Human Anatomy, Physiology, and Medicine. Anything human!
I was wrong about the adoption studies.
In addition to prenatal environment, the studies also fail to control for social environment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota ... dy#Results
table of the Flynn-effect corrected results, 3rd table under Results...
It's interesting that the adopted children had a larger drop in IQ from 7 to 17, but the average drop for the adopted non-whites ((55*12.2+12*4.9+21*7.7)/(55+12+21)=10.1) was equal the drop for the adopted whites (10.1). The drop was smaller for the adopted blacks specifically (7.7), which could be due to the decline with age in the effect of "pre-adoption variables".
According to the Wikipedia article, Loehlin suggested prenatal effects, noting that among the adopted interracials, 66 of their 68 biological mothers were white. You'll notice that this group's IQ was only below the adopted whites by 6 and 8 IQ points, whereas the adopted blacks were below by 20 and 18 IQ points, more than twice below at age 17 and nearly four-times below at age 7.
Suffice it to say, the adoption studies results were influenced by many non-genetic variables, and it shouldn't be surprising that the adopted blacks still scored lower on IQ tests.
I think there is no correlation between brain size and IQ level. If compare brains of whale and elephant with humans, ours is too small. But we have very high intelligence. I think some connections between neurons or some unknown factors determine intelligence.
1. There's no such thing as a "black brain." So your brain size claim has no validity.
2. The 70 IQ claim for Africans is a well-known fraud.
The physical body's brain has nothing to do with IQ. It is the result of the Spirit fused with the body at birth. Remove the Spirit from the body and the body drops into a comma.
What is missing from the south african human speies is the absence of the Adam and Eve genes, the stablelising evolutionary genes for young spirits that are evolving on their assigned planets. Adam and Eve's Evolutionary Contribution was interrupted and time shortened.
Same with asiams - missing adamic genes. You will soon detect the Adamic Gene.
Negative force spirits can be detected by a minus level EM generation of energy. A spiritual-souil who has not betrayed belonging to God the Father and Mother measures in the plus level.
Islamics are not worshipping the four members of the Family of God, therefore, can never become Immortal. Those Islamics that murder will be returned to the early animal realm that allows them to lose their current memory and start over.
All animals are pre-human evolutionary biological forms. At this time the Spirit learns how to use eyes, ears, and keep the eventual biological cells function.
Never ge tazared, as it destroys your spirit's memory and in next life, autism or cells that do not function. Tazar your hard drive for proof. That much destruction to your own Spirit.
I totally agree with you because correlation of brain size and IQ level makes no sense at all.
There is one big problem which destroys all the 'well-researched' material and even the very heading of this topic.
When using people for the kind of research mentioned above, how do researchers choose their subjects? In other words, who is an 'Asian', who is an 'African' and who is a 'European? And who is an 'Australian 'Aborigine'?, a 'Melanesian', a 'Sub-Saharan African' and an ''African-American'?
There is no way you can draw boundaries round these groups, so no way any 'averages' can be stated from measurements.
Obviously, we know that researchers choose 'Africans' from people who have dark complexions. But where does this term end? Who is
too light to 'qualify'? And who are 'true' 'Europeans'? Are North Africans, with dark complexions, but 'European' features part of this group? Why do researchers assume that dark complexions mean different 'racial' qualities?
There is only one race, the Human Race and I am not being 'political' but trying to show that all features, like skull size, brain size (by this do we mean volume, circumference, area of surface folds, weight?), nose width, curliness of hair etc etc are distributed throughout the species. These features are on a scale which is normal to the species.
I would argue that you cannot divvy up any species into 'races', 'populations' etc and there is even a case to say that the sexes are also not amenable to being measured as a group, because there are all sizes of men and women throughout the species.
I cannot find my recent reply so I am making the same point again.
All the voluminous and detailed research on this subject is destroyed by one vital problem. When researching the brains of different 'groups' of humans, ('races', 'populations') how do researchers choose their subjects? In other words, who is an 'African', a 'European', an 'Aborigine', a 'Melanesian', a 'Papuan' and so on.
Obviously, the researchers classify as 'African' anyone who is of a dark complexion. (This assumption, leading the researchers to assume and to claim actual genetic differences is just a function of their pre-assumed prejudice).
But how light can my complexion be before I qualify to enter another category, say 'European', meaning 'white'?
And what about all those people who are light brown, middle brown and so on??
There is no way that boundaries can be drawn round 'racial' groups, so no way to gain statistics and averages.
The human brain is just that, the human brain, which every member of the species is born with.
Like every other feature of the species, the brain grows within the normal range of growth of the species, which is roughly a bell curve, with some people having the smaller end of the measurements (but perfectly normal) most others in the middle size and a small number at the large end.
If any person with a dark complexion (or strong epicanthic folds, or curly hair, or a small nose, or freckles) can gain top class degrees whatever the actual measurements of their brains, by circumference, volume, surface folds, or weight, and of course they do, we know that they are the same as every other person on the planet.
Isn't it time that (usually) so-called 'white' people stopped trying to prove their 'superiority!?
All research involving 'races', 'populations', 'groups 'ethnicities' and so on fails to have validity because the subjects of the research cannot be defined or put into boundaries.
I have just looked at some research regarding the Y-chromosome, 'Prospective assessment of Y-chromosome micro-deletions and reproductive outcomes among infertile couples of Japanese and African origin', Paul E. Kihaile et al, 2007.
In the research material 'Western populations' were also mentioned.
But who is 'Japanese', 'African' (specifically in this case, Tanzanian) or 'Western'?
no doubt the latter were chosen from what used to be called 'white', while the 'African' were perceived to be 'black' and the 'Japanese' were people who 'looked' Japanese.
These categories are just subjective perceptions; they cannot be used to find statistics because you cannot draw boundaries round any one group. How 'black' do you have to be to be in the 'African' group etc.?
No genetic differences can be said to hold for any so-called race and I challenge researchers to say how their subjects were chosen.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest