Race, Genes, and Intelligence

[Starr]

Last month, James Watson, the legendary biologist, was condemned and forced into retirement after claiming that African intelligence wasn’t “the same as ours.” “Racist, vicious and unsupported by science,” said the Federation of American Scientists. “Utterly unsupported by scientific evidence,” declared the U.S. government’s supervisor of genetic research. The New York Times told readers that when Watson implied “that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn’t a scientific leg to stand on.”

I wish these assurances were true. They aren’t. Tests do show an IQ deficit, not just for Africans relative to Europeans, but for Europeans relative to Asians. Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern, and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic. It’s time to prepare for the possibility that equality of intelligence, in the sense of racial averages on tests, will turn out not to be true.


The same values—equality, hope, and brotherhood—are under scientific threat today. But this time, the threat is racial genetics, and the people struggling with it are liberals.



I’m for reconciliation. Later this week, I’ll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here’s what you’re up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It’s been that way for at least a century.



We don’t like to think IQ is mostly inherited. But we’ve all known families who are smarter than others. Twin and sibling studies, which can sort genetic from environmental factors, suggest more than half the variation in IQ scores is genetic. A task force report from the American Psychological Association indicates it might be even higher. The report doesn’t conclude that genes explain racial gaps in IQ. But the tests on which racial gaps are biggest happen to be the tests on which genes, as measured by comparative sibling performance, exert the biggest influence.

How could genes cause an IQ advantage? The simplest pathway is head size. I thought head measurement had been discredited as Eurocentric pseudoscience. I was wrong. In fact, it’s been bolstered by MRI. On average, Asian-American kids have bigger brains than white American kids, who in turn have bigger brains than black American kids. This is true even though the order of body size and weight runs in the other direction. The pattern holds true throughout the world and persists at death, as measured by brain weight.

According to twin studies, 50 percent to 90 percent of variation in head size and brain volume is genetic. And when it comes to IQ, size matters. The old science of head measurements found a 20 percent correlation of head size with IQ. The new science of MRI finds at least a 40 percent correlation of brain size with IQ. One analysis calculates that brain size could easily account for five points of the black-white IQ gap.

I know, it sounds crazy. But if you approach the data from other directions, you get the same results. The more black and white scores differ on a test, the more performance on that test correlates with head size and “g,” a measure of the test’s emphasis on general intelligence. You can debate the reality of g, but you can’t debate the reality of head size. And when you compare black and white kids who score the same on IQ tests, their average difference in head circumference is zero.

Scientists have already identified genes that influence brain size and vary by continent. Whether these play a role in racial IQ gaps, nobody knows. But we should welcome this research, because any genetic hypothesis about intelligence ought to be clarified and tested.

Critics think IQ tests are relative—i.e., they measure fitness for success in our society, not in other societies. “In a hunter-gatherer society, IQ will still be important, but if a hunter cannot shoot straight, IQ will not bring food to the table,” argues psychologist Robert Sternberg. “In a warrior society . . . physical prowess may be equally necessary to stay alive.” It’s a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic theory. Nature isn’t stupid. If Africans, Asians, and Europeans evolved different genes, the reason is that their respective genes were suited to their respective environments.

In fact, there’s a mountain of evidence that differential evolution has left each population with a balance of traits that could be advantageous or disadvantageous, depending on circumstances. The list of differences is long and intricate. On average, compared with whites, blacks mature more quickly in the womb, are born earlier, and develop teeth, strength, and dexterity earlier. They sit, crawl, walk, and dress themselves earlier. They reach sexual maturity faster, and they have better eyesight. On each of these measures, East Asians lag whites and blacks. In exchange, East Asians get longer lives and bigger brains.

Genetic advantages, in other words, are culturally created.

Not that that’s much consolation if you’re stuck in the 21st century with a low IQ. Tomorrow we’ll look at some of the arguments against the genetic theory.

Part 2
November 19, 2007

Yesterday we looked at evidence for a genetic theory of racial differences in IQ. Today let’s look at some of the arguments against it. Again, I’m drawing heavily on a recent exchange of papers published by the American Psychological Association.

One objection is that IQ tests are racially biased. This is true in the broadest sense: On average, African and Asian kids have different advantages, and IQ tests focus on the things at which more Asian kids have the edge. But in the narrower sense of testing abilities that pay off in the modern world, IQ tests do their job. They accurately predict the outcomes of black and white kids at finishing high school, staying employed, and avoiding poverty, welfare, or jail. They also accurately predict grades and job performance in modern Africa. The SAT, GRE, and tests in the private sector and the armed forces corroborate the racial patterns on IQ tests. Kids of different backgrounds find the same questions easy or hard. Nor do tests always favor a country’s ethnic majority. In Malaysia, Chinese and Indian minorities outscore Malays.

If the tests aren’t racist, some critics argue, then society is. That’s true, in the sense that racism persists. But that alone can’t account for the patterns in IQ scores. Why do blacks in the white-dominated United States score 15 points higher than blacks in black-dominated African countries, including countries that have been free of colonial rule for half a century? And why do Asian-Americans outscore white Americans?

Another common critique is that race is a fuzzy concept. By various estimates, 20 percent to 30 percent of the genes in “black” Americans actually came from Europe. Again, it’s a good point, but it bolsters the case for a genetic explanation. Black Americans, like “colored” South Africans, score halfway between South African blacks and whites on IQ tests. The lowest black IQ averages in the United States show up in the South, where the rate of genetic blending is lowest. There’s even some biological evidence: a correlation between racial “admixture” and brain weight. Reading about studies of “admixture” is pretty nauseating. But the nausea doesn’t make the studies go away.



