Zone1 What Science Says About Race and Genetics

[Stryder50]

Race is a construct. That is a fact. Deal with it.

So how do I apply my will to "construct" my appearance, genetics, and physical characteristics to change form Caucasian, Negro, or Asian to another one ?

 

[Blaster]

Marital Dissolution Among Interracial Couples

Increases in interracial marriage have been interpreted as reflecting reduced social distance among racial and ethnic groups, but little is known about the stability of interracial marriages. Using six panels of Survey of Income and Program Participation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Hector12]

So how do I apply my will to "construct" my appearance, genetics, and physical characteristics to change form Caucasian, Negro, or Asian to another one ?

The Inequality Taboo, By Charles Murray Commentary September 01, 2005​

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”[25]

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26]

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

The Inequality Taboo

When the late Richard Herrnstein and I published The Bell Curve eleven years ago, the furor over its discussion of ethnic differences in IQ was so intense that most people who have not read the book still think it was about race. Since then, I have deliberately not published anything about group...

www.aei.org

----------

Because race is an important biological category it become legitimate to look for the genetic reasons the races differ significantly in average intelligence and in rates of crime and illegitimacy.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

More than one.

Differences in cortical structure between cognitively normal East Asian and Caucasian older adults: a surface-based morphometry study - Scientific Reports

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hbm.23994

Brain morphology in older African Americans, Caribbean Hispanics, and whites from northern Manhattan - PubMed

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X?via=ihub

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215006715

 

[Hector12]

Race is a construct. That is a fact. Deal with it.

Deal with the fact that you are mistaken.

-----------

The Inequality Taboo, By Charles Murray Commentary September 01, 2005​

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”[25]

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26]

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

The Inequality Taboo​

When the late Richard Herrnstein and I published The Bell Curve eleven years ago, the furor over its discussion of ethnic differences in IQ was so intense that most people who have not read the book still think it was about race. Since then, I have deliberately not published anything about group...

www.aei.org

-----------

Because race is an important biological category it become legitimate to look for the genetic reasons the races differ significantly in average intelligence and in rates of crime and illegitimacy.

 

[Hector12]

There is no credible research proving this. There is racist scientific research that makes the claim, but it has been debunked by any credible scientist. Stormfront science isn't science.

In this thread I have proven you wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972

No he didn't.

In this thread I have proven you wrong.

Nope. Stop spreading hate. Life is short. Find something healthy to do.

 

[Hector12]

No he didn't.

Nope. Stop spreading hate. Life is short. Find something healthy to do.

What you call "hate" is the truth about different races.

 

[Libby von H]

Deal with the fact that you are mistaken.

-----------

The Inequality Taboo, By Charles Murray Commentary September 01, 2005​

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”[25]

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26]

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

The Inequality Taboo​

When the late Richard Herrnstein and I published The Bell Curve eleven years ago, the furor over its discussion of ethnic differences in IQ was so intense that most people who have not read the book still think it was about race. Since then, I have deliberately not published anything about group...

www.aei.org

-----------

Because race is an important biological category it become legitimate to look for the genetic reasons the races differ significantly in average intelligence and in rates of crime and illegitimacy.

UTTER BOSH
Start with the 2021 Commentary article by (Black) Wilfrid Reilly

Charles Murray, Wrong and Right

Charles Murray is likely wrong about the causes and extent of the phenomena he documents, but he is correct about their implications. In his newest book, Facing Reality, Murray argues

www.commentary.org

Then get his book TABOO...here is a review snippet that pinpoints where the above is out to sea

-- Oh, and Charles Murray has conceded a couple major counter-arguments but you should look that up

"
Continuing the theme, Reilly shows that differences in IQ scores are not, as the alt-right claims, genetic in nature. Rather, black IQs have been increasing over time (something which the genetic argument has no answer for), and when cultural differences are accounted for, IQ differences narrow, disappear, or are inverted. Group differences, then, are explained best neither by the left’s focus on discrimination nor the far right’s focus on genetics, but rather by a multiplicity of other factors that influence individual development, decisions, and priorities.

The most important of these factors may be the presence of both parents in a child’s home, which much more strongly correlates with a whole host of better outcomes than race does. For instance, the poverty rate is 7% for two-parent black families, but 22% for single-parent white households, calling the pervasiveness and even the existence of “white privilege” into question. This, and other factors, influence cultural attitudes towards work and education, and when these factors are considered in Reilly’s analysis he again finds that they largely mitigate group disparities. The way to address these disparities, then, seems not to be found in pushing a theory of systemic discrimination but rather in encouraging the habits that have proven to contribute to success in manifold ways. As Reilly simply says, “Culture matters.”

