Race doesn't exist biologically.
formerly known as Saoradh

Where did I say race doesn't exist? I said -
This doesn't mean there aren't genetic differences between geographical populations, of course there are, they just don't line up with the obsolete classifications of race
. Sociologists and Human population geneticists can call those populations what they like I suppose, that's not really my point.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Or to give it it's proper name - pseudoscientific racist b/s, seems to be popular again.
See Brexit and Trump.

I got my undergraduate degree in 1996 when the first really important papers on epigenetics were coming out and it's this effect that I was referencing along with other critics of the work. Uterine environment affects epigenetics which even you must know means non genetic effects.
The rest of your post is just your usual rambling crap though I'd like to know exactly what you think 'evolution seamlessly predicts'.?
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

EDIT: It also doesn't take into account something that we know now is very important to childhood development - pre natal environment.
You have a doctorate in a biological science and you are unaware that the brain develops with priority over the body? In the event of malnourishment, the brain is preferentially spared, while some part of the body is sacrificed, for instance rickets. Blacks are stereotyped as gifted athletes. They also have a fundamentally different developmental curve than other races. They learn to walk earlier. Their brain development plateaus earlier and degenerates earlier, consistent no matter the environment. There are similar male female differences, quantitative and qualitative. Are males and females gestating in unequal wombs?
Evolution predicts this seamlessly. Whatever the alternative theory is, (poverty, discrimination, ghetto culture, etc) it requires endless unique exceptions for every little observation.

I think that's true for some individual offspring but for the population as a whole heterozygosity has increased. New alleles have been introduced to the population
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

Heterosis only applies to F1 hybrids though, doesn't it? After that 1st generation, the alleles segregate and heterozygosity is reduced.
b l u e
g r e e n

If consistent differences completely controlled for the the various biases could hypothetically be established, what do you think the practical consequences would be?

If you're looking for substantial evidence for a hereditarian view of racial differences in intelligence then you ought to consult Rushton & Jensen's "Thirty Years of Research on
Race Differences in Cognitive Ability" paper.
It looks at 10 categories of evidence:

1. the worldwide distribution of test scores
2. g factor of mental ability
3. heritability
4. brain size and cognitive ability
5. transracial adoption
6. racial admixture
7. regression
8. related life-history traits,
9. human origins research, and
10. hypothesized environmental variables.
    Some of these are essentially the same points I've made. The authors make a case for how the evidence points to some genetic component in BlackWhite differences in mean IQ.
    Noose.

Nothing in science is absolute but in general heterosis is beneficial and so is genetic variation. In the absence of evidence to the contrary that stands, unless you think your hand waving explanation is evidence?
This has nothing to do with what you called a priori convictions about equality, it has to with evidence. My opinion, based on the evidence, is that there just isn't enough variation between populations or enough time for something as complex as intelligence (or other behaviours) to have diverged to a measurable degree. All it will take to change my mind is evidence.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

You said I didn't have an answer to his point about heterosis - and you kept emphasizing this talking point - that's why I pointed out that not all hybrids exhibit heterosis.
Noose.

Nobody said they did and you still haven't got your head around
The scientific method says that you cant infer a genetic effect between two groups when you havent controlled for environmental factors.
But we do have data from thousands of genomes and if you want to argue about science then you really need to come up with evidence rather than racist wishful thinking or wandering into Darwinian fantasy land. There's evidence that some geographical populations have evolved to be resistant to local diseases or to digest some food better but none that show regional differences in intelligence.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

I think the important take home message is that you can't control for all environmental factors so these kind of studies are meaningless. Genetic diversity is very low in the Human population and we only diverged from our original population in Eastern Africa 100kya at the most. Thousands of Human genomes have been sequenced and the small differences between geographical populations are related to digesting different food, resistance to local diseases etc. No evidence that intelligence has evolved differently or faster.
If you want to argue about science then you do have to come up with some actual evidence.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

you're not really good at this "insulting" thing, are you?

Okay.
Noose.

I mean, just wanted to set the record straight. Carry on.

Okay.
Noose.

HBD is only a problem if you have some deeply held a priori belief in the cult of "sameness".
It's only a problem for people who are interested in objective empirical reality, and not interpreting it to fit their own biases. A pretty small number of people, I know, and no one really pays attention to them anyway, but they're out there.

Interesting. Do fill me in
if you get the link. I know Sam Harris has expressed some (quasi?) race realist sentiment before (to my own dismay given back then I was a liberal). Dawkins as well seems to coast alongside Coyne ("race is real but it doesn't matter").
The funny thing is most people in the HBD sphere really aren't "supremacists", in fact there's a bizarre number of Indians with interest in this (like Razib Khan).
The way I see it, just as inequality/difference exists between individuals, it exists, on average, among social groups - which are essentially collectives of individuals.
HBD is only a problem if you have some deeply held a priori belief in the cult of "sameness".
Noose.

Pretty much: "it doesn't matter some races are better at some things than others, I don't really believe in IQ/ it's science that has no place in modern society."
At least it was something similar to that. I'll dig up the link later.

Hey Me!
Out of curiosity, what did Dennett have to say?
Noose.

Not all hybrids exhibit heterosis.
If heterosis is vital for intelligence then shouldn't this apply to things like the border collie? They have a bunch of health complications, but animals like Chaser that are purebreds can nearly compete with humans (and probably better than many) at vocab retention and access.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaser_(dog)
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-intelligent-a-mutt-or-a-purebred-dog
I don't really have a dog in this race (pun sort of intended) and have really own read Coyne's (maybe now infamous) article about how perhaps classical race categories can be dropped but the concept of race should stay. I did see a Dennett video recently when he uncomfortably had to answer a question on this (the IQ stuff) from an audience member.
Anyway this is another Mutha just dropping by, 40 or so more accounts to go.

Not all hybrids exhibit heterosis.
But nonetheless, I would say analysis of racial admixture actually supports the race realist hypothesis, given that for instance the mean IQ of African Americans - a population with 20% European admixture - is the highest of all measured black population mean IQs (as far as I'm aware).
The Coloured population in South Africa - another mixed race population with European ancestry - scores higher than the African mean.
I expect similar trends for Mestizos and Pardos in Latin America (vs their "purer" native counterparts), but I haven't looked at that data.
Noose.

The authors also admit there are too many confounders to draw any conclusions, there are other factors they couldn't take into consideration because we didn't know about them then, epigenetics being the obvious one. It just drives home the fact that you can't control for all environmental factors which means you can't draw any conclusions from them about genetics.
The author of the blog points out that he finds Human genetics boring to work on because there's so little genetic variation in our population. it's hard to find any meaningful difference between any populations, this is something you and other race realists or whatever you want to call yourselves ignore. There's a huge amount of data on whole genome sequences and no support for your theory. You also don't have an answer to his point about heterosis, if genes are important then the more diverse a group the better it should perform. Given that African Americans are an admixed population if genes were important then they should do better at IQ tests than European Americans.
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.