The current favorite alternative to a genetic explanation is that black kids grow up in a less intellectually supportive culture. This is a testament to how far the race discussion has shifted to the right. Twenty years ago, conservatives were blaming culture, while liberals blamed racism and poverty. Now liberals are blaming culture because the emerging alternative, genetics, is even more repellent.

The best way to assess the effects of culture and socioeconomic status is to look at trans-racial adoptions, which combine one race’s genes with another’s environment. Among Asian-American kids, biological norms seem to prevail. In one study, kids adopted from Southeast Asia, half of whom had been hospitalized for malnutrition, outscored the U.S. IQ average by 20 points. In another study, kids adopted from Korea outscored the U.S. average by two to 12 points, depending on their degree of malnutrition. In a third study, Korean kids adopted in Belgium outscored the Belgian average by at least 10 points, regardless of their adoptive parents’ socioeconomic status.

Studies of African-American kids are less clear. One looked at children adopted into white upper-middle class families in Minnesota. The new environment apparently helped: On average, the kids exceeded the IQ norms for their respective populations. However, it didn’t wipe out racial differences. Adopted kids with two white biological parents slightly outscored kids with one black biological parent, who in turn significantly outscored kids with two black biological parents. The most plausible environmental explanation for this discrepancy is that the half-black kids (in terms of their number of black biological parents) were treated better than the all-black kids. But the study shot down that theory. Twelve of the half-black kids were mistakenly thought by their adoptive parents to be all-black. That made no difference. They scored as well as the other half-black kids.



Each camp points out flaws in the other’s studies, and the debate is far from over. But when you boil down the studies, they suggest three patterns. One, better environments produce better results. Two, moms appear to make a difference, environmentally and biologically. (Their biological influence could be hormonal or nutritional rather than genetic.) Three, underneath those factors, a racial gap persists. One problem with most of the adoption studies is that as a general rule, genetic differences in IQ tend to firm up in adolescence. And in the only study that persisted to that point (the one in Minnesota), kids scored on average according to how many of their biological parents were black.

The best argument against genetics isn’t in these studies. It’s in data that show shrinkage of the black-white IQ gap over time. From these trends, environmentalists conclude that the gap is closing to zero. Hereditarians read the data differently. They agree that the gap closed fractionally in the middle decades of the 20th century, but they argue that scores in the last two to three decades show no improvement.


When I look at all the data, studies, and arguments, I see a prima facie case for partial genetic influence. I don’t see conclusive evidence either way in the adoption studies. I don’t see closure of the racial IQ gap to single digits. And I see too much data that can’t be reconciled with the surge or explained by current environmental theories. I hope the surge surprises me. But in case it doesn’t, I want to start thinking about how to be an egalitarian in an age of genetic difference, even between races. More on that tomorrow.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/11/race_genes_and.php#

[Kamandi]

Economic and cultural theories have failed to explain most of the pattern
Actually, they haven't.

and there’s strong preliminary evidence that part of it is genetic
None has ever been presented.

[Kamandi]

Just like to survey a few of the methodological flaws of this interpretation of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study:

1. It fails to control for the variation in heritability in intelligence between ages 7 and 17. (For reasons currently unknown, intelligence shows different proportions of heritability and environmental influence in childhood and adulthood.)

2. It fails to control for the Flynn Effect; ie, secular increases in performance on tests of cognitive skill presumably operative between ages 7 and re-test at 17.

3. It fails to control for a number of sensitive variables in the pre-adoptive environments of the various adopted and non-adopted children.

[Brechun]

What a joke of an article. Although it's largely a mish-mash of generic hereditarian arguments, this really struck me:

I’m for reconciliation. Later this week, I’ll make that case. But if you choose to fight the evidence, here’s what you’re up against. Among white Americans, the average IQ, as of a decade or so ago, was 103. Among Asian-Americans, it was 106. Among Jewish Americans, it was 113. Among Latino Americans, it was 89. Among African-Americans, it was 85. Around the world, studies find the same general pattern: whites 100, East Asians 106, sub-Sarahan Africans 70. One IQ table shows 113 in Hong Kong, 110 in Japan, and 100 in Britain. White populations in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United States score closer to one another than to the worldwide black average. It’s been that way for at least a century.

He's citing Lynn and Vanhanen's data. And pushing off the idea of africans being mentally retarded.

How did this bullshit make it into Slate?

He even mention's Lahn's work. That was torn apart roughly a year ago, but it didn't even need that. The idea of the APSM alleles and the like were completely insane at face value.

Just like to survey a few of the methodological flaws of this interpretation of the Minnesota Transracial Adoption study:

1. It fails to control for the variation in heritability in intelligence between ages 7 and 17. (For reasons currently unknown, intelligence shows different proportions of heritability and environmental influence in childhood and adulthood.)

2. It fails to control for the Flynn Effect; ie, secular increases in performance on tests of cognitive skill presumably operative between ages 7 and re-test at 17.

3. It fails to control for a number of sensitive variables in the pre-adoptive environments of the various adopted and non-adopted children.

I haven't looked into this study that much myself, it's extremely politicized. Though one thing I noticed about it is this- it's looking at the effects of home environment on IQ. That's now known to have little to no effect, with the exception of the sort of environments typically provided by east asian and ashkenazi jew parents.

It's a complete strawman.

None has ever been presented.

We know that people inherit their IQ from their parents, so...

[Kamandi]

We do? We certainly know there's a correlation, but that's hardly the same thing as "inheriting your IQ from your parents." It also fails to explain the B-W IQ gap too, as the difference could be based on any differential, not simply a genetic one.

Though one thing I noticed about it is this- it's looking at the effects of home environment on IQ. That's now known to have little to no effect, with the exception of the sort of environments typically provided by east asian and ashkenazi jew parents.
If that's true, then how do you explain the higher IQs of oldest children vs. youngest children? Don't they inherit their parents' IQs too?