Reilly’s analysis along these lines is further buttressed by observing that when these cultural attributes are controlled for within ethnic groups, we see the same outcome disparities that exist between ethnic groups. This applies to whites, where fatherlessness has been growing in recent decades with the predictable rise in poverty and crime, and also to blacks, who experience lower levels of poverty and crime the more that beneficial cultural elements are found. Of note, he observes that black immigrants, who often come from more traditional cultures, often earn higher incomes than whites, another difficult-to-explain fact if discrimination were the cause of disparities."


AND, YES, I HAVE SAID THIS REPEATEDLY ON HERE

 

[Libby von H]

In this quote i highlight what is key

"
Continuing the theme, Reilly shows that differences in IQ scores are not, as the alt-right claims, genetic in nature. Rather, black IQs have been increasing over time (something which the genetic argument has no answer for), and when cultural differences are accounted for, IQ differences narrow, disappear, or are inverted. Group differences, then, are explained best neither by the left’s focus on discrimination nor the far right’s focus on genetics, but rather by a multiplicity of other factors that influence individual development, decisions, and priorities.

The most important of these factors may be the presence of both parents in a child’s home, which much more strongly correlates with a whole host of better outcomes than race does. For instance, the poverty rate is 7% for two-parent black families, but 22% for single-parent white households, calling the pervasiveness and even the existence of “white privilege” into question. This, and other factors, influence cultural attitudes towards work and education, and when these factors are considered in Reilly’s analysis he again finds that they largely mitigate group disparities. The way to address these disparities, then, seems not to be found in pushing a theory of systemic discrimination but rather in encouraging the habits that have proven to contribute to success in manifold ways. As Reilly simply says, “Culture matters.”

Reilly’s analysis along these lines is further buttressed by observing that when these cultural attributes are controlled for within ethnic groups, we see the same outcome disparities that exist between ethnic groups. This applies to whites, where fatherlessness has been growing in recent decades with the predictable rise in poverty and crime, and also to blacks, who experience lower levels of poverty and crime the more that beneficial cultural elements are found. Of note, he observes that black immigrants, who often come from more traditional cultures, often earn higher incomes than whites, another difficult-to-explain fact if discrimination were the cause of disparities."

 

[Libby von H]

Time Magazine, BY NICHOLAS WADE MAY 9, 2014 6:33 PM EDT

A longstanding orthodoxy among social scientists holds that human races are a social construct and have no biological basis. A related assumption is that human evolution halted in the distant past, so long ago that evolutionary explanations need never be considered by historians or economists.

In the decade since the decoding of the human genome, a growing wealth of data has made clear that these two positions, never at all likely to begin with, are simply incorrect. There is indeed a biological basis for race. And it is now beyond doubt that human evolution is a continuous process that has proceeded vigorously within the last 30,000 years and almost certainly — though very recent evolution is hard to measure — throughout the historical period and up until the present day.

New analyses of the human genome have established that human evolution has been recent, copious, and regional. Biologists scanning the genome for evidence of natural selection have detected signals of many genes that have been favored by natural selection in the recent evolutionary past. No less than 14% of the human genome, according to one estimate, has changed under this recent evolutionary pressure.

Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality...

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor at The New York Times. This piece is adapted from the new book, A Troublesome Inheritance, published by the Penguin Press.

NYT Science Editor: Race Is Real

Science shows that evolution didn't stop when human history began

time.com

------------

Ten years ago it was still possible for an organ of the mainstream news to run an article like this. For reasons I do not understand, as the scientific evidence for race realism increase, efforts to suppress this evidence also increase.

Scientists looking for genes that effect intelligence and behavior have learned to perform their research as privately as possible.

