Race

[Fadix]

Dan, your article is only an evidences that they were black, Northern Black Africans does not carry this marker.

As for Irish, just reffer to Lynn list where he give 78 as IQ. Are you telling me that you have even not pied attention to the studies of the persons which you use to "prove" your point? Is that what you mean? Another study reffer to their IQ as being 87. Just type Lynn and Irish or something such on google and here you will have your "proof"... I will not repost all the studies I have access to, this might put me in problems, I have selected few that I qualify relevent, and those are the ones I shall post. As I have selected few for my posts to louseyourname, and few for here...

Here anyother genetic research disproving the existance of races... I post them one after the other, while you still continue claiming I have not supported my claim... while I select relevent documents not found on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that.


----------

© Academie des sciences / Elsevier, Paris Concise review paper / Mise au point
Human genome diversity
Diversite genomique humaine
Howard M. Cann

Fondation Jean-Dausset, Centre d'etude du polymorphisme humain (CEPH), 27, rue Juliette-Dodu, 75010 Paris, France (Received 20 March 1998, accepted after revision 23 March 1998)

Abstract - Human genome diversity studies analyse genetic variation among individuals and between populations in order to understand the origins and evolution of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens). The availability of thousands of DNA polymorphisms (genetic markers) brings analytic power to these studies. Human genome diversity studies have clearly shown that the large part of genetic variability is due to differences among individuals within populations rather than to differences between populations, effectively discrediting a genetic basis of the concept of 'race'. Evidence from paleontology, archaeology and genetic diversity studies is quite consistent with an African origin of modern humans more than 100 000 years ago. The evidence favors migrations out of African as the source of the original peopling of Asia, Australia, Europe and Oceania. An international program for the scientific analysis of human genome diversity and of human evolution has been developed. The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) aims to collect and preserve biologic samples from hundreds of populations throughout the world, make DNA from these samples available to scientists and distribute to the scientific community the results of DNA typing with hundreds of genetic markers. (© Academie des sciences / Elsevier, Paris.) human genome diversity / genetic variability / Homo sapiens sapiens I modern human origins and evolution / polymorphic DNA markers / Human Genome Diversity Project.

-----

One just has to look at other people to appreciate human diversity. Even within population groups which seem homogeneous because of a handful of prominent characters, one can see diversity among the members. This diversity is for the large part genetically based. When we look at the DNA level, with genetic markers from various locations in the genome, we begin to see the big picture, genome diversity. Indeed most of the genetic variation or rather genome diversity (70-80 %), as measured by variation of allele frequency distributions, is accounted for by individual differences among members within the same population, rather than differences between populations.

The two ingredients for studying human genome diversity are polymorphic markers and samples of individuals drawn from world populations. Initially, the markers were polymorphic gene products, so-called classical polymorphisms, which include blood groups and HLA cell surface molecules, immunoglobulin allotypes, alloenzymes and other polymorphic proteins, some 40 or so loci. Individuals from different populations in different parts of the world have been typed for these polymorphic markers and allele frequencies and their variances within and between populations analysed. Such studies were the basis for the quantitative attestation to individual human genetic diversity and to a much lesser extent to inter-population diversity, calling into serious question the genetic basis of the concept of 'race'. With the arrival of the DNA revolution, many more polymorphic markers from various nuclear genome locations have become available as RFLPs and, more recently, as the more informative variable-number-of-tandem-repeat markers, the minisatellites and microsatellites. Even the mitochondrial genome (mtDNA) has participated in providing sequence polymorphisms. DNA markers are being applied, to date especially the non-recombining mtDNA (transmitted by mothers) and Y chromosome (paternal transmission) markers, to characterize increasing numbers of human populations. The concept of the importance of individual genetic diversity has been upheld by molecular studies. The repeated demonstration over the years with different types of polymorphic markers and members of different populations that individual differences account for most of the genetic variability in humans represents an important milestone for human genetic diversity studies. But the story does not end here.