[Starr]

3. It fails to control for a number of sensitive variables in the pre-adoptive environments of the various adopted and non-adopted children.

What variables are these that have the pattern of affecting different races of children differently? A large amount of adopted children of any race are likely to come from difficult circumstances are they not? and why do many of these studies show, that for example, black kids raised by whites retain an IQ closer to the black average than the white average, but also that asians raised by whites continue to show the pattern of a higher IQ?

For what you are saying to make sense then we would have to believe that, even though, "we are all the same" there are differences so great in the natural home environment between the different races of adopted children, that it greatly impacts the rest of their life. I don't think you want to go down that road either.

[Brechun]

We do? We certainly know there's a correlation, but that's hardly the same thing as "inheriting your IQ from your parents." It also fails to explain the B-W IQ gap too, as the difference could be based on any differential, not simply a genetic one.

....Wow. Are you seriously denying an inherited basis for IQ? Why wouldn't there be?

If that's true, then how do you explain the higher IQs of oldest children vs. youngest children? Don't they inherit their parents' IQs too?

Ever heard of birth-order and IQ? I'm not sure of the mechanisms, but it seems to be involved with the pre-natal environment.

[Kamandi]

Not denying an inherited component of IQ; I'm denying that the existence of an inherited component of IQ implies the existence of an inherited component of the B-W IQ differential. It doesn't.

While there's certainly a correlation between parents and children's performance on IQ tests, to say that you inherit your IQ from your parents is an overstatement.

Next, an environmental basis for birth order differences in IQ has generally been upheld by research. No prenatal theory has ever been substantiated with evidence. See, for example:

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/birthOrder.shtml

[Brechun]

Not denying an inherited component of IQ; I'm denying that the existence of an inherited component of IQ implies the existence of an inherited component of the B-W IQ differential. It doesn't.

Yes, it does. I know that this comes down to "Jensen's Error", but many people have pointed out how much of a non-sequiter it is for the idea of genetic differences between individuals to be inapplicable to populations. I mean yeah, obviously not all of those people share the same experiences, but why shouldn't it be there?

While there's certainly a correlation between parents and children's performance on IQ tests, to say that you inherit your IQ from your parents is an overstatement.

Well, wouldn't it be safe to say there's an inherited basis for the differences in intelligence between humans and primates? Why shouldn't this hold true for an individual level in our species?

[Kamandi]

What variables are these that have the pattern of affecting different races of children differently?
There are many of them:

1. Prenatal and early childhood nutrition.
2. Maternal effects, like quality of prenatal care
3. Breastfeeding
4. Parental drug and alcohol use.

Etc. etc. etc.

All of those factors have been shown to skew demographically on a purely ethnic basis. In fact, in several studies, black women have been shown to have been given worse information than white pregnant women at the same OBGYN clinic, like for example, about the importance of breastfeeding to neonatal and infant brain development.

A transracial adoption study couldn't possibly support a genetic hypothesis for IQ differences without controlling for the above non-genetic factors.

A large amount of adopted children of any race are likely to come from difficult circumstances are they not?
Not necessarily difficult circumstances which would impede cerebral development.

No evidence has emerged which would disadvantage upper-middle class orphans the same way a very bad prenatal environment will children from the marginalized underclass regularly does.


and why do many of these studies show, that for example, black kids raised by whites retain an IQ closer to the black average than the white average, but also that asians raised by whites continue to show the pattern of a higher IQ?
Without controlling for a broad matrix of mitigating factors -- which this study did not -- it's impossible to say.

For what you are saying to make sense then we would have to believe that, even though, "we are all the same" there are differences so great in the natural home environment between the different races of adopted children, that it greatly impacts the rest of their life. I don't think you want to go down that road either.
Well, actually, differences of exactly that kind in early home environments DO exist, so one could say that indeed.

[Kamandi]

Yes, it does. I know that this comes down to "Jensen's Error", but many people have pointed out how much of a non-sequiter it is for the idea of genetic differences between individuals to be inapplicable to populations.
No, it doesn't. Within-group variation says NOTHING about between-group variation. Regardless of any variation that exists within a population, differences between populations may be entirely environmental, entirely genetic or a mix of the two.

I mean yeah, obviously not all of those people share the same experiences, but why shouldn't it be there?
Why should there be? There are no discernible brain differences between perceived races, nor have races existed for the millions of years the brain requires for major structural adaptations.

It makes little sense to suggest that huge - but invisible - brain structure differences could have evolved and circulated to white populations all over the world in just a few thousand years, but not be passed on to blacks, despite their presence in the population.

And, yes, the assumption IS Jensen's Error.

Well, wouldn't it be safe to say there's an inherited basis for the differences in intelligence between humans and primates? Why shouldn't this hold true for an individual level in our species?
Because as far as is observable, all human groups have a similar brain structure. It's impossible to distinguish a "black" brain from a "white" or "Asian" brain by visual inspection.

That's not true for human vs. primate brains.

[Brechun]

Wasn't it also true that nearly all of the low IQ whites dropped out of the sample before it was finished? And that the IQ's of the parents wern't tested either?

Hell, were the IQ's of the kids even tested before being put on adoption? All I've seen are their scores shortly after being put up- IE, the ones that were skewed and transistory- then the finalized ones at 17.

Let's also not forget how IQ becomes less malleable as one ages, so they were looking at a timeframe that left alot of potential out.

...I really don't even see why the MTRAS is drummed up so much. Even if it were valid, it pales in comparison to the amount of studies that go against a substantial genetic basis.

[Brechun]

No, it doesn't. Within-group variation says NOTHING about between-group variation. Regardless of any variation that exists within a population, differences between populations may be entirely environmental, entirely genetic or a mix of the two.