Wow, maybe it is the addiction to scientific COMPLICATESE that makes your point almost impossible to find.
But why go to 2014 when you have 2021 Commentary magazine

Charles Murray, Wrong and Right

Charles Murray is likely wrong about the causes and extent of the phenomena he documents, but he is correct about their implications. In his newest book, Facing Reality, Murray argues

www.commentary.org

And 2021

DEBUNKING THAT WHOLE APPROACH

and the exhaustive review

Peter Bradley's review of Taboo

5/5: Please give my Amazon review a helpful vote - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R2W3OQ9R1MW8V?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp I am a factual-details, empirical-data person. When someone makes a claim, I typically ask "Evidence?" Opinions are fine, but I want to know what the facts behind...

www.goodreads.com

 

[Hector12]

UTTER BOSH
Start with the 2021 Commentary article by (Black) Wilfrid Reilly

Charles Murray, Wrong and Right

Charles Murray is likely wrong about the causes and extent of the phenomena he documents, but he is correct about their implications. In his newest book, Facing Reality, Murray argues

www.commentary.org

Then get his book TABOO...here is a review snippet that pinpoints where the above is out to sea

-- Oh, and Charles Murray has conceded a couple major counter-arguments but you should look that up

"
Continuing the theme, Reilly shows that differences in IQ scores are not, as the alt-right claims, genetic in nature. Rather, black IQs have been increasing over time (something which the genetic argument has no answer for), and when cultural differences are accounted for, IQ differences narrow, disappear, or are inverted. Group differences, then, are explained best neither by the left’s focus on discrimination nor the far right’s focus on genetics, but rather by a multiplicity of other factors that influence individual development, decisions, and priorities.

The most important of these factors may be the presence of both parents in a child’s home, which much more strongly correlates with a whole host of better outcomes than race does. For instance, the poverty rate is 7% for two-parent black families, but 22% for single-parent white households, calling the pervasiveness and even the existence of “white privilege” into question. This, and other factors, influence cultural attitudes towards work and education, and when these factors are considered in Reilly’s analysis he again finds that they largely mitigate group disparities. The way to address these disparities, then, seems not to be found in pushing a theory of systemic discrimination but rather in encouraging the habits that have proven to contribute to success in manifold ways. As Reilly simply says, “Culture matters.”

Reilly’s analysis along these lines is further buttressed by observing that when these cultural attributes are controlled for within ethnic groups, we see the same outcome disparities that exist between ethnic groups. This applies to whites, where fatherlessness has been growing in recent decades with the predictable rise in poverty and crime, and also to blacks, who experience lower levels of poverty and crime the more that beneficial cultural elements are found. Of note, he observes that black immigrants, who often come from more traditional cultures, often earn higher incomes than whites, another difficult-to-explain fact if discrimination were the cause of disparities."


AND, YES, I HAVE SAID THIS REPEATEDLY ON HERE

By every objective, measurable criterion American Negroes tend to be considerably less intelligent than whites. African Negroes are even less intelligent than whites. This has always been true. There is no reason to believe that it will ever not be true.

 

[Stryder50]

The Inequality Taboo, By Charles Murray Commentary September 01, 2005​

The Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin originated the idea of race as a social construct in 1972, arguing that the genetic differences across races were so trivial that no scientist working exclusively with genetic data would sort people into blacks, whites, or Asians. In his words, “racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.”[25]

Lewontin’s position, which quickly became a tenet of political correctness, carried with it a potential means of being falsified. If he was correct, then a statistical analysis of genetic markers would not produce clusters corresponding to common racial labels.

In the last few years, that test has become feasible, and now we know that Lewontin was wrong.[26]

Several analyses have confirmed the genetic reality of group identities going under the label of race or ethnicity.[27] In the most recent, published this year, all but five of the 3,636 subjects fell into the cluster of genetic markers corresponding to their self-identified ethnic group.[28] When a statistical procedure, blind to physical characteristics and working exclusively with genetic information, classifies 99.9 percent of the individuals in a large sample in the same way they classify themselves, it is hard to argue that race is imaginary.

The Inequality Taboo

When the late Richard Herrnstein and I published The Bell Curve eleven years ago, the furor over its discussion of ethnic differences in IQ was so intense that most people who have not read the book still think it was about race. Since then, I have deliberately not published anything about group...

www.aei.org

----------

Because race is an important biological category it become legitimate to look for the genetic reasons the races differ significantly in average intelligence and in rates of crime and illegitimacy.

One would think that if genetics (genes) determine eye and hair color, they likely do the same for skin color and other physical characteristics. The linked article hasn't convinced me that different "average intelligence and in rates of crime and illegitimacy" are more genetic driven than environment/culture driven. I lean strongly towards the latter.

Thanks however for this biological facts link.