Not surprisingly, it has been recognized that human genome variation in the present generation can help us infer aspects of the genetic structure of our ancestors, thus providing information about the history and evolution of (anatomically) modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. But to obtain such knowledge, it is necessary to make use of information from paleontology, archaeology, geography, anthropology and population genetic theory in order to interpret the genetic data. Evidence from Homo sapiens sapiens fossils found in Africa (especially east and southern Africa) indicate that modern humans were living there more than 100 000 years ago. Fossils found in other Old World continents ('out of Africa') suggest that modern humans were living in China some 60 000 years ago, in Australia some 50 000 years ago, in Europe some 35 000 years ago, and in northern Asia some 30 000 years ago. Evidence from archaeology, physical anthropology and linguistic analysis suggests that several migrations of populations from northern Asia were responsible for the original peopling of the Americas. The earliest migration, difficult to date, is thought to have occurred between 30 000 and 15 000 years ago, while the other two probably took place between 15 000 and 10 000 years ago.

[Fadix]

(article continued)


Based on this type of information, often of an approximate nature, it is tempting to speculate that Homo sapiens sapiens originated in Africa and that migrations from there peopled the Old World continents out of Africa. What do genetic diversity studies have to offer in support of the speculation? Studies with mtDNA and Y and other nuclear chromosome polymorphisms show relatively constrained genetic variation of non-African populations that is quantitatively and qualitatively subsumed by the broader genetic variation of African populations, which is consistent with the fossil findings. The genetic differentiation among the out of Africa populations can be considered to result, in part, from the different founders of these populations who with their genes migrated from Africa to people other parts of the Old World. Thus, genetic diversity studies have amplified the useful hypothesis provided originally by fossil analysis concerning the origin of modern humans and their peopling of the world. And, like all useful hypotheses, Africa/out of Africa permits its testing with further diversity studies involving more markers and populations. For instance, recent Y chromosome marker studies enrich the hypothesis with the suggestion of a more recent 'back to Africa' component mediated by males from Asia. With further human genome diversity projects, expect the out of Africa story to be amended.

Human genetic diversity studies provide information on some of the conditions that keep populations different. The isolating effects of geography on population diversity is well known. Populations separated by geographic barriers, e.g. deserts, mountain ranges, and oceans and seas, tended to be genetically differentiated (different) before modern modes of transportation developed and provided support for inter-population gene flow. Another form of population isolation is linguistically mediated. In short, in order to reproduce it is useful to communicate (preferably before!). Genetic diversity studies have put in evidence remarkable instances of populations living virtually side-by-side (no or minimal geographic barriers) that show observable allele frequency and linguistic diversity between them. (Certainly other cultural attributes correlated with the language difference could account for this observation.) Starting with classical polymorphic markers and moving on to molecular markers, especially those of the Y chromosome and mtDNA, diversity studies have
shown that indeed language and allele frequencies tend to be correlated among populations. Intriguingly, there are now hints in several unilingual populations of differing Y chromosome and mtDNA contributions to genetic variation, in that the variation of the latter marker is increased as compared to that of the former. The conclusion here may be that the linguistic barrier is more readily breached by women through incorporation into a predominantly unilingual population.

Probably the most recent dramatic and novel result in human genetic diversity studies has been the sequencing of a portion of the control region of mtDNA extracted with great care from a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis fossil thought to be between 30 000 and 100 000 years old. This incredible experiment, following an admirably rigorous design, provided the entire 379-bp sequence of the hypervariable region 1, as deduced from many cloned, overlapping, short PCR products. This sequence was shown to differ markedly from the corresponding sequence of all known modern human mtDINAs. The mean number of pairwise base substitution differences between the Neanderthal and modern human mtDNA hypervariable region 1 (27 differences) is more than three times that observed among humans (on average eight differences). The difference seems to be sufficient to place the Neanderthal sequence outside of the variation that occurs among humans. This is an exciting result indicating that Neanderthals did not contribute mtDNA (and presumably nuclear DNA) to modern humans.

