/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9142384

>>9132254

>>9115141
What is the difference?

>>8928380
>Also human intelligence is mostly social intelligence, and all populations have social cooperation so there is no reason why any would be dumber other than random mutations that they missed.

Other than, you know, almost every scientific study about the subject, and common sense.

Human intelligence up to 75% inheritible
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/12061787/Intelligence-genes-discovered-by-scientists.html

Human intelligence is highly heritable.
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/abs/mp201185a.html

Scientific consensus is that IQ tests are not racially biased.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

Very poor Whites are comparably intelligent to very wealthy blacks.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Black children raised in White households have similar IQs to black children in black households.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

The average African IQ is estimated at 79.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912003741

The average African-American IQ is 85, compared to the average White IQ of 100.
http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997mainstream.pdf

The white-black gap in SAT scores, a proxy for IQ, is increasing.
http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

>hhhuuuurrrr evolution stops at the neck
>but based black men are good at running because of their superior genetics!

This is /sci/ as in "science", not "science fiction". /lit/ exists if you want that.

>>8928397
>this chart has been debunked over and over and still gets posted

Go ahead and do it then.

>>6443264
>It's also where we recognize that "race" can't be rigorously defined in a consistent meaningful way.
Guess what? Life isn't rigorously defined but only an idiot would deny its existence.Your point is moot.

>It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[26][27][28] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a pure substance.[29][30] Any definition must be sufficiently broad to encompass all life with which we are familiar, and must be sufficiently general to include life that may be fundamentally different from life on Earth.[31][32][33] Some may even consider that life is not real at all, but a concept instead.[34]

>>5433204
Lel.

>>5419805
Actually the first article demonstrates that Homo sapiens has multiple taxonomic groups.
See:
>Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications.

>We can distinguish between two families within a single putative 'race' with genetic clustering.
But families aren't populations.

>The articles I posted demonstrate that folk-racial categories are artificial distinctions considering we can classify people on the same genetic criteria into groups that aren't considered as separate races, like people of different families.
But it doesn't, it uses populations in Europe to demonstrate that they can be further subdivided. And I would agree that those populations can be recognized as races even though the folklore doesn't consider it.

Why is Science in the stranglehold of liberals?