 microsatellite markers, (4) b) 79 autosomal RFLPs (5) c) 8 Alu inserts, (6) d) 40 slow evolution biallel insertion exclusions, (7) etc. At least 5 races ?: One may wonder why a more definitive answer has not been established. You can also ask how you can be sure that the final say on this subject will be at least five runs or no runs at all. A more definitive number requires more research. Consider the following questions that need to be clarified: 24 distances between highly selective and neutral craniofacial landmarks result unequivocally in eight geographic groups: European or white, sub-Saharan African or black, East Asian continent, Australo-Melanesian, Native American, South Asian Indian, Eskimo-Siberian and Jomon-Pacific. (8) Five male groups have already been seen to be of races, but what about the three additional groups? Siberian Eskimos are closely related and derived from the East Asian continental group, and it is unclear whether they should be designated as a separate race. South Asian Indians group together before joining the other groups, clearly forming a separate grouping based on 199 informative ancestry markers, a combination of 471 insertion / exclusion polymorphisms and 729 microsatellites, (9) and distance between landmarks highly selective craniofacials. (10) However, it is known that the Indians of South Asia result from the mixture of several geographically distinct populations. For example, look at this example of population affinities based on informational ancestry markers (genomics DNAPrint). Recognizing that South Asians from different parts of India are craniofacially grouped based on widely neutral distances between landmarks, it is easy to find South Asians tending more towards southern Europe or towards East Asia or Aboriginal in appearance. will South Asians be classified as a separate race or a people to whom the concept of race does not apply according to the phylogeographic criteria for the separate race? The people on the Pacific islands are a mix of Asian and Australopalanean origins. Are Pacific Islanders classified as a separate race? Multiple distances between craniofacial landmarks, largely neutral in terms of selection, showing that southern Europeans are grouped with populations in the Middle East before joining the group of indigenous inhabitants of northern southern Europe. (11) An analysis of more than 5,700 SNPs also reveals a north-south distinction in Europe, the northern group consisting of inhabitants of northern southern Europe. (12) Therefore, is it significant to speak of a Euro-Mediterranean subspecies composed of a northern and southern race, each merging in its borders with other groups, or of a single Euro-Mediterranean race? American Indians form clusters in North and South America based on 993 microsatellite markers. Is it significant to talk about two races among American Indians? On the other hand, the phylogeographic criteria for single races make it clear that the number of races will not be below five. Responding to some fallacies: Myth 1: "Race is a social construct" Fact: Even racial groupings such as Hispanics combine genetic profiles with great precision, while Africans, Europeans and Asians orient genetic profiles with perfect precision. Even if there was a hypothetical continuum, it does not imply equality. If that is the case, since the point where yellow turns to orange and the point where orange turns red are arbitrary social constructions, yellow and red are the same color: https: //web.archive .org / web / 20200828201744 / https: //www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Genetic-structure%2C-self-identified-race%2Fethnicity%2C-Tang-Quertermous/32c77165dfb863e9cf764b7c592b9a3139d8b0ae Myth 2: "Race is just a matter of skin" Fact: Scientists have studied the level of genetic differentiation between different groups of human beings in relation to different biological processes. The populations studied were African, European and East Asian, with the nervous system responsible for much of the variation, even more than pigmentation: https://web.archive.org/web/20200707094740/https://bmcevolbiol. biomedical center. com / articles / 10.1186 / 1471-2148-11-16 Myth # 3: "Races have more variation within them than they do each other" (also known as Lewontin's fallacy, I even intend to create a topic refuting lewontin's "argument") Fact: The statement is only true when examining frequency of different alleles between bound in an individual locus and is therefore called the Lewontin fallacy. When scientists analyze geographically distinct populations, such as Europeans, Africans and Asians, and measure the genetic similarity in many thousands of loci, the results are complete. Instead, the results show that visitors to a population are never similar to other individuals other than those belonging to their own: https://web.archive.org/web/20200709083145/https://www.ncbi .nlm.nih. . Note: some links are numbered hyperlinks and other common links (in the myth section). I have yet to make a topic refuting the fallacy of the lewontin fallacy, however, that's it for now. Conclusions: Genetics, medicine, biology and science as a whole prove the existence of race, there is no reason to deny it. I want to apologize for the mistake, I didn't understand what happened, anyway it is there, for those who want to see

lol, nor argued to commit such a fallacy, I just reported the fact that he confused two languages that have nothing to do with each other, Portuguese and Spanish No. Are deniers of science, genetics, medicine and everything scientific / biological and the most disgusting of all this is that they deny using falaciais

I agree with "prometheus" really even the concepts about species are very obscure, since we have things like ring species. But there is the problem of deniers, how did they solve the debate about races? Since the characteristics that define this are still as obscure as species, so as long as "race" does not have a clear and objective definition, I prefer to stick to the common definition: populations that will evolve in different geographical, climatic, cultural and social environments, and these environments have exerted selective natural and sexual pressures on them (the people who inhabit them), resulting in different physical, physiological and psychological environments. The evidence totally suggests this proposal, be it morphology, taxonomy, epidemology, genetics and medicine. There is also the fact that the arguments of race denialists are based on fallacies already refuted.

Consistent with my mistake? Apparently you still don't understand the issue, as I said before, race and ethnicity mean basically the same thing, technically speaking, I prefer to use races, because it is a scientific term, when I speak ethnicity, I speak in an averse way, that it does not contradict anything I say about races.

whatever you want to use or find less offensive, some use the term "ethnicity" to refer to the biological roots of a population as well, although in fact the technical term is "race", I use "ethnicity" as a non-terminological and routine term, scientifically speaking it is race, in my English, I don't know if it is the best in the world, but it is certainly very legible, a sloppy argument from you, which, incidentally, did not present any empirical refutation to my topic . wrong, again ignoring my arguments above, isn't it right? I have already shown that genetic structuring corresponds to the geographical barriers of today's continents, and about being socially constructed. Lol, everything is social construction. The Universe is a social construction, but that does not mean that it does not exist physically. We have social constructions for EVERYTHING, does that mean that NOTHING exists because they are social constructions? Really, melanin does not affect intelligence, what it does is the size of the brain and the genes involved in regulating it, really, poor access to food can lead to a poor diet, and this correlates with IQ, but the the drop is -7 points mentioned in the topic above (which it seems you haven't read) and even when blacks are raised in structured families, this does not eliminate the B / W IQ gap as I have already empirically proven above. The image above is a PCA chart that shows how different races are grouped in the chart. In fact, this is scientific evidence that what we call 'race' and 'ethnicity' has a real biological basis. You say that "it is created by the rules of society, not by genetics", but you can clearly see here that GENETICS shows that humanity GROWS in different groups.

1)IQ makes perfect sense 2) race makes perfect biological sense 3) brain size is super relevant did not present any refutation to the topic in question, totally ignores the idea developed in the text and in the answers below, that is, nothing new under the horizon

first that it is not "Spanish" but Portuguese, the "estudiot" here seems to be very wise. Second is that I didn’t write in Portuguese, my topic and my answers are in English, the quotes that are in Portuguese, but it’s not my fault that I have a fucking mechanism that always translates into Portuguese, but I solved that, I guarantee you won't bother you anymore. Er ......... don't you see any evidence? speaks seriously? I placed more than 30 sources following my argument.Lol 1166 / 5000 yes, your doctor is super sure to ask your ethnicity, such passages are standard. some races and / or ethnic groups are biologically predisposed (or genetically predisposed, the same thing) to inherit specific diseases or to be more susceptible to certain types of infectious diseases . This applies even to mental illness. These types of genetic predispositions are not unique to humanity and can be found in all living organisms; consider inherited diseases of certain dog breeds, for example. Not only in these cases, but also when it comes to organ transplant surgery, you cannot mix and match body parts of different races. If you put a white organ in a black body, it is almost certain to be rejected, and vice versa. In order to successfully transplant an organ to another person, the donor must be genetically compatible - that is, be of the same race or, ideally, ethnic group. As a result, mixed race people have an incredible difficulty finding suitable donors for transplantation. Don't just take my word for it, listen to medical professionals: about not knowing a biologist, I already know that, you did not present me with a scientific argument and you still made a mistake about Spanish / Portuguese, but let's analyze this question, did you know that, in order to look for variations, one searches within the species and not outside it? for if a species has a larger body than another, a larger brain may be needed to manage that body equally well. This is important because many of the animals with larger brains than humans, like certain types of whales, are also huge. Like whales, secondly: the brains of different species are organized differently than human brains. This difference in the organization is what makes them less intelligent. But for comfort, whales, dolphins and elephants are generally considered to be some of the most intelligent non-human animals. Lol about IQ, I already said above, I won't repeat what I said before just because an idiot didn't understand.

You're welcome!

Lol, the study that you sent from the magazine (about race) states the exact opposite. the results: SJK (coreano) Ventre Watson 53% Watson 56% Watson 56% Venter 50% Venter 50% SJK (coreano) 53% SJK (coreano) as I said here before, I intend to make a topic just about racial validity, when I leave, I will make it a point to dismember fallacy for fallacy the second link basically does not offer any logical refutation to my text, however, i will explain (again) affectionately about iq: we know that iq tests measure intelligence because iq tests correlate with peer and self-intelligence evaluated. For example, in (1) we give a perfect sample of this, the test being on university students who were divided into 20 classes who studied together for a period of one year. At the end of this year, participants were asked to rate how smart their groupmates were on a 7-point scale that ranged from “unintelligent” to “very intelligent”. It was found that the better a subject did on an IQ test, the smarter his groupmates thought they were. So, in summary, IQ tests predict life outcomes better than several commonly recognized factors for predicting life outcomes, such as how your parents are and how good your grades are. And IQ predicts a person's subjective perception of intelligence the more you interact with him. I believe I will still have to write a topic just explaining what IQ is, for now I am satisfied with that I leave some additional links on IQ testing: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221325.1979.10533422 http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/sbp/sbp/1977/00000005/00000001/art00016 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289615001269

1) Humans are not a race, the ideal classification is species 2)who appears to have not read anything is you, just one of the ones reviewed above, from the way you started, it seemed to be treating IQ as something arbitrary, which is clearly not the case.