Race, IQ and Brain Size

[Luiz Henning]

In this Topic, I will argue that research on race, brain size and IQ constitutes a significant line of evidence that supports a genetic model of racial differences in IQ. But before we turn to that topic directly, we need to differentiate phrenology research from brain size research. Phrenology was largely concerned with predicting people's psychological traits using the bumps and curves of their skulls. Empirically, this has been shown to be invalid (1). In contrast, meta-analyzes consistently show that brain size is positively correlated with IQ.

 

Quote

 

Quote                                     K      N         R

Rushton and Ankey (2009) 28/ 1,389/ 0.38    (2)

Rushton and Ankey (2009) 59/ 63,405/ 0.2   (3)

McDaniel (2005) 37/ 1,530/ 0.33                    (4)

Gignac et al. (2003) 12/ 858 /0.43                 (5)

Pietschnig et al. (2015) 88 8/036/ 0.24          (6)

 

In addition, a 0.19 correlation between brain volume and fluid intelligence was found in a pre-recorded analysis of 13,608 Britons (7). The fact that this study was pre-registered implies that the publication bias cannot explain the finding.

Other evidence:

 

1) Several studies have shown a genetic correlation between IQ and brain size (including what I will still cover in the second part of my text). This means that the same genes that explain the variation in IQ also explain the variation in brain size (7, 8 and 9) The simplest explanation for this finding is that some genes influence IQ by influencing brain size.

2) The size of people's brains changes throughout life. Studies looking at the same people over several years show that changes in brain size predict changes in IQ (10). In addition, brain size and IQ follow the same pattern of life expectancy (11), increasing until the age of 20 and decreasing markedly in old age (12). The simplest explanation for these findings is that changes in brain size over time cause changes in IQ over time.

3) Breeding experiments that create animal populations to be more intelligent also end up creating animals with larger brains. For example, one study created mice for 12 generations to be better at finding their way through mazes and said that mice ended up with brains 2.5 standard deviations greater than those of the first generation (13).

and where does the breed come in ?:

In 1994, the first study was carried out (14) comparing the brain size of different racial groups using MRI technology to measure the size of the brain. They confirmed previous findings: blacks have smaller brains than whites.

 

the case of genes:

The most plausible explanations for this situation are

 

1) Environmental pressures: people who lived in freezing climates had to have a greater coginitive demand to prepare for severe winters. Brains in a cold climate can lead to a substantial increase in the brain because, in such conditions, a larger brain would be better at maintaining a constant temperature in its core. I believe that cooked meat is also related to a certain degree, but that is a topic for another topic

 

2) Genetics: currently more than 500 specific alleles linked to intelligence have been discovered, the majority of which are related to the size of the brain, more specifically the CASC5 Gene was found in Asian peoples and the MCHP1 or "microcephaline" in Europeans. A detail is that sub-Saharan African peoples do not have these genes mentioned above, which corroborates the low black IQ. Recent advances in genetics are consistent with this point of view. For example (15) analyzed racial differences in 9 IQ-related gene variants and found that whites were more likely than blacks to have the high IQ-related variants of all 9 genes. East Asians were also more likely than whites to have the high IQ-related gene variant in most cases. In (16) provided more direct genetic evidence when analyzing data in 101 countries and found that the more genetically different two populations, the greater the IQ difference between them. Another variable that predicts regional cognitive ability is the average degree of mixing of White in a population or, in other words, the degree to which the average person is genetically European. (17) found that this is the case in data sets in American nations, states within Latin American nations, such as Colombia, Brazil and Mexico, and in states in the USA. Research has also repeatedly shown that mixed race individuals have IQ scores between their parents' average race scores (18) and (19) a study also found this to be true for mixed race blacks who mistakenly believed they were all black (20)

obvious environmental causes. will be? 

at this point, surely you must be asking, and the environmental causes, such as socioeconomic status, education, racism? These questions will be answered here, first of all, I must point out that yes, some things like a poor diet in childhood, or growing up in a dirty environment can indeed influence your IQ making you not use all your genetic potential, but the disparity it's not that big, being -7 points, in the end it doesn't change much. That said, here are the answers to those questions.

