http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and...elligence#break

If that is so, there is hardly any reason to say that the "hereditarian" view is minority/fringe. First of all, you cannot attribute all of the group differences to environment. Secondly, "considerable" is a matter of debate, it can be anything from "10% or less to 50% or more". Thirdly, it is even less likely that group differences is entirely due to the environment (100%/0%) than to say the effect distribution is the same (50%/50%), or around mid-way (~75%/25%). It is also hard to explain with a purely environment model (100%/0%) why the gaps between groups are virtually the same among trans-racially adopted children. It is hardly arguable to say that the "hereditarian" view is minority/fringe <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Aerain|Aerain]] ([[User talk:Aerain|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Aerain|contribs]]) 00:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There is a good amount of evidences suggesting that intelligence is inherited; however, saying that genetics is playing a major role in racial differences in IQ is another thing--although there are more evidences suggesting it is effectively the case. If it wasn't the case as Aprock suggests, scientists would not widely use psychometrical data in conjunction with biological data to assess heredity of intelligence in its different aspects. Even the slightest knowledge in physiology is enough to suggest that intellectual potential is determined by genetics as within a group there is a wide variety of brain morphology. Now, if that is the case, the hereditarian view is quite clearly acknowledged as not being a minority/fringe hypothesis, while lacking, or seeming to lack, public acknowledgment for obvious reasons. There are perhaps two confounding factors to genetics, namely, decisional and environmental factors. http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/full/28/41/10323 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...5dd9bae43fb160a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerain (talk • contribs) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BlueRain, Having studied the different human races all my life, I have come to the conclusion that there are many racial characteristics that seem to be more predominant in races than others. Some have developed by centuries of competition or subjugation, and others from their way of life. Different races have different talents and abilities, or even the way they think. Some can be affected by environment others are genetic by nature. As there are the many species of fish in the ocean, there are equally that same variation on earth. It is not saying one species is superior to another, they are different. No denials can change genetic inheritances.

With what the scientist know today about the human genome, some things may be attributed to
genetics. But, the environment plays such a huge factor in the development of a person that
we just can't overlook it. Take for example .. twins, one twin may be perfectly healthy while the other is
in treatment for cancer. One twin may be fine and the other autistic. Their genomes are exactly the same ... so what is the difference or determining factors? The human genome may take generations
for a change to happen ... longer fingers and less body hair are better for survival. There is something
called an epi-genome. This interfaces between the environment and the genes that determine what we are. More can be found on PBS.org ... search for epi-genome. This epi-genome can turn on genes or turn them off. They can change the expression of what our genes are capable of becoming.

Now after such long and winded spiel, I'm happy to say that the human race looks very homogenous
from a distance. The closer you look .. the more you will find differences. But, these differences are
what makes up the entire human race. Oh, crap, went back into another spiel. Later ....

Avisitor, agreed, genetics is a complex subject and there are millions of variables involved, but certain characteristics for certain peoples can be traced or attributed to genes. We cannot dismiss it and say that all people are the same. They are not. Some people are naturally talented in one thing and not the next and vice versa.

This theory, the environment hypothesis, implies a very unscientific notion by stating that differences between groups are strictly environmental. This is a step backward toward indoctrination as I see it. By claiming what all-environment-explanation proponents claim, we also imply that there is a sort of good-hearted process in evolution that prevent any group from having an advantage over another in intelligence.--Aerain (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

mooneye, environment will certainly play a role in evolution, but not on a short term but on a long term basis, like a few million years. That is what evolution is all about. Animals living in cold environment survive by developing more fur or feathers, or change the way they conserve energy and food like hibernate, or they die off. Herbivores evolve because there is plenty of food available that they can use. All this takes millions of years to evolve. It took man million of years to reach this present state of development, yet you can still see different characteristics with peoples from different regions of the world. That is if you believe in evolution. Ask yourself why some races produce the best athletes in the world and others do not? Why some races produce all the scientists and musicians in the world and others do not. Coincidence or evolution? Why some civilisation die off and disappear and others live from generation to generation?

No nations has ever been destroyed after 500 BC. Name me one if you can.

genderrmerrs: Read carefully. I said civilisations.



http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/...isappeared.html

None of those people disappeared huh? Most of those merged together with one another. In fact, those Europeans in America merged so much that now they are now reduced to 1 ethnicity: whites. As another example, Manchu Mongols and past Chinese merged into present-day Chinese. Did Manchus disappear? No. They are simply a part of present-day Chinese. Over time, the number of ethnicities decrease because some are merged into others, or many can merge into a single one.

genderrmerrs, you are right, genderrmerrs, the people are still there they never disappeared they only transformed. Maybe we cannot recognise their re-incarnation? The civilisations are still thriving somewhere out there in another form. Also re-incarnated into the capitalistic civilisation? It is all smoke and mirrors! Never believe what you read here, just trust your yourself always. But I happen to accept the findings in:
http://worldohistory.blogspot.com/2007/11/...isappeared.html

But maybe you prefer to also reject this:

http://www.lost-civilizations.net/

The environment hypothesis need not stipulate that all differences are environmentally based; it can just say that some or even most differences are environmental. But what does it have to do with indoctrination? The environment thesis is a theory, while indoctrination is a method of 'teaching'. You can teach/discuss the environment thesis without indoctrinating it. I also can't see how you can conlude that "By claiming what all-environment-explanation proponents claim, we also imply that there is a sort of good-hearted process in evolution that prevent any group from having an advantage over another in intelligence".

is it possible that wikipedia is mostly edited by autistics?

Wikipedia is an on line encyclopaedia. That is all, and it is convenient. There are other sources available on line as well if anyone wants to dig deeper. Britannia is not conveniently accessible free so no one bothers with it. Try Knol the new up and coming source of information, that is independent of censorship.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pi...306987708001540