I'm not going to debate this. I've never understood why this is emphasized so much.

Why should there be? There are no discernible brain differences between perceived races, nor have races existing for the millions of years the brain requires for major structural adaptations.

It makes little sense to suggest that huge - but invisible - brain structure differences could have evolved and circulated to white populations all over the world in just a few thousand years, but not be passed on to blacks, despite their presence in the population.

I know what you mean here, and I'm not pushing this off.

Because as far as is observable, all human groups have a similar brain structure. It's impossible to distinguish a "black" brain from a "white" or "Asian" brain by visual inspection.

That's not true for human vs. primate brains.

But, as a whole, our species has a unified cognitive structure that seperates us from primates. This is obviously genetic. Why shouldn't differences in intelligence within this framework be genetic? We see it in other animals, so why not?

[Kamandi]

Because there ARE no observable differences, for one.

Next, it takes an awful lengthy time for such differences to evolve - the brain is so critical for survival that even small mutations typically prevent one from ever living to reproduce - and racial groups haven't been around all that long, on the neuro-evolutionary timescale.

It's foolish to simply assume that apparent differences in human groups MUST be somehow genetic. While it was once believed that Asians have lesser genetic potential for physical height, careful observation of Asian American populations has brought many to the conclusion that genetic height potential is probably universal amongst humans.

Given the far more crucial role the brain plays in our lives, it's kinda hard to believe it would be so quick to evolve amongst human ethnic groups.

[Brechun]

Because there ARE no observable differences, for one.

Next, it takes an awful lengthy time for such differences to evolve - the brain is so critical for survival that even small mutations typically prevent one from ever living to reproduce - and racial groups haven't been around all that long, on the neuro-evolutionary timescale.

Look, I KNOW what you're saying in regards to the idea of major evolutionary changes in the brain. You don't need to repeat this.

It's foolish to simply assume that apparent differences in human groups MUST be somehow genetic. While it was once believed that Asians have lesser genetic potential for physical height, careful observation of Asian American populations has brought many to the conclusion that genetic height potential is probably universal amongst humans.

Um... It's genetic in the sense that there's a heritable basis for it that we get from our parents. Why do you deny this?

[Kamandi]

That doesn't mean that apparent differences between human populations in IQ inventory performance are necessarily genetic. It's likely impossible to say exactly what the causes are, if the phenomenon isn't artifactual in the first place.

[Brechun]

That doesn't mean that apparent differences between human populations in IQ inventory performance are necessarily genetic.

Whatever. Could you get back to me on the MTRAS? How much have you looked into it?

[Kamandi]

I know it very well, from abstract to case studies to final print.

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Kamandi]There are many of them:

1. Prenatal and early childhood nutrition.
2. Maternal effects, like quality of prenatal care
3. Breastfeeding
4. Parental drug and alcohol use.

Etc. etc. etc.

All of those factors have been shown to skew demographically on a purely ethnic basis. In fact, in several studies, black women have been shown to have been given worse information than white pregnant women at the same OBGYN clinic, like for example, about the importance of breastfeeding to neonatal and infant brain development.

It would seem to me that all four of these factors would be more likely to be present in children who may go into foster care and end up being adopted, and still there are IQ differences among children who likely come from similar circumstances. And I am not buying that doctors actively discriminate against black women. That is a bunch of conveniet lefty excuses that look for everything and everything to explain certain realities they don't want to believe could be true. those studies are also often conducted by people who want to find "racial bias." I would buy that poor people who have drug problems,etc. are not going to be receiving the best quality of health care, but once again we are talking about children in a situation where many are likely to have been born into these circumstances, white, black, asian,etc. alike, yet the IQ differences are still fact.

[Winston]

It's foolish to simply assume that apparent differences in human groups MUST be somehow genetic. While it was once believed that Asians have lesser genetic potential for physical height, careful observation of Asian American populations has brought many to the conclusion that genetic height potential is probably universal amongst humans.

Do you believe that pygmies have the same genetic height potential as Northern Europeans?

[Brechun]

Do you believe that pygmies have the same genetic height potential as Northern Europeans?

His point was that height has varying heritabilities.

[Winston]

His point was that height has varying heritabilities.
I don't think it was.

[Kamandi]

Do you believe that pygmies have the same genetic height potential as Northern Europeans?
Yep. Same with Southeast Asians and other groups. Once they move to the US or Europe and acquire the benefits of Western economic and lifestyle advantages, they begin gaining increasing amounts of height with every generation.

Although there isn't universal agreement on this point, many physical anthropologists now feel the same way.

[Kamandi]

It would seem to me that all four of these factors would be more likely to be present in children who may go into foster care and end up being adopted, and still there are IQ differences among children who likely come from similar circumstances.
A) Few children reside in foster care from conception. Important differences begin as early as the prenatal period.

B) All foster care is not equivalent. Given the much higher demand for white babies on the US adoption market, it's extremely unlikely that racial disparities in foster and pre-adoption care don't exist.
And I am not buying that doctors actively discriminate against black women.
Nope. Study after study show that racial disparities in quality of OBGYN care and pregnancy education exist. See, for example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&pubmedid=15533192

(Not the best study, but my only resource at the moment is Google.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctors actively discriminate and in fact the authors of several of the studies actually state they don't believe the problem is conscious discrimination. The etiology of it is currently unknown

[Byssus]

Do you believe that pygmies have the same genetic height potential as Northern Europeans?
Yep. Same with Southeast Asians and other groups. Once they move to the US or Europe and acquire the benefits of Western economic and lifestyle advantages, they begin gaining increasing amounts of height with every generation.

Although there isn't universal agreement on this point, many physical anthropologists now feel the same way.