1) poverty: Poverty correlates with IQ, but the control of socioeconomic status, whether measured by parental income, education, neighborhood, wealth or otherwise, does not close the IQ gap between blacks and whites. This has been demonstrated in more than 60 studies over the past 100 years (21) In fact, poor whites do better on standardized tests than rich blacks. 

2)"What about single motherhood?" Even when just looking at people from two parents' homes, the Black-White IQ gap persists (22) (23) Furthermore, research has shown that the IQ gap between blacks and whites and between whites and East Asians still it exists even when looking only at people raised (through adoption) in white homes (24), that is, two birds in one stone.

3)"What about education?": Another possibility is that differences in access to education cause the IQ gap between blacks and whites. This is not possible because the IQ gap between blacks and whites exists at the age of 3, which is prior to the beginning of formal education (25) In addition, the IQ gap between black and white remains after controlling parental education ( 26) (27) In addition, blacks with graduate degrees score worse than whites without a four-year diploma in cognitive ability tests (28) So clearly education is not the cause of racial cognitive differences.

"4) "What about racism?": Finally, let's look at racism. To affect intelligence, racism must affect blacks through some concrete mechanism. As we have seen, the racism that makes blacks poorer, less educated or more likely to live in homes with only one parent cannot explain the difference in IQ. Another possibility is that racism has led blacks to internalize negative stereotypes about their intellect, which in turn impacts their performance on the tests. This hypothesis is refuted by the fact that blacks have higher scores than whites on measures of general self-esteem and are more likely than whites to describe themselves as more intelligent than the average (29)

 

Quote

“Black students estimate their own academic competence more than whites, despite their own objective and low self-report of academic performance (Hare 1985: Table 3; Tashakkori 1993: 97). Black high school seniors in Coleman's study were more likely than whites to rank themselves as "among the brightest" and less likely to agree that "Sometimes I feel like I just can't learn", despite the low academic performance (Coleman et al. 1966L 287-288, Tables 3.13.11, 3.13.12). Notably, blacks from the southern rural zone, whose academic performance was below all other blacks, as well as all whites, were more apt than other blacks to classify themselves as brilliant and capable of learning ”- (30)

Final considerations:

Finally, we can point to the IQ B / W gap as being a genetic and / or partially genetic cause.

 

[iNow]

You see, here's the thing. Race is a bullshit concept. It's a cultural term, not a biological one. The fact that some people have different melanin content in their skin doesn't mean much else other than they have different melanin content in their skin. Sure, they've been treated differently and had the system rigged against them so of course that affects outcomes, but when you control for things like health and access etc... skin color really isn't a determining factor.

Likewise, IQ is also a bullshit concept. There are scores of different kinds of intelligence. Problem solving ability, memory, executive function, creativity, some people are brilliant musicians while others are great builders... these are all types of intelligence and none is better than another. IQ Is little more than a measure of peoples ability to take an IQ test, and the test itself is biased toward western culture and certain anglo-saxon upbringings. It's mostly garbage.

As for brain size... that's also not as important as the density and diversity of connections, plus things like myelin sheathing and conductivity. It's not the size that matters, as it were. 

Anyway... I've seen posts like yours several times before. Usually the person has an agenda. We'll see if you're any different, but most of these things you seem to feel so strongly about are... not to get too technical on you here... horseshit and bollocks. 

[Luiz Henning]

Quote

Veja, aqui está a coisa. Raça é um conceito de merda. É um termo cultural, não biológico. O fato de algumas pessoas terem diferentes teores de melanina na pele não significa muito mais do que eles têm diferentes teores de melanina na pele. Claro, eles foram tratados de forma diferente e o sistema foi manipulado contra eles, então é claro que isso afeta os resultados, mas quando você controla coisas como saúde e acesso, etc ... a cor da pele realmente não é um fator determinante.

Wrong and wrong, race is not a "concept of shit", I still intend to make a topic only about the validity of races in humans, but already advancing. A race of people is just a geographically defined set of populations that, in the past, if not now, lived together and bred with each other more than with strangers. Given this definition, it is obvious that races are real because it is obvious that people of African descent, Europe, East Asia, etc., are real. A better question is whether or not it is useful to categorize people by race. Even so, if you are still not satisfied The human genetic variation is geographically structured and corresponds to the
human races: https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

Quote

Da mesma forma, o QI também é um conceito de merda. Existem muitos tipos diferentes de inteligência. Capacidade de resolução de problemas, memória, funções executivas, criatividade, algumas pessoas são músicos brilhantes enquanto outras são grandes construtoras ... estes são todos tipos de inteligência e nenhum é melhor que o outro. O QI é pouco mais do que uma medida da capacidade das pessoas de fazer um teste de QI, e o teste em si é inclinado para a cultura ocidental e certas origens anglo-saxônicas. É principalmente lixo.

Wrong again. IQ tests are designed to measure the innate and immutable general mental capacity that involves abstract and cognitive thinking, spatial relationship skills and logical reasoning. They are designed to measure the ability to:

      • solve new problems
      • retain knowledge and apply skills
      • understand complex ideas
      • plan and learn quickly and with experience
   
IQ tests are not designed to measure how much a person has learned, but rather whether a person is able to learn.
Intelligence, so defined, can be measured, and intelligence tests measure it well. They are among the most accurate (in technical, reliable and valid) terms of all psychological tests and assessments. People who did well on one mental test were found to do well on others, regardless of content. It was argued that different tests must be based on the same global capacity, and he dubbed this capacity g for general intelligence.

Quote

Quanto ao tamanho do cérebro ... isso também não é tão importante quanto a densidade e diversidade de conexões, além de coisas como revestimento de mielina e condutividade. Não é o tamanho que importa, por assim dizer. 

already solved in the text

[iNow]

Humans are a race. White humans are not a separate one from black humans. 

IQ tests have known limitations. The fact that you ignore them suggests you’re not as well read on this topic as you pretend to be. 

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

I've seen posts like yours several times before. Usually the person has an agenda. We'll see if you're any different

 

[Luiz Henning]

Just now, iNow said:

Os humanos são uma raça. Os humanos brancos não são separados dos humanos negros. 

Os testes de QI têm limitações conhecidas. O fato de você os ignorar sugere que você não leu tão bem sobre o assunto quanto finge ser. 

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.

[iNow]

Okay. Thanks for confirming your intent so quickly. 

There are better sources available, but I’ll leave these here for the interested reader. Given your approach, that phrase no longer applies to me. 

Overview of race: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

Overview of IQ: https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/do-iq-tests-actually-measure-intelligence

[naitche]

I.Q tests are arbitrary, in deciding Human value potential.

So is Race, and intelligence.

We have diversity. 

I can't see any value to such studies other than to discredit that.

[Luiz Henning]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

OK. Obrigado por confirmar sua intenção tão rapidamente. 

Existem fontes melhores disponíveis, mas as deixarei aqui para o leitor interessado. Dada a sua abordagem, essa frase não se aplica mais a mim. 

Visão geral da corrida:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

Visão geral do IQ:  https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/do-iq-tests-actually-measure-intelligence

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

[iNow]

58 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

for now I am satisfied with that

Okay. Thanks for sharing 

[Luiz Henning]

You're welcome!

 

[studiot]

8 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

In this Topic, I will argue that research on race, brain size and IQ constitutes a significant line of evidence that supports a genetic model of racial differences in IQ.

I see no evidence and prescious little research in your argument, but a great deal of Spanish  - I would start by reminding you that the language of ScienceForums is English.

I am not an expert on these subjects, but it does seem to me that these ideas have received excessive public exposure in recent years, heavily promoted by the gutter press.

As an example I offer you an anecdote.

"Nearly two weeks ago when I received my Covid vaccination, the doctor had a list of questions to ask before administering the jab.
 

Guess what his first question was ?

Spoiler

Believe it or not his first question was
What is your ethnicity ?

Now I answered, as I always do to this question that seems to top official forms these days,

I can't answer as I am not qualified to answer (which I am not).

Then the doctor went on to sensible questions like Have you any allergies etc? which of course I answered happily.

 

So that's 'race' dealt with.

As to brain size. I am not a biologist, but I have read that they will tell you that humans do not have the largest brains on the planet, yet I see no other species anywhere near dominant.

And IQ ?  well

8 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

IQ tests are not designed to measure how much a person has learned, but rather whether a person is able to learn.

It is well known that those that 'study' for the IQ test achieve better results than those that don't, especially if you allow a wide definition of study to admit cultural learning.

Since this applies at all levels, it simply shows that most folks at all levels will achieve better results if they study, not only that they can learn, but that they do.

But then the fact that they can read (in order to take the test) shows they can learn, since babies can't read.

 

[Luiz Henning]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

I see no evidence and little prescient research in your argument, but a lot of Spanish - I would start by remembering that ScienceForums' language is English.

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

Quote

Believe it or not, your first question was:
What is your ethnicity?

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:

 

Quote

As for the size of the brain. I'm not a biologist, but I read that they'll say that humans don't have the biggest brains on the planet, but I don't see any other species that is almost dominant.

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.

[John Cuthber]

Am I the only one who read the title of the thread and thought "that's going nowhere fast"?

 

IQ is barely meaningful, race is barely meaningful and brain size is barely relevant.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, Luiz Henning said:

about IQ, I already said above, I won't repeat what I said before just because an idiot didn't understand.

!

Moderator Note

That's the last time you call another member an idiot. Civility is our #1 rule, and you have chosen to defend a stance that is VERY weak wrt science. If you want this thread to stay open, you'll respond without insult or you can leave. Attacking ideas is what we do here, we don't attack people.

 

[Luiz Henning]

 

Quote

IQ barely makes sense, race barely makes sense and brain size is barely relevant

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

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

yes, your doctor is super sure to ask your ethnicity

But you were talking about race, not ethnicity. I might be inclined to accuse you of moving the goal posts, conflation of terms, and sloppy argumentation... but I'll give you a pass and chalk it up to language differences and translation issues... this time.

These social constructs of race and ethnicity cannot be detected in the genes... and the amount of melanin in someone's skin doesn't affect their intelligence. The social structures which differentially restrict access to food, housing, health, education, and opportunities do. 

 

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/topics/reference/race-ethnicity/

Quote

Race and ethnicity don't show up at the genetic level. Race and ethnicity are two concepts related to human ancestry. Race is defined as “a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits.” The term ethnicities is more broadly defined as “large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background.” <...>

Neither race nor ethnicity is detectable in the human genome. Humans do have genetic variations, some of which were once associated with ancestry from different parts of the world. But those variations cannot be tracked to distinct biological categories. Genetic tests cannot be used to verify or determine race or ethnicity

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by iNow

[Luiz Henning]

Quote

But you were talking about race, not ethnicity. I may be inclined to accuse you of changing goal posts, confusing terms and sloppy arguments ... but I will try and attribute it to language differences and translation problems ... this time.

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 .

Quote

These social constructions of race and ethnicity cannot be detected in genes ... and the amount of melanin in someone's skin does not affect their intelligence. Social structures that differentially restrict access to food, housing, health, education and opportunities do.

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.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Luiz Henning

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

this is scientific evidence that what we call 'race' and 'ethnicity' has a real biological basis

It really doesn't, but at least you're consistent in your wrongness

[Luiz Henning]

Quote

It doesn't really matter, but at least you're consistent in your mistake

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.

[Prometheus]

25 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

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.

