The Upside of Genetic Diversity

My Recent Posts

There have been numerous articles and posts here proclaiming genetic diversity is bad.  The referenced study here counters some of those claims.  To paraphrase:

After analyzing 102 groups or cohorts covering over 350,000 individuals, researchers have concluded that mixed-race relationships are producing children who are statistically taller and smarter and having a higher level of education.  In total, genetic diversity correlated with: "height, forced expiratory lung volume in one second, general cognitive ability and educational attainment."  Contrary to popular belief, it doesn't have an impact on medical issues, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, and cholesterol.

Does that mean that non-genetically diverse kids are doomed to be short, fat, and stupid?  Of course, not.  I'm not.  However, statistically, first cousins produce children that are nearly a half inch shorter and have ten months less education.  It goes contrary to the idea that homogeneous populations are superior.

I can only speak on one data point--my son.  He just turned 3 and is within about a foot of being as tall as my wife.   He is well on the way to being in the 95% in height as an adult.

Intelligence is harder to judge at such a young age.  He seems to have an aversion to books, preferring to play outdoors and is obsessed with cars.  If getting what he wants is a sign of intelligence, he is a master at manipulation.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.  Nevertheless, in parts of Asia, mixed-race kids are considered to be more beautiful.  My son has already had one serious marriage proposal.  It was based on looks and of being of mixed race.

We must conclude that genetic diversity can be a positive.  Of course, first, we must accept that being taller, smarter, and having a greater lung capacity are positives for human evolution.

Comments

Leroy Added Mar 9, 2017 - 9:30pm
Thanks, Jon.
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 7:28am
Leroy, you're incorrect. Hybridization subsumes the most recent and recessive evolutionary progress, burying those new developments back to mean, since more primitive traits are dominant. Would you say that breeding a pit bull with a bloodhound would make a better guard dog, or a better tracker? That's silly. Evolution happens through specialization and differentiation within a species. It's also NOT correct that miscegenation produces higher IQs. It produces IQs, as with every other trait, which are generally in the median between the two parents, racially.
 
Any dog breeder, horse breeder, or physical anthropologist (such as myself) could tell you that you're wrong.
 
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 7:30am
By the way, miscegenation, or hybridization, is the OPPOSITE of genetic diversity, it in fact destroys the true diversity which nature requires for the continued evolutionary progress of the species.
 
http://www.backtonatives.org/landstewards/index.php?topic=21.0
Tamara Wilhite Added Mar 10, 2017 - 9:53am
Inbreeding depression is bad in all respects, and one factor for the serious problems in Muslim lands is the very high rate of cousin marriage generation after generation due to dowry rules that reward you marrying a paternal cousin by essentially skipping dowry and the female cousin being the only woman you can both escort as kin and marry.
For that population, simply eliminating Islam's oppression of women and strict patriarchy so that women could marry men who aren't relatives would dramatically improve the health of the population.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 9:57am
Thanks for your comments, Billy.  The study indicates otherwise.  I think common sense would tell one that a child of two different races would be more genetically diverse.
 
In the long run, Billy, you would be correct.  Along the evolutionary path, my son is just a blimp, and his genetic code would soon be buried as generations interbred with either his mother's race or mine.  However, mixed-race marriages are becoming more common.  We have become taller over the centuries.  You can argue whether it is because of better nutrition or by genetic diversity.  This study indicates statistically significant differences with mixed offsprings and those differences further us along the evolutionary path.
 
One can certainly breed in certain characteristics.  Breeding a caucasian with a caucasian will result in a caucasian.  There's no doubt about it. 
 
It's been a long time ago since I saw a PBS show on raising minks, I think it was, in Siberia.  Apparently, like they are rancorous critters in the wild.  So, they bred less aggressive minks together.  The offspring, after a few generations, became more gentle. They also became white.  I've seen other series on dogs.  A hairless dog also has other characteristics that come along with the breeding process.  Now, take the minks example.  The evolutionary process naturally gave them mixed coats of fur.  This apparently gave them an evolutionary advantage.  That advantage was taken away via breeding like minks.  Put a hairless dog or a French puddle in the wild and see how long it survives.
 
"Would you say that breeding a pit bull with a bloodhound would make a better guard dog, or a better tracker?"
 
Of course not.  Over generations, it would breed in a dog with different characteristics.  It might be taller or shorter.  It might look like a pit bull but be more gentle.  Who knows.  It would be different, likely having some advantages and some disadvantages.  I'd take a mixed-breed dog over a pure breed any day unless I had a specific purpose for the dog.
 
Could there be disadvantages to genetic diversity?  Being taller might be a disadvantage if you were surrounded by pygmies wanting you for lunch.  Being smarter might be a disadvantage if a docile population would contribute more to our survival at this stage of the evolutionary process.
 
