/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3946269]

So /pol/ says that there are genetic differences between races. Are they right? I was taught to believe everyone is created equal.

>The heritability of intelligence is now well established from numerous adoption, twin, and family studies. Particularly noteworthy are the genetic contributions of around 80% found in adult twins reared apart. And most transracial adoption studies provide evidence for the heritability of racial differences in IQ. For instance, Korean and Vietnamese children adopted into white American and white Belgian homes were examined in studies by E.A. Clark and J. Hanisee, by M. Frydman and R. Lynn, and by M. Winick et al. Many had been hospitalized for malnutrition. But they went on to develop IQs ten or more points higher than their adoptive national norms. By contrast, the famous Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study marked black/white differences emerged by age 17 even though the black children had been reared in white middle-class families (Weinberg, Scarr & Waldman, 1992).

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3946277]

>>3946269
You will not get satisfying results on /sci/ due to trolls. You are likely trolling now. I am reporting your post.

[Anonymous No.3946284]

>>3946277
Well we can safely just disregard any trolls because they won't have scientific evidence to support their posts, right?

I am curious if /sci/ has data which can prove /pol/ are just ignorant.

[Anonymous No.3946285]

>>3946269

There are genetic differences and there are IQ differences. These are facts. Its whether there is a relation between these two that is mostly unknown (yes, unknown, not disproved).

[Anonymous No.3946310]

well yes as there are genetic differences between people with different coloured hair. it doesn't mean that race is suddenly not a social construct.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3946318]

>>3946310
>it doesn't mean that race is suddenly not a social construct.
What do you think that means? Compare and contrast with "Height is a social construct".

[Anonymous No.3946392]

This

[Anonymous No.3946396]

>>3946285
The topology of human trees (Figs. 4, 5) is remarkably consistent regardless of which class of loci are considered, and principal component analysis of genetic data also produces predictable clustering (Fig. 6). Either method gives a good visual overview of the general relatedness of the world’s populations.

By analysis of classical markers, Nei & Roychoudhury (1993) identified five major human clades: sub-Saharan Africans, Caucasians, Greater Asians, Australopapuans and Amerindians. Evolutionary trees constructed with autosomal RFLPs,[105] microsatellites[106] and Alu insertions[107] show similar topology. Frequently, Amerindians are grouped together with Asians, indicating four major clades, and it has been suggested that this should be a minimum.[108] Obviously, additional structure exists within each of these groups, but as we’ve seen, it’s generally weak compared to the differentiation among the ones listed here. For this reason alone, the term ‘race’ applies well to these major groupings.

[Anonymous No.3946420]

>created
fuck off

[Anonymous No.3946422]