I know of the association between improved diet, especially increased micronutrient availability, and height gain in many East Asian populations, but I question your claim vis-à-vis central African pygmies (as with negritos and certain Australo-Melanesian groups). Researchers have noted partial growth hormone resistance amongst the former (growth hormone binding protein occurs at normal levels in youth but fails to undergo pubertal increase: see here (http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/reprint/163/2/165.pdf)). In many instances, generational gains in height accompanied intermarriage with taller peoples even as hunter-gathering lifestyle was retained. Conversely, I am unaware of any case studies dealing with pygmy immigrants to the West or to more urban settings within Africa, let alone any progressively rapid approach to European height averages on the part of their descendants.

Short stature, growth hormone, insulin-like growth factors, and serum proteins in the Mountain Ok people of Papua New Guinea. (http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/5/901) (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1987 Nov;65(5):901-5.) sheds some light on the somewhat distinct provenance of notably short height in a New Guinean tribe:

Short stature in man may result from a deficiency of GH or insulin-like growth factors (IGFs). In African pygmies and other individuals with the pygmy trait, serum GH and IGF-II are similar to levels in taller subjects, but serum IGF-I levels are low. To determine whether another population with comparably short stature has similar or related defects, we studied the Mountain Ok population of Papua New Guinea. The mean height of adult men was 152 +/- 6.0 (+/- SD) cm (n = 141), and that of women was 146 +/- 5.7 cm (n = 150). Serum GH and IGF-II concentrations were in the normal (U.S.) range in the Mountain Ok subjects. In the men, serum IGF-I values were also normal, thereby distinguishing the endocrine profile associated with short stature in these subjects from that in African pygmies. Serum IGF-I was not measured in any Mountain Ok women. Since marginal dietary protein is characteristic of the traditional Papua New Guinea diet, we determined serum albumin and prealbumin concentrations in the Mountain Ok subjects. The serum proteins were in the normal (U.S.) range (30-50 g/L for albumin; 10-40 mg/dL for prealbumin), indicating that chronic or acute malnutrition was unlikely in these subjects. Taken together, these findings indicate that short stature in the Mountain Ok people of Papua New Guinea is associated with normal serum GH, IGF-I, IGF-II, and protein levels and indicate that other factors determine stature in some populations with short stature.

Height gains accompanying dietary change do not necessarily negate variance (even rather significant variance) in genetic potential between populations. Obviously, I am not an advocate of a totally hereditarian basis for the aforementioned peoples' condition; my outlook is pretty much summed up by the following excerpt from Genetic, physiologic and ecogeographic factors contributing to variation in Homo sapiens: Homo floresiensis reconsidered (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01179.x) (J Evol Biol. 2006 Nov;19(6):1744-67.):

Whereas their tropical forest habitats predict low protein intake in pygmies, it is clear that the low IGF-I levels are related to genetic factors and not to environmental ones such as diet (Hiernaux, 1977; Merimee & Rimoin, 1986; Dietz et al., 1989). Also, Hiernaux (1977) notes that weight is more sensitive to malnutrition than stature. Given these data, Da´vila et al. (2002) suggest that it appears likely that both genetic and nutritional factors contribute to short stature in pygmy populations. Therefore, the genetic background and nutritional status of pygmies may converge on the same physiological mechanism(s) to bring about short stature.

[Kamandi]

The question asked was: do I believe that Pygmies (presumably, as a group) have the same genetic height potential as North Europeans?

I wasn't asked if I had research data to support my belief.

[Empress Cheesatine]

Study after study show that racial disparities in quality of OBGYN care and pregnancy education exist. See, for example:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?&pubmedid=15533192

(Not the best study, but my only resource at the moment is Google.)

That doesn't necessarily mean that the doctors actively discriminate and in fact the authors of several of the studies actually state they don't believe the problem is conscious discrimination. The etiology of it is currently unknown

Interesting that once again here whites (doctors) are being blamed. How much medical care that blacks seek in comparison to other races was not apparently studied, nor was how much blacks adjust their lifestyles to properly care for offspring.

[delete]

The question asked was: do I believe that Pygmies (presumably, as a group) have the same genetic height potential as North Europeans?

I wasn't asked if I had research data to support my belief.

Will the asians grow longer legs and shorter backs when they move to Europe as well? :)

[Brechun]

Height has an average heritability of roughly 20% in most first world countries.

Really, I don't see why the extremely short height of the pygmies is drummed up so much. What sets them apart from all the other extremely tall african ethnic groups?

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Kamandi]A) Few children reside in foster care from conception. Important differences begin as early as the prenatal period.

B) All foster care is not equivalent. Given the much higher demand for white babies on the US adoption market, it's extremely unlikely that racial disparities in foster and pre-adoption care don't exist.

And yet this is not something that seems to impact asian babies in the same way as blacks. There are plenty of white kids who come from bad circumstances that get kicked around from foster home to foster home and also have to go through who knows what before being adopted. White kids are more in demand, but that does not mean that white kids are immune to the worst possible cirumtances.The reality is no matter if a child is raised by the natural parents or adopted or remain in foster care, these racial disparities in IQ and performance, in both school and later life, still persist. I even have a thread floating around here somewhere that compared school performance among the races in different income categories(poor kids of all races, and wealthier kids of all races)and the disparities were still there. Racial disparities in these areas are much too numerous to always logically be able to write off race playing any kind of factor whatsoever. There are in fact so many excuses out there that some of them began to cancel out their tightly held notions of racial equality. an example of this would be that people on one hand will say that blacks kids are much more likely to get a very rough start in life as compared to white kids and this is responsible for their later problems and yet no one will also acknowledge that maybe black parenting skills(as a whole) are not equal to white parenting skills or that blacks are not more likely than whites to fail in their responsibilities to their children.