Black Americans are typically 25% European.  Are they genetically inferior to Africans?  I see no evidence of this.  They have not been dumbed down by interbreeding with Europeans.  Are they taller and more intelligent?  Yes.  They are statistically taller than the average American and the average African.  At least one intelligence test that I have seen, shows them to be more intelligent that the average African.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 10:01am
Thanks for your comments, Tamara.  The referenced study seems to indicate that medical issues do not result from interbreeding.  It goes contrary to what I have always heard.  I agree with you that the population would benefit from more diverse marriages.  It might even make this taller and smarter--as well as more free.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 11:21am
Thanks for your comments, Nash.  I've never been short or even medium height.  I can only speak from my experience.  Being tall still has its evolutionary advantage, it seems to me.  In junior high school, for example, a group of students told me I was standing in their spot and I had better move.  I refused.  They didn't force me, but, they did threaten me wth the baddest high school dropout.  Sure enough, the next day I was standing in the same spot and the baddest high school dropout showed up to greet me.  He looks me up and down and says, "I don't f%^& with anyone over six feet tall" and walked off.  In stores, I am frequently asked to grab stuff off the top shelves.  My wife has to have a step just to get into bed.  Sports favor taller athletes in almost every sport.  And, it is probably true that taller people tend to get more respect.  That's why taller police officers are recruited.  That's why Napoleon looked so short in his portraits where his guards were in the background.  He was average height for his time.  It's still a tall man's world.  For whatever reason, tall, thin models attack the most attention.  My wife is not tall.  Maybe opposites attack for some reason.  Even with technology, we seem to be evolving to greater heights.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 12:49pm
Thanks for your comments, Tom.  My guess is that we have quit evolving via natural selection.  With the advent of modern medicine, most everyone lives to procreate.  It wouldn't seem to matter so much about whether we have big eyes or big muscles.  We certainly have preferences that are engrained within us that may lead us in the direction that you indicate.  I would call that breeding in of these characteristics.  It doesn't necessarily help us survive.  It's more like the different breeds of dogs.  About the only thing we have left is how the DNA gets combine and what results. Sure, it's a lottery to an extent.  But, as the study indicates, the combining of diverse DNA statistically makes us taller and smarter.  That is not a lottery.
 
Could it be that the more we mix, the taller and smarter we get?  To a limit, that might be true.  There is a limit to just how tall we can get and still keep the human form.
 
What's not true is that by mixing we create an inferior human.
David Walker Added Mar 10, 2017 - 1:02pm
Billy, all the dog breeds identified as pure bred today are the result of interbreeding and cross breeding. This has resulted in dogs with specific desirable traits and with breed related weaknesses, such as hip dysplasia in German Shepherds. This has made them more specialized.  Specialization can result in improved survival in a specific environment--but can also have the effect of making a species less adaptable.
This is one of the basic assumptions of what drives evolution. Species change over time to better fit in with their environment.  The longer the environment remains unchanged, the more adapted the species become. This works well until the environment changes. The highly specialized species are the most vulnerable to extinction when an environment changes.  Man's intelligence has given our species an adaptive advantage, so we were able to survive in both the heat of Africa, the cold of the Arctic, and the thin air of the Himalaya's. The humans indigenous to those areas have over time specialized to their environments.  This was a good thing for humanity in general when  travel was much less common than it is today.
We have become a global society--at least in most parts of the world.  I feel this means intermixing of the humans from the various cultures would result in individuals that are more adapted to living in the global environment.
Another, perhaps more significant advantage to a greatly increased percentage of mixed culture populations would be the reduction in the primitive tribal instincts that are a core issue with racial prejudice.  When the differences between African, European, and Asian humans is blurred by many examples of people with a blending of features normally used as racial indicators, the differences will be less likely to trigger the reactions they do today.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 8:07pm
According to Wikipedia, "Nature is an English multidisciplinary scientific journal, first published on 4 November 1869.[1] It was ranked the world's most cited scientific journal by the Science Edition of the 2010 Journal Citation Reports, is ascribed an impact factor of approximately 38.1, and is widely regarded as one of the few remaining academic journals that publishes original research across a wide range of scientific fields.[2] Nature claims an online readership of about 3 million unique readers per month.[3] The journal has a weekly circulation of around 53,000 but studies have concluded that on average a single copy is shared by as many as eight people."
 