What did they perform PCA on? Presumably some kind of genetic dataset? The problem with this kind of dataset is you can similarly label jockeys and basketball players on a and get a visually appealing separation. Does this mean there is a difference between these two types of sports people such that you want to call them different races? You could. What is 'biologically real' is to an extent based on how we choose to categorise things - apparently even the concept of species gets murky at some point. So i guess the question is whether treating race as 'biologically real' is useful.

Race and ethnicity are still used in medicine, albeit badly (often no distinction is made between the two). They're used as proxy markers for what is really pertinent, which changes depending on the context. Sometimes it helps get an idea of diet and exercise habits, though you would be better off directly measuring them if possible (surprisingly difficult), and sometimes you want an idea of genetic propensities, but again you would be better off measuring those directly now that is possible. However, genetic testing is still expensive. Hence the double risk of using race in medicine is that it can lead to a conflation of genetic factors with cultural behavioural factors, and it is a poor substitute for direct genetic testing. 

 

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Luiz Henning said:

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

It seems a very strange way too strawman an argument...

[CharonY]

On 2/16/2021 at 9:35 AM, Prometheus said:

What did they perform PCA on? Presumably some kind of genetic dataset? The problem with this kind of dataset is you can similarly label jockeys and basketball players on a and get a visually appealing separation. Does this mean there is a difference between these two types of sports people such that you want to call them different races? You could. What is 'biologically real' is to an extent based on how we choose to categorise things - apparently even the concept of species gets murky at some point. So i guess the question is whether treating race as 'biologically real' is useful.

Not only that, in many of these studies the goal is to identify markers that allow regional separation, for example in order to detect migration patterns. I.e. you check for specific markers that are enriched in a region and make your classification based on that. Folks often confuse that with actual genetic divergence, mostly because they start off with a certain worldview and try to collect evidence to support it, rather than trying to understand the underlying science.

If one were to add more and more genetic markers, these clusters would change, and variation would be dominated by samples within Africa, which also conforms to the known origin of the human species. 

Edit:

  

On 2/16/2021 at 9:35 AM, Prometheus said:

Race and ethnicity are still used in medicine, albeit badly (often no distinction is made between the two). They're used as proxy markers for what is really pertinent, which changes depending on the context. Sometimes it helps get an idea of diet and exercise habits, though you would be better off directly measuring them if possible (surprisingly difficult), and sometimes you want an idea of genetic propensities, but again you would be better off measuring those directly now that is possible.

I should also add that often biology and lifestyle/environmental factors are indistinguishable. For example certain minorities are more likely to live in neighborhoods with high levels of environmental contaminants such as heavy metals. This exposure correlates with poor health outcomes including neurological damages. Obviously, studies that only look at skin color might make the assumption that certain folks are more prone to certain conditions, and missing out things like e.g. childhood exposure. Stressful environments and worse health support, especially as children can also cause long-term health vulnerabilities and again, certain groups are more likely to exposed to these conditions. The big issue is that only fairly recently research has tried to look at these issues comprehensively, whereas previously cohorts were simply grouped based on self-reporting ethnicity and/or skin colour without taking the other factors into account. In fact, many factors that were at one point or another speculated to be related to genetics tend to vanish once a broader approach is taken. For example, in the US black folks have a higher propensity of cardiovascular disease. However, looking at global patterns, e.g. including groups in West Africa the Caribbeans and so on, the difference between black and white folks vanishes and in some cases reverses. Finding actual alleles associated with an increased risk in a certain condition has been proven to be really difficult which, as a whole, just re-iterates the known issue that genes do not act in isolation and for the most part depend highly on development and environment to result in a certain phenotype.

[Luiz Henning]

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.

[iNow]

3 minutes ago, Luiz Henning said:

There is also the fact that the arguments of race denialists are based on fallacies

You misspelled "realists"

[Luiz Henning]

28 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

It looks like a very strange way, a scarecrow argument ...

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

 

Just now, iNow said:

You misspelled "realists"

No. Are deniers of science, genetics, medicine and everything scientific / biological 

and the most disgusting of all this is that they deny using falaciais