[Kamandi]

Interesting that once again here whites (doctors) are being blamed.
Bad assumption #1: all doctors aren't white. In fact, many of the doctors in the clinics in question were non-white - Black, Hispanic, Asian, Indian, etc. - which is unsurprising, given that all of the clinics were located in minority neighborhoods.

How much medical care that blacks seek in comparison to other races was not apparently studied
Bad assumption #2: all of the women in the study, black and white, were AT the clinic SEEKING medical care.
nor was how much blacks adjust their lifestyles to properly care for offspring.
If the specific black women researched by the study were given the appropriate information by their OBGYN, they might have had the opportunity to change their lifestyles. The focus of the study was the information asymmetry between black and white patients at the same clinic.

[Kamandi]

Height has an average heritability of roughly 20% in most first world countries.
As we know, the lower the SES of a sample population, the larger a role genetics plays in sample variance for heritable traits influenced by environmental factors (like both intelligence and height). That means genes probably explain a great deal more of variance in height in the first world than the third world.

[Starr]

If the specific black women researched by the study were given the appropriate information by their OBGYN, they might have had the opportunity to change their lifestyles. The focus of the study was the information asymmetry between black and white patients at the same clinic.


The study was rather long, but I don't recall reading anywhere that it was any kind of proven fact that blacks were less likely than whites to recieve the information they might need to change their lifestyles(if that was said point it out and I will look at it) all I see is assumptions that since blacks have more problem births, while recieving the similar levels of care, this is something that can be assumed. All I recall seeing was that a smaller percentage of blacks reported having recieved what they felt was adaquete care and people's perceptions of these things are often flawed. Especially when you are dealing with a people who notoriously like(and have been taught) to blame everyone else for their problems.
What Cheesypie said about blacks possibly be not as likely to either want or be able(negroes are more likely than others to live for more immediate pleasures, which is not terribly unlikely to be coming into play here) to take the steps to adjust their lifestyle still seems to stand as a possibility.
I also don't see how talking of higher rates of low birth rate means anything either. It is not unlikely that there is a genetic basis for this, just as there is for blacks being more likely than others to give birth to twins, for example.
People are always way to quick to believe that if racial disparities exist, there must be some inequality in how different races are treated. And we live in a society today where people live in fear of the smallest little things that could get them accused of racism. It is to a point where many people overreact to this. Very unlikely that huge numbers of people are actively discriminating against people who are now part of a special protected class. People now this could result in them loosing everything.

[Kamandi]

1. Few things in psychology and sociology can be said to be "proven facts." For the most part, we have to go on "substantiated hypotheses" from research and not much else. They're not exact sciences.

2. The studies DID find that black women received lower quality advice from OBGYN clinics than their white pregnant counterparts. The researchers did not conclude, however, that outright bigotry was necessarily the cause.

3.These particular studies didn't purport to make a cross-racial assessment of comparative implementation of, say, breastfeeding or prenatal nutrition; their stated intention was only to gauge the observable information gap.

4. Too many known environmental factors cause low birth weight to propose a genetic basis for such racial differences.

[klipgeit]

http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/000325.html

Height is discussed in the above website.

[Kamandi]

Just to begin with, it's well-known that genetically isolated populations tend to be smaller. That doesn't necessarily mean their "genetic potential for height" is therefore less.

[klipgeit]

No,but how long does it take.
From this thread I seem to pick up that it could be achieved in a matter of one generation.
Africans too have a potential to become white.
Question is, how long????
By the time they have become white I am 100 or more years in heaven,kissing Peter's feet.
If it takes that long....who cares.

This is different with intelligence( I hate the word)
My sons are way above average,while I struggle along and this could be due to my concentration camp diet.
Perseverance to me is far more important,of that the high IQ may need less than a struggler.
IE: It may take a high intelligent person to study a subject in 2 hours while it may take me 4,the end result is the same. with perseverance.

Ever seen a KoiSan stalking-on foot- a buck and its tracks for 4 days and kill it with his miserable crappy spear. I am sure that his IQ test is crap according to European standard.

[Kamandi]

Asians-Americans, for example, have gained height in every succeeding generation following their arrival in the United States.

The analogy to intelligence is a bad one, as:

1. Intelligence can't be objectively measured in the same sense as height; ie, in an unambiguous and value-free universal manner.

2. Between-group variation in intelligence test performance hasn't been (and can't be) demonstrated to be collectively genetic.

[klipgeit]

How does one reduce most posts to the size I use inpost 38 or the size of quick reply.
The post are frustrating to read and half of the content is lost by me due to most posts being twice as large.
I like to respond but I have to recall previous posts and it takes to long.

[klipgeit]

Do you believe that pygmies have the same genetic height potential as Northern Europeans?


NO they have not,they do have however the ability to get taller.

[Kamandi]

How could you possibly know that they don't have the same genetic height potential? The fact they're smaller doesn't prove anything about their genotype in itself.

[Brechun]

Oh, I meant the average heritability of height is 80%. 20% is the environmental component.

I once saw a CNN report discussing pygmies who lived outside of their jungle environment saw gains in height as well. Not sure what this other environment was though- how many pygmies are adopted into first world nations?

[klipgeit]

How could you possibly know that they don't have the same genetic height potential? The fact they're smaller doesn't prove anything about their genotype in itself.

I shall answer you on Sat or Sunday.
It is a very long essay more directed to the Koi-who are small too-just replace Koi with pygmy.
Or if you wish to solve it yourself compare the Pygmy elephant with the African elephant.

[klipgeit]

Oh, I meant the average heritability of height is 80%. 20% is the environmental component.