Tom, no offense, but you are a little too demanding.  Sorry, I just see the world through a Jewish lens.  It is a highly respected source.  Rather than attack the source, I would rather debate the study.  I see no point in wasting breath debating a credible source.
Leroy Added Mar 10, 2017 - 8:27pm
Tamara, I have to apologize for not fully understanding your comment.  I took depression as the clinical term.  You are absolutely correct.  Please forgive my ignorance of the term.
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 10:33pm
Leroy, the reason why black Americans with 25% European ancestry have a higher IQ than black Africans without any White admixture is that the White IQ level is as much higher than the black IQ level as the black IQ level is than a chimpanzee. Literally. That's not hyperbole. Therefore, race mixing between blacks and whites generally produces an offspring more intelligent than the black parent, and less intelligent than the White parent.
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 10:35pm
David, I guess you haven't been to India, with their caste system of varnas, or Mexico, where people are classed by their degree of AmerIndian ancestry, or Detroit, where they are judged by how good their hair be? Sheeeeit.
David Walker Added Mar 10, 2017 - 10:54pm
Billy, if your point is that physical differences aren't the only triggers of tribal bias, then you won't get an argument from me. The "us vs. them" prejudice is fairly strong--even in me.  My solution is to view a much larger group as "us" and to view all of "them" as potential candidates to become an "us".
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 10:57pm
Your solution would result in hybridization of the species and the dulling of the human evolutionary process, by destroying the true diversity which nature requires for group natural selection to continue. Even if it was a good idea, it wouldn't work, because my point was that our species strives to differentiate and specialize through climactic and other environmental adaptations, as expressed in their physically observable and intellectually and genetically measurable gradations.
Billy Roper Added Mar 10, 2017 - 11:01pm
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 8:29am
Mixed-race people have more health problems:
 
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/oct03/udry10302003.html
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 8:31am
A British report has found that mixed-race people have the greatest risk of suffering from mental health problems, in many cases because they are unhappy being mixed, and instead preferring to associate with one of their parent’s races.
 
Many Black and White mixed-race people prefer to call themselves “Black”, for example Barrack Obama, and find it depressing to consider themselves mixed.
 
The research, backed by the National Children’s Bureau, also found that other races of people, and those such as teachers, could not understand their background.
 
The report called ‘Mixed Experiences – growing up mixed race: mental health and wellbeing‘ collected information from many different studies, along with interviews from mixed-race people talking about their experiences as children.
 
Co-author Dinah Morley was said there was a lack of understanding over what it meant to be mixed race.
 
I was surprised at how much racism, from black and white people, had come their way,” Morley said, “A lot of children were seen as black when they might be being raised by a white single parent and had no understanding of the black culture. The default position for a child of mixed race is that they are black.
 
Morley said the most occurring experience was that they were “too white to be black, too black to be white“.
 
In Britain, mixed-race people are the fastest-growing group among children. The 2011 census showed that the mixed-race population made 2.2% of the population of England and Wales.
 
Anti-Whites are not concerned with the mental health of White people, or even non-White people. All anti-Whites are care about is their idea of getting rid of race. Only in White countries this idea of theirs is forced, and amounts to a genocide against White people.
 
Genocide does not have to be violent. On the contrary, genocide is basically defined as purposely getting rid of a group.
 
So when only White countries are forced to have their borders opened to massive non-White third world immigration, despite public disapproval, it still happens. Millions of non-Whites are needed to pour into White countries because how can White people be mixed out of existence otherwise?
 
target="_blank">TheGuardian.com
 
Leroy Added Mar 11, 2017 - 9:23am
Frankly, Tom, if I had to vet each study to ensure that no Jews were involved in its research, publishing, or funding, just to satisfy a few people obsessed with the "Jewish conspiracy," I would spend all day just trying to make a point.  There were many scientists involved with the study, and I am sure they would not put their reputations on the line to keep such a conspiracy alive.

To answer your question about height, I refer you to the abstract:

In each case increased homozygosity was associated with decreased trait value, equivalent to the offspring of first cousins being 1.2 cm shorter and having 10 months less education. Similar effect sizes were found across four continental groups and populations with different degrees of genome-wide homozygosity, providing convincing evidence for the first time that homozygosity, rather than confounding, directly contributes to phenotypic variance.

I am no expert in genetics; nevertheless, I will attempt to put it in layman's terms in the context of the entire study.  

Genetic sameness has an adverse effect on four traits which we consider desirable for human evolution.  For example, first cousins are about a half inch shorter and have ten months less education on average.  This effect was found to exist across four continents and with populations with different degrees of global sameness, providing convincing evidence of the first time that genetic similarity results in a greater variety of a given trait, not less.

I agree with your specific examples.  Using my son as an example was probably a bad idea.  It is by chance that he is likely to be as tall or taller than myself as an adult.  My main point was to counter the theory put forth by Billy that mixing races has a negative impact.  To use another example, a white man from Holland and a black African woman, is more likely to produce taller offspring than a white couple from Holland with similar heights.  I think that is a fair statement.  Billy would counter that they would be dumber.  To that, I would counter that if the couples had similar cognitive abilities, the mixed-race couple would be more likely to produce smarter offspring.   I get his point that different races have different cognitive abilities.  As much as we are not allowed to say it, it is probably true.  Let's take another race, Jews.  They are of similar height and cognitive ability.  Wouldn't there be a clear benefit?
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 9:35am
No. Jews have high linguistic IQs, but are not abstract thinkers or creators, they don't invent. Even if they did, we're not talking about single traits such as intelligence or IQ, but the fact that hybridization is contrary to the specialization and differentiation which nature uses in group natural selection, i.e, race mixing blunts evolution.
 
Layman's example: in London, smog made the skies gray. Hawks started to eat all the black and white pigeons, because they were easier to spot than the gray ones. Therefore, over time, it became beneficial for pigeons to be gray as an adaptive survival trait. Now, if a stupid gray pigeon bred back to the original color, with a white pigeon and had some spotted or whitish fledglings, guess what happened to them? Their more recent, recessive evolutionary advantage would be lost, and they'd be eaten.
Leroy Added Mar 11, 2017 - 9:38am
Billy, the article to which you linked also said, "In 2012, research by the thinktank British Future found that prejudice towards mixed-race relationships was fading."  Maybe we don't have so much to worry about in the future.
 
I do find it ironic that mixed blacks almost always relate to being black when they could, in many cases pass as white.  In today's context where whites are evil, I can understand it, but it has been like this for a long, long time.
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 9:39am
Do you at least understand that race mixing actually destroys genetic diversity?
Leroy Added Mar 11, 2017 - 9:40am
No, Billy, I don't see that at all.  Quite the opposite.
Leroy Added Mar 11, 2017 - 10:27am
Here's a link to the entire study.  It is free.  If it doesn't work, you may have to search for the article at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and click on the free sample.
Dino Manalis Added Mar 11, 2017 - 11:56am
Genetic diversity isn't the problem, I'm concerned about mutant genes causing all kinds of health problems.  I hope scientists in the future will be able to fix those genes!
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 2:36pm
Leroy, let me try again. If you have two different things, and you combine them, do you have two different things still, or something which is a blend of those two different things? Diversity means different. Making everyone a mullato makes different races less diverse from one another.
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 2:37pm
If the different races all interbred, there would be LESS genetic diversity in the species as a whole.
 
 
Janie Smith Added Mar 11, 2017 - 3:32pm
I don't think any of this has any bearing on intelligence or IQ, neither of those things are inherent to color or race.  Genius is often born from average intelligence and the reverse is also true, so you can't even assure intelligence through breeding.  Although, I suppose its more likely that two intelligent people will also have an intelligent child, still how much of that is nature and how much is nurture? 
 
On the issue of IQ in Africans, I would say that its more likely that the test is inadequate because of the lack of foundation for interpretation in that culture. 
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 10:09pm
 Janie, you're incorrect, upwards of half of measurable IQ is genetic, which makes it racial, and every standardized IQ test is culturally neutral, it doesn't depend on language or civilization. That's why Asians who can't speak a sentence of English right off the boat score higher on them than American blacks who have been here for 400 years.
Billy Roper Added Mar 11, 2017 - 10:10pm
David Walker Added Mar 12, 2017 - 1:05am
Let's see if I can do this again, without losing the spaces between paragraphs.
 
Strictly speaking, the term hybridization is not applicably to interracial breeding.  The term--in biology--refers to mixing to related, but separate species.  There is only one human species.  It is possible that Europeans contain  a significant number of hybrids as some studies suggest there is a lot of the population with traces of Neanderthal DNA.  It doesn't appear to have caused any problems and may have even been beneficial.
 
I am not able to follow the logic about interracial mixing decreasing diversity.  It is not the equivalent of mixing black and white and getting grey--although I can see how someone could be lead astray if they were using that as an equivalent model.  If we assumed the simple Mendelian model of inheritance, if you had just six different inherited traits the were the same within a cultural population, but different from another cultural population, then the first interracial group would all have the traits that were expressed as dominate, most likely that would be some combination of traits that was different than that of either parent, although there is a one in thirty-two chance all the traits from one of the parents were dominate.  This means there is about a 97% chance the offspring is different than either parent.  Different is another way of saying diverse. For the second generation, the non-dominate traits will reappear, creating even more diversity--not less.
 
This simple model does not take into account the normal mutations that can occur in any child--interracial or not.  There is reason to believe these mutations are not only normal, but may also be triggered in response to environmental changes. It is reasonable--but neither substantiated or refuted by any study I have read--that a greater diversity in the human population would result in a greater chance for this benign mutation to be triggered.  This would make the human species better prepared to withstand environmental changes--such as living in space or on planets with greater or lesser gravity and sunlight than earth.
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:00am
David, thanks for your informative comments.
 
I think I understand what Billy is saying and you sort of hit on it.  If we all interbred, races would become less distinct.  All races would gravitate towards the mean.  It's probably a reasonable assumption.  One or two visible traits does not mean genetic diversity or the lack thereof.  
 
Concerning environment, I watched a VSauce video on YouTube yesterday.  It talked about a tiger's stripes.  Part of the stripes is shaped by DNA.  Part of a tiger's stripes is shaped by its environment.
 
Billy Roper Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:07am
David, you're absolutely wrong. "For the second generation, the non-dominate traits will reappear, creating even more diversity--not less."
 
Nope.
 
The most recent and evolutionarily advanced genetic traits are by definition the most recessive, they are the knife edge of human genetic progress, and the most easily blunted by breeding back to the mean, dominant traits.
 