I once saw a CNN report discussing pygmies who lived outside of their jungle environment saw gains in height as well. Not sure what this other environment was though- how many pygmies are adopted into first world nations?
Just about spot on.
Pygmy in the first world just about negligible,outside jungle environment I presume a fair amount,must check that up with some friends in the Congo,Chad etc.

For now: Take a Norwegian and an African and a Pygmy give them the best environmental situation, they all gain in height,but a taller Pygmy is still and will always be a Pygmy in comparison with the others.

[Kamandi]

Oh, I meant the average heritability of height is 80%. 20% is the environmental component.
That just means variability in height is strongly due to genetics amongst sample groups. It doesn't say anything about "genetic height potential" differences BETWEEN groups.

I once saw a CNN report discussing pygmies who lived outside of their jungle environment saw gains in height as well. Not sure what this other environment was though- how many pygmies are adopted into first world nations?
Few, one would imagine. Their impoverished, economically undeveloped environment is probably the key to their shorter statures, as well as their genetically isolated in-group breeding.

[Kamandi]

Just about spot on.
Pygmy in the first world just about negligible,outside jungle environment I presume a fair amount,must check that up with some friends in the Congo,Chad etc.

For now: Take a Norwegian and an African and a Pygmy give them the best environmental situation, they all gain in height,but a taller Pygmy is still and will always be a Pygmy in comparison with the others.
There's no evidence that's true. Quite possibly, all the groups will have similar height after a few generations. You're just thinking stereotypically.

[klipgeit]

Look friend,I have watched your responses on genes and pheno etc.
I wish you would not quote scientists etc.
In post 47 and 46 you are way behind the the experiences of ME.
Damn I am boasting or am I ?????
All my uneducated life I watched live(natural live and its interaction)play around me.
I am not a city slicker although I am a rotten Dutch scoundrel :rofl: :rofl:
Just wait please for my response,before you make a fool of yourself any further.
Your most obedient servant:welcome: :welcome:

DOK

The asshole of South Africa

[klipgeit]

That just means variability in height is strongly due to genetics amongst sample groups. It doesn't say anything about "genetic height potential" differences BETWEEN groups.

Few, one would imagine. Their impoverished, economically undeveloped environment is probably the key to their shorter statures, as well as their genetically isolated in-group breeding.

Crap.:deadhorse::deadhorse:

[klipgeit]

That just means variability in height is strongly due to genetics amongst sample groups. It doesn't say anything about "genetic height potential" differences BETWEEN groups.

Few, one would imagine. Their impoverished, economically undeveloped environment is probably the key to their shorter statures, as well as their genetically isolated in-group breeding.

No ,wait,the Galapagos Islands,The Finch-Darwin-
Check how many changed into a woodpecker?????????
Not one.
There is a variety which could become a woodpecker,I said could
Galapagos was not a heaven for finches,they are however for flying fishes,and dumb Dutchman.
:whip: :whip: :whip:

Yes I am getting annoyed ,that is wrong,but then I am not a Finch.

[Kamandi]

Unfortunately, I simply have no idea what you're talking about here. How would finches not becoming a different species have any relevance to human genetic height potential?

[klipgeit]

Unfortunately, I simply have no idea what you're talking about here. How would finches not becoming a different species have any relevance to human genetic height potential?

It is all in the genes ,dear Watson.
Kamandi ,I have great respect for your insight,but you drive me to Murder lol
with your rather flimsy remarks in a number of occasions.
There are no woodpeckers there because the first finches on that island had no woodpecker genes.
Search the internet on Darwin
Geezzzzzzzzz.

================
Africa is the second largest of the world's land-masses. It's surface area of some 30 million square
kilometres comprise no less than 22.4 per cent of the inhabited parts of the globe(excluding Antarctica).
Yet its people constitutes less than 10 percent of the total world population about 450.000.000
inhibit the African continent. Average population density is about 13 per square kilometre.In contrast to
the world with an average of 30 per square kilometre.
IE density is low.
This is important,because the genetic effects of rapid growth in a relative small population may be
expected to differ from those of slow growth in a large,relative stable population.

The modern approach to the study of human races starts out by seeking to identify breeding
populations,their genetic composition and LIMITS of variability.
To do this,one studies genome or gene-pool that makes up each such population.
Thus the study of the phenotype of individuals must go hand in hand with the genotype.
One realises that the phenotype of an individual,be it his stature,head breath,skin colour or blood groups,
is the resultant of interactions between genes and environmental influences.
Such interactions may be simple or very complex.

Some bodily characters are harder to analyse,because the relationship between geno-type and
pheno-type is more complex.
Stature is a good example.
A number of genes are involved here and stayure is accordingly described as a polygenic trait.
Furthermore,the modifying influence of the environment on stature during an individual's development
may be appreciable.

People can be phenotypically short,either because they have genes for shortness,or because they
live in a nutritionally and otherwise deprived milieu,or because of a combination of both factors.
Merely to look at people whose average height is short does not permit one to say they are genetically
short,nor does it allow one to claim that they are related to other short people

Bushman.
The bodily distinctness of Bushmen,as compared with the African is manifest in their light
yellowish-brown skin,SHORTER STATURE, ETC.

IN THE LAST 3 GENERATION THEIR AVERAGE HEIGHT HAS INCREASED BY 3 CM IN MALES
AND 1.5 CM IN FEMALES
I will only concentrate on the Stature and environment,although the penis position between the African
and Bushmen is an extremely interesting one.

Time and time again the question is brought up against the factor of nutrition on the bodily structure
and functioning of the Bushmen.