When we have the courage to face the genetic reality of race, and use our mapping of the human genome for the next step, encouraging eugenic quality, then we will be able to genetically engineer humans who can survive in higher gravity wells or a methane atmosphere. That comes AFTER eugenics and AFTER we get past the silly myth that race is just a social construct.
Billy Roper Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:11am
As a classroom teacher, I taught a LOT of mixed race children. They were slightly brighter than the black kids, less intelligent than the White kids, and not accepted by either.
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:29am
Tom, I apologize if I made a bad choice of words.  You are always thoughtful in your comments.  I did not mean to be offensive.  You are right to question the source.  But, IMHO, it is over the top to question a reputable publisher simply because it is led by a Jew.  Others might not trust the source because it is led by a white man, black man, a woman, a gay, a religion figure, a dwarf, the UN.  I would have a difficult time to please everyone's bias. Would it be fair to say you have a bias?
 
Although I disagree with the consensus climate change studies, for instance, I have never questioned a reputable science publisher   I question links and blogs, for sure.  I do question some of the scientists and organizations involved.
 
Thanks for calling attention to my mistake.  I meant to say "Sorry, I just don't see the world through a Jewish lens".  What a different a negative can make!  Damn computer :-)
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:45am
Billy, thanks for your example.  So, you are saying that it is good for white and black people to bred in London because it would give them an evolutionary advantage over criminals who might try to shoot them?
 
Maybe interbreeding makes them bigger and smarter and more able to avoid being eaten by a hawk.
 
I apologize for being disingenuous.  I understand your point.  Today, being tall may not be an evolutionary advantage.  Being smarter is an advantage today, I would say.  Let's assume that Asians, as we have been told, are the smartest.  Wouldn't it be advantageous for whites (all races for that matter) to mix with Asians in your scenario?  What advantage would it be to be purely white?
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:49am
"Genetic diversity isn't the problem, I'm concerned about mutant genes causing all kinds of health problems.  I hope scientists in the future will be able to fix those genes!"
 
I agree, Dino.  Genetic diversity might even help the health issues.  I do worry about humans tinkering with the human genome.  It might wipe us all out inadvertently.
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:53am
Thanks for your comments, Janie.  I agree to an extent.  There may be differences, but is it really worth worrying about?  We are 99.9% the same.
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:58am
"I suppose if you snapshot the data, if you believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, the majority of the African race would end up as a relic if it were not bred into other races. "
 
I'm sure that will be controversial, Tom.  In today's world where most anyone can survive to procreate and where we promote inclusivity, I don't think natural selection and survival of the fittest matters much anymore to humans.  It will matter when there is a cataclysmic event forces us into a survival mode.  Can we really say which race is better able to survive without a smartphone?
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 2:55pm
Tom, being prejudiced isn't necessarily bad.  I was certainly prejudiced when I chose a woman over a man to marry.
 
And, I don't argue that Jews have influence well beyond their numbers.  But rather than trying to marginalize this group for being successful, I think it is better to understand and learn from it.  Maybe it is an evolutionary trait.
 
You are not so much attacking the source--the authors--in this case but the publisher.  It's kind of like attacking all people of WWII era Germany because it was led by Hitler.  Actually, it this case, it would be more like attacking all of Europe for allowing a Hitler.
 
It's curious that the study points out that Africans are the least inbred, while Amish and Hutterites are the most inbred.  I don't look at either as being the epitome of human evolution.
 
Can you admit to the possibility of an upside to racial diversity? 
Billy Roper Added Mar 12, 2017 - 6:05pm
If you look at the bell curve shaped distribution graph of Asian compared to White IQ scores, you'll see that Asians have a taller bell, meaning that while they may have more people who are above average intelligence than Whites do, they have far fewer of the highest percentiles in IQ, the percentiles which are almost exclusively responsible for innovation, creation, and progression. So, Asians are good at replication and miniaturization and mass production, and due to their submissive, demure, law abiding nature make for stable societies, but they don't invent civilizations. Whites do.
 
Even if that were NOT the case, no, it wouldn't be good for Whites and Asians to breed, because the key for the evolution of the species continuing is to continue the differentiation and specialization between the races of the species. Okay, another analogy. Assume that nature, or God, if you will, has a conscious will, like a scientist with several research teams working on a cure for a disease with separate experimental lines on genetic vaccines. If one of the teams starts to make progress, would it be a good idea for them to dump all of the other teams' petri dishes in with theirs and mix them up? Would that get to the cure faster? Of course not.
Billy Roper Added Mar 12, 2017 - 6:07pm
Genetically, outbreeding is much more negative than inbreeding. Without inbreeding, there would be none of he more recent and most advanced recessive traits which differentiated us from homo erectus. In fact, without inbreeding to reinforce recessive genes until they become more dominant and the other traits are extinct, inbreeding is how natural selection works.
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 7:02pm
"If one of the teams starts to make progress, would it be a good idea for them to dump all of the other teams' petri dishes in with theirs and mix them up? Would that get to the cure faster?"
 
If you wanted a hound dog, would you mix the gene pool of all dogs together?  Of course not.  You want a specific breed.  If you are looking for a targeted cure, no, you certainly would not mix it all together.  I agree. 
 
If, in your mind, you think whites are superior, then, of course, you would not mix the gene pool together.  It seems to me that whites are already pretty well mixed, as indicated in the graphs provided in the study, second only to Africans.
Patrick Writes Added Mar 12, 2017 - 8:00pm
The races are the results of inbreeding. Over time inbreeding can be detrimental (weird allergies, height, intelligence, etc..). Mixed race relationships introduces new genes into a family tree. It's pretty simple really. 
 
If a person with the last name O'Malley marries a person with the last name O'Reilly, they are both likely distantly related (both families having come from Ireland). So their kids have a higher chance of genetic abnormalities. 
Leroy Added Mar 12, 2017 - 9:35pm
I came across an interesting article that discussed children of white and black soldiers left behind in Germany:
 
During World War II, both black and white American soldiers fathered children with German women. Thus some of these children had 100 percent European heritage and some had substantial African heritage. Tested in later childhood, the German children of the white fathers were found to have an average I.Q. of 97, and those of the black fathers had an average of 96.5, a trivial difference.
 
One would think that if blacks were truly intellectually inferior, they would as least pass along some of these inferior genes to their half-European children.  If seems there was no statistical difference. 
 
There is another study, according to the same article, that indicates environment plays a big part of it.  Mixed-race children of middle-class families were studied.  Those children adopted by middle-class black families scored 13 points less on IQ tests than those raised by middle-class whites.  The article discusses why that might be if you are curious.  Both studies imply that environment plays a bigger role in the IQ differences than genetics.
 
Then, there is the Flynn effect where IQ's improve with modernization.  Those living in less modern countries can have lower IQs because they are less modern.
Billy Roper Added Mar 13, 2017 - 9:15am
Leroy, as someone who has miscegenated, I understand your desperation to seek validation. However, IQ is largely inherited, and there is a significant gap racially which is NOT closed by education or nutrition or being told that weze allz beze equalz.
 
Patrick has about as much understanding of genetics as he does of who the Phoenicians and Sumerians were.
Billy Roper Added Mar 13, 2017 - 9:17am

Of course it’s messy, and we’re relying on subjective classification, but subjective classification is usually the same as best-fit genetic cluster anyway, and of course some populations of blacks could be genetically more intelligent than other populations, just as some populations of whites can be more intelligent than other populations of whites, and even some populations of blacks can be more intelligent than some populations of whites.

Minnesota Transracial (MTAS) 1992:


The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study was a study done by Sandra Scarr which tracked white, black mulatto and an “Asian/Indian” sample of adoptees to white families. The “Asian / Indian” sample is not meaningful since we don’t know how many of each are in that sample. These were the scores:




Group
IQ age 7
IQ age 17
Number


Biological White
116.7
109.4
143


Adopted White
111.5
105.6
25


Adopted Mulatto
109
98.5
29


Adopted Black
96.8
89.4
101


Adopted Asian/Indian
99.9
96.2
21




Scarr noted that there was no difference in scores between mulattoes that looked and considered themselves “black” and those that looked lighter. Unfortunately she didn’t give the numbers for that.


Scarr initially tried to spin her data to support an environmental hypothesis, but eventually said that the data could be used to support either side:



The test performance of the Black/Black adoptees [in the study] was not different from that of ordinary Black children reared by their own families in the same area of the country. My colleagues and I reported the data accurately and as fully as possible, and then tried to make the results palatable to environmentally committed colleagues. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The results of the transracial adoption study can be used to support either a genetic difference hypothesis or an environmental difference one (because the children have visible African ancestry). We should have been agnostic on the conclusions”



The study obviously supports the hereditarian position exclusively, or at least hits hard against home environment as an explanation. I have never seen anyone cite MTAS to support an environmentalist case, it is always treated by both sides as a piece of hereditarian evidence to either be touted or minimized.


Scarr has since quit her psychology research and is now a coffee-grower in Hawaii.
Billy Roper Added Mar 13, 2017 - 9:19am

Moore 1986:


Elise Moore in 1986 looked at blacks and mulattoes adopted by white parents and black parents. The blacks and mulattoes adopted by white parents had IQs 16 and 10.8 points higher than when they were adopted by black parents. The subjects were tested at age 7.




Race
White Parents
Number
Black Parents
Number


Black
118
9
102
17


Mulatto
116.5
14
105.7
6




This study was used to argue that the race IQ gap was partly, if not mostly, explained by white parenting being better. Keep in mind however, that at age 7, the mulattoes in the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study had an IQ of 109, only 2.5 points behind the adopted whites. This is what one would predict since heritability increases with age.


The Moore Adoption Study is interesting in that it shows the blacks and mulattoes having very close scores. Unfortunately it only has a sample size of 46 and no white group to compare the scores to, compared to 319 for the Minnesota Transracial Study.