As living conditions in Africa improve,we may expect the population to show an increase in
stature.
There was in the Bushmen,so we have reason to believe that the living conditions were somewhat better
than before.
This upward trend in stature was used fairly widely for all populations with better conditions.
But is it?????
The largely pastoral and agricultural communities have revealed that it does not apply to the
great majority of the world's non-industrialised populations.
In fact there is a downward stature and the absence of changes in stature.
In the Zulus there is an apparent decline in stature compared to their forefathers.
This could have been due to environmental changes.

Now the crunch.
Take the have most populations showed a growth in height for the last 2 centuries until
about the mid 19 60,after which which absence of growth followed.
It is reasonable to infer that populations in this category have reached the maximum of the phenotype
limits determined by their genetic potential.
This is also applicable to the Bushman-the have least-they will grow in height BUT only to the size their
genome has prescribed for this "race"
It is impossible for a Bushman or Pygmy to grow to a height of a Norwegian,because their genes have not
been made for that.

The San group is about 50.000 years old and so are their genes-the shortness-

All the above applies to the pygmy too.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/110525947/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

[Kamandi]

Again, that's a red herring: there is no species variation amongst homo sapiens. That's why we can all interbreed and still produce fertile offspring.

[klipgeit]

Again, that's a red herring: there is no species variation amongst homo sapiens. That's why we can all interbreed and still produce fertile offspring.

:rofl::rofl:

Your supercilious supposition is totally wrong,again to mention your so famous
"isolation" Theory.

Some of our posts seem to have been lost in translation.:welcome:

[Kamandi]

Nope, the overwhelming consensus of geneticists and anthropologists is that there is no species variation in human beings. If there was, human beings from various ethnic groups couldn't reproduce. That's the definition of biological "species."

So, again, you're wrong. And the fact that humans aren't genetically isolated - which is why 80% of our genetic variation is within-group - isn't a theory. It's a fact. The problem is that you obviously do not understand basic genetics and anthropology. I'll refer you to the 9th grade Biology text you so badly need.

[klipgeit]

Nope, the overwhelming consensus of geneticists and anthropologists is that there is no species variation in human beings. If there was, human beings from various ethnic groups couldn't reproduce. That's the definition of biological "species."

So, again, you're wrong. And the fact that humans aren't genetically isolated - which is why 80% of our genetic variation is within-group - isn't a theory. It's a fact. The problem is that you obviously do not understand basic genetics and anthropology. I'll refer you to the 9th grade Biology text you so badly need.

heheeheh.I do need 9th grade. I have not made it past 6th,I am a fact, I can not screw a donkey, despite the fact that people told me I am an ass.:rofl: :rofl:
Think again on your first paragraph Gee worse I am talking about isolation in the true sense not a fly by night Anthropologists.
And why do you throw in a geneticist //////////// see your previous remarks.

Look up Bonobo and chimp.
You really tickle my fancy and when you are ready I shall teach you the inner workings of Isolation and Paleontology

[Kamandi]

Again, you've failed to deal with the fact that the lack of species variation in humans makes the comparisons to flies and birds, which do have species variation...well, specious.

The rest of your post is too incoherent to comment on.

[klipgeit]

Again, you've failed to deal with the fact that the lack of species variation in humans makes the comparisons to flies and birds, which do have species variation...well, specious.

The rest of your post is too incoherent to comment on.

Well what can I say,I am an ass.
Another clue:Neanderthal
the last clue I shall leave for later.
remember 5 races and a number of subraces.
Do not let it bother you--incoherent-- that is.
Onec you have pieced all clues together,the light will shine.

[shanemac]

Kamandi is highly skilled in the art of obfuscation... picking apart little insignificant details in order to invalidate facts that everyone knows are basically true.

It's like saying that there is no difference between the colours blue and green because, well scientists haven't done enough research on the factors that generate electromagnetic radiation, and there is a large range of variability in the positions of blue and green light on the spectrum. And society's use of the terms "blue" and "green" may be totally subjective assumptions based on environmental factors that have not been properly scientifically investigated. And... blah blah blah.

[Kamandi]

No, it's not: "species" is not subjective. If you can mate and produce fertile offspring with another class of entities, you're of the same species.

And the difference between "red" and "blue" is defined mathematically by Maxell's Laws. Physics is an exact science while biology is not.

[klipgeit]

No, it's not: "species" is not subjective. If you can mate and produce fertile offspring with another class of entities, you're of the same species.

And the difference between "red" and "blue" is defined mathematically by Maxell's Laws. Physics is an exact science while biology is not.


Do you mean Maxwell's law ????????????/

[Kamandi]

No, I meant Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.

[klipgeit]

No, I meant Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism.
Same thing :)

Just as a matter of interest are Tigers and Lions of the same species.????
This is not a "snare" question.

[Kamandi]

I'm not a zoologist, but I don't think lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

BTW, "Maxwell's law" and "Maxwell's laws" aren't the same thing.

[klipgeit]

I'm not a zoologist, but I don't think lions and tigers can interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

BTW, "Maxwell's law" and "Maxwell's laws" aren't the same thing.
Better than Maxell's laws. also see point 13.
You should be more precise in future,to me they are both the same thing.
http://www.artofproblemsolving.com/LaTeX/Examples/Maxwell's%20Equations.pdf

They produce offspring too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panthera_hybrid
So now what on your species theory.
Do we say the "cat-family" can interbreed
I think "species" is a wrong word to use.

[Kamandi]

Better than Maxell's laws. also see point 13.
You should be more precise in future,to me they are both the same thing.
Maxwell's laws, not all of which were formulated by Maxwell, govern electromagnetism. Maxwell's law is studied in statistical mechanics.

They produce offspring too.
True, but only the females of the hybrids are fertile (apparently, in a couple of cases). Members of the same species can mate and produce fertile offspring more generally and of both genders.

Again, I'm not a zoologist.

[Basil Fawlty]

Donkeys are an interesting case.