Notwithstanding, Richard Nisbett considers this a superior study to Minnesota Transracial, saying,



A superior adoption study [to MTAS] — and one not discussed by the hereditarians — was carried out at Arizona State University by the psychologist Elsie Moore, who looked at black and mixed-race children adopted by middle-class families, either black or white, and found no difference in I.Q. between the black and mixed-race children.”



Interesting how hereditarians supposedly don’t discuss Moore, especially given that the only place I could find non-paywalled breakdown’s of her data were from hereditarian blogs and descriptions in old papers by Rushton and Jensen!
Billy Roper Added Mar 13, 2017 - 9:20am

Most of the data on mixed-race people are of blacks and whites. In the future perhaps we’ll get more White-Asian hybrid data; and the silver lining of increased racemixing is that there will be more of them to test.


Of course you can always claim that mixed-race people have intermediate home environments, or face intermediate racism, but that complicates the environmental side of things. You’re now saying that mixed-race people face intermediate levels of hardship in such a way as to produce intermediate IQs.


The genetic side faces almost no complication. Sure, there are some examples when blacks score higher than whites, but we already knew that. And genes are a much simpler global explanation.


And with the PVT and GPA differences between whites and Asians, the environmentalist now has to have a specific environmental explanation for that – because whites do better on the PVT, but have worse GPA, and mixed-race white-Asian hybrids are intermediate on both. The genetic explanation is much simpler.
Janie Smith Added Mar 13, 2017 - 3:03pm
I am pretty sure the jury is still out on anything genetic, but even so, natural selection is probably a good argument as the primary cause.  
Leroy Added Mar 13, 2017 - 4:44pm
Right away, we must throw out the target="_blank">The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study for having Jewish authors.  According to Tom, they naturally have a Jewish agenda and can't be trusted.
 
Perhaps Elsie, being black, had an agenda, so, we have to throw that one out too?
 
 
Leroy Added Mar 13, 2017 - 5:05pm
Tom, your comments are never dismissible, always welcomed.
 
But, if we are going to play the game of shooting down sources, it cuts both ways.
Leroy Added Mar 13, 2017 - 5:09pm
And, I owe Billy an apology for using his sources as an example to make my point.  I am giving it due consideration.
Leroy Added Mar 13, 2017 - 6:56pm
Billy, I think that I have learned more from you than anyone else here.  I had never encountered the terms miscegenated and mudshark and others.  It's been an education.
 
If I am reading what you are saying correctly, the studies agree with the other study that indicates the environment (parenting) plays a role in intelligence but to a different degree.  I can accept that.  No study is perfect.
 
It is interesting that the IQ's dropped with age.  The method of testing was changed.  What it shows me is that the measure of intelligence is no so objective. 
Patrick Writes Added Mar 14, 2017 - 1:36am
I can't speak for Tom or Billy, but a recent back and forth I've had with others who seem to be where they are on this issue, I've discovered that the reason for high education scores by Asian countries these days (like China which top Western countries) is because Asians are actually 'white'. 
 
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-38212070
Billy Roper Added Mar 14, 2017 - 7:39am
No, Asians are not White, but they are a different subspecies from blacks, who score the lowest on standardized IQ tests, consistently, but then, you also think that the Phoenicians and Sumerians weren't White, so race is a confusing concept to you, Patrick.
Leroy Added Mar 14, 2017 - 10:33am
Patrick, I can across a recent article where Asians are claiming a closer relationship with Neanderthals than Europeans.  Never thought it would be something to be proud of.  Didn't Neanderthals have larger brains?  Maybe that is why.
 
Part of intelligence comes from nurture/environment; I am convinced of that.  It is not all genes.  I read your linked article.  It showed Shanghai being kicked out of the top educational spot by Singapore.  I lived in Shanghai for a number of years.  The parents are obsessive in making sure their kids get the best education.  They go to school for longer hours.  After school, they are sent to private schools.  They are force fed knowledge.  If the family can afford it, they will send their kids abroad for a foreign, higher education.  This must have an impact on intelligence scores.  Where I worked, I was the least qualified.  Even the office assistant had a Masters in Chemistry and was educated abroad.  It may have made them able to score higher on intelligence, but they couldn't touch my abilities (in all modesty).  Intelligence doesn't always equate to achievement and ability.
 
 
Janie Smith Added Mar 14, 2017 - 5:13pm
Also, nutrition.  Certain vitamins and minerals are essential for brain development.
Billy Roper Added Mar 14, 2017 - 7:52pm
Yes, but with half or more of IQ being genetic right off from the start, all of the megavitamins in the world can't bridge the gap of DNA.
David Walker Added Mar 16, 2017 - 11:29pm
(Sorry about not being as active in this discussion as I would like to be.  Over the last month, my wife has been in the hospital three times due to an operation followed by having to deal with complications from the operation. I have been saving up a series of responses to several statements that I feel should be challenged. I need to get to sleep and get back to the hospital early tomorrow morning, so I will focus on just one issue tonight.)

Billy, I don't think any studies that use IQ testing as a scoring mechanism can be trusted to provide any insight to the genetic contribution of intelligence.  The tests given in the 60's were highly biased. For example, in one of the tests I took, the very first question was "name as many American presidents as you can in 60 seconds".  Not only is this obviously culturally biased (change this to "name as many Canadian Prime Ministers as you can in 60 seconds"), but the results would vary greatly based on the interests of the test taker--even if they were born and raised in America. Some families are more politically and historically aware than others--and from my experience this doesn't appear to be a good indicator of problem solving.

The point being that there is a memory aspect to many of the questions, and a pattern matching aspect to others, and a problem solving aspect, and mathematical aspect--and the list goes on. Even more to the point is that intelligence is one of those terms that everybody "knows" what it means, but no one can give it a testable definition.

Also, I would be very interested to know what your source is that determines how much of intelligence is genetic vs experience. I haven't seen any studies that have developed a physical model of how intelligence works. I know that no one can define self aware consciousness well enough to be able to test for it. We all have it, but we can't be sure anyone else does. We just take it on faith that everyone else is similar to us. This will be a significant issue when we create advanced artificial intelligences in the future. (I plan to make this a subject of a article on Writers Beat later when I get the time.) Without knowing how intelligence works, we can't build a testable model that would allow us to determine how much is genetically variable.
Jeffry Gilbert Added Mar 17, 2017 - 2:46am
Here in Asia some of the most beautiful women on the planet are the product of an Asian mother and European father. I don't know any of them personally but I observe they are usually multilingual, well educated and able to succeed with all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. 
Leroy Added Mar 17, 2017 - 6:18pm
I have no idea what my IQ might be.  It may be high or somewhere in the gutter or average.  No idea.  After writing this, I decided to download some IQ tests to see how horrible I might be.  It is actually something I never wanted to know and still do not know.  The first one was apparently British.  It asked the question that if you bought three pairs of pants at 23,30 Pounds each and you paid with a 50 Pound note, how much change would you get back.   Either it was a trick question, I'm dumb as a brick, it was something cultural I didn't understand, or it was just a mistake.  It was devised by a scientist who used it as research.  The next one was more typical, recognizing number patterns, shapes, domino patterns, and cryptograms.  I remember doing cryptograms as a kid when I was in the hospital.  It gave me a headache.  But soon I was able to solve them almost instantaneously.  It was a matter of practice.  If one practiced the sort of puzzles one finds on an IQ test, undoubtedly, one will score higher.
 
In summary, I agree with David.  It doesn't test genetic intelligence.
Mark Hunter Added Mar 19, 2017 - 5:57am
Seems to me this is (or at least, should be) a pointless argument. Have kids with who you want to have kids with. Do it for love, not to breed a race of supermen. Maybe--although I doubt it--the day will come when we've intermixed so much that people will stop beating each other up over how they look.
Leroy Added Mar 19, 2017 - 9:51pm
Good point, Mark, and that is really what I am trying to say.  My purpose was to counter the racial separation posts on Writer Beat.
 
I've been a little disingenuous in how I used the study.  The idea behind it is exactly the way it appears in a dozen or so articles on the internet.  It typical fashion, the study does not say what these articles purport it to say.  It takes an element of the study and hypes it to make an interesting, provocative news story.
 
Could there be intelligence differences between the races?  Sure, just as there are differences between male and female.  Does that make one race or gender superior to another?  I don't think so.  Who knows who will be the survivors of the next great disaster.
Tamara Wilhite Added Mar 21, 2017 - 8:11pm
I wonder to what degree Muslims marrying their cousins at rates between 50-90% depending on nation leads to not just lower average intelligence (and susceptibility to violent fundamentalism) but severe cultural inbreeding because you don't even feel connected beyond a vague religious affiliation with people in the next village. It becomes very easy to hate the dissident, the atheist, the Christian, the Yazidi when few even expand their family to go beyond the clan to other Muslim groups.
Alexander Shah Added Apr 16, 2017 - 12:39pm
homogeneous populations are superior - this is a fact borne of history. In every instance you can find all across the globe - there always was the fact of strong minorities of inbred people standing tall and standing head and shoulders above the gray majorities. Examples: Black Jews of Ethiopia, Tsintsars of the Balkans, Jewish minorities in every country in which they resided (which often made them the objects of resentment), the ancient Roman minority of Asia Minor (subject to a first recorded organized genocide campaign), the Chinese in Indonesia, the Germans in Eastern Europe, etc. etc.

Whatever the materialists of the genetics research are talking about the fact remains that racial minorities have always revealed superiority over the majority, thereby betraying a secret principle at work in nature. Perhaps, Science has a work cut out for itself in this as in any other domain. DNA by itself is not all there is to heritage.

Recent Articles by Writers Leroy follows.