The above examples of results issuing from studies of human genetic/genome diversity show the importance in human biology of this field of research. The discrediting of a genetic basis of the concept of race, understanding the origin of modern humans and the details of the peopling of the world and the sequencing of Neanderthal mtDNA are hardly trivial undertakings, and there are many other interesting and important questions to be posed and answered. For instance, haplotypes, which are more informative than individual loci for the description of chromosomes of population founders, will become the genetic units for analyses of human genome diversity, which, in turn, will provide information on their origins, ages and evolution. The development of molecular polymorphic markers, and many of them, provides a depth of analytic resolution and power heretofore unavailable for, and is clearly impinging on, research design of diversity studies. The concept of genome diversity is clearly embodied in developing future studies involving markers drawn from throughout the genome, hundreds of markers that are highly polymorphic, as well as thousands of the more stable (less mutation and thus less polymorphic) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that detect variation on-average once every ~1 000 base pairs. Automatic typing of both groups of markers is reality and allows the equivalent of diversity genome scans of thousands of individuals. Put these together with methods for high throughput automatic DNA extraction from thousands of blood samples collected from world-wide population samples of hundreds of individuals each and with analytic methods for calculating inter-population genetic distances and evolutionary trees and describing in detail geographic variation of populations, essentially based on functions of allele frequency distributions, and one has the ingredients for an organized international collaboration on human genome diversity. Indeed, the Human Genome Diversity Project, after a slow start, is gathering steam, impelled recently by a favorable evaluation of the field by a committee of outstanding scientists and ethics specialists convened by the U.S. National Research Council.

The Human Genome Diversity Project (HGDP) is a program for the scientific analysis of human genetic diversity and evolution. It aims to 1) collect and preserve biologic samples from populations throughout the world; 2) make DNA from these samples available to scientists; and 3) distribute to the scientific community the DNA typing results. The HGDP will be organized as an international collaboration of scientists who work on human variation (usually geneticists, physical anthropologists, paleontologists and archaeologists). Collaborators will provide blood samples from world populations and/or type the DNA from these samples. Collaborator activities will be coordinated by several major international repositories, which will be responsible for receiving and processing blood samples, storing purified lymphocytes and the leukocyte fraction from peripheral blood, establishing lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) and extracting DNA from these resources for distribution to collaborators. A database, containing DNA typing results as well as ethnographic information, will be developed and maintained online for collaborating scientists initially and eventually for the public.

Ethical issues play a critical role in the research design and organization of this project. Protection of the autonomy, privacy and welfare of those who participate in the project has been a central concern of those involved in this type of research. These obligations as they apply to individual subjects and, perhaps to populations, have been discussed and studied by the organizers of the proposed project, as well as by a subcommittee of the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee and the U.S. National Research Council. The project requires a challenging application of the ethical principles used in other aspects of human genetics research.

A preliminary project is planned that would bring together some 500-1 000 already-existing LCLs from populations in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania. DNA from these LCLs will be distributed to collaborating scientists for testing with various micro-satellite and, perhaps, SNP markers in order to develop a common panel of hundreds (to thousands) of markers for use in the HGDP program. These cell lines are expected to be gathered this year. The research program will then follow. The goals of the extended research program are to obtain blood samples from 100 to 250 individuals from each of 400 populations located in 33 geographic regions of the world. The results of typing the DNAs from this collection will be included in a human genetic variation database.

Two eminent French institutions, the Musee de I'homme and the Fondation Jean-Dausset - Centre d'etude du polymorphisme humain (CEPH), both in Paris, will contribute in major ways to the HGDP. The former institution has a superb fossil collection including specimens from ancient humans (e.g. Homo sapiens neanderthalen-sis and early Homo sapiens sapiens), and scientists who are heavily involved in human genome diversity studies are associated with the museum. The CEPH is presently expected to serve as one of the major HGDP coordinating repositories dealing mostly with sample collections from Europe, Africa, the Middle-East and West Asia.

The combined coding sequences of the 80 000 or more human genes account for about 3 % of the total genome sequence. Many of the coding sequences are thought to be monomorphic, presumably fixed in all human populations, although their sequencing and then re-sequencing in population samples is awaited with great interest. Other genes, as well as many non-coding sequences, are already known to be polymorphic and contribute to a unique genome for each human individual (monozygotic twins excepted). The almost six billion living humans are distributed among distinct populations throughout the world, and the members of each tend to share cultural traits as well as alleles at various loci which give rise to characteristic allele frequency distributions. Observations, at the DNA level, of the genetic structure of living human populations will help us infer our history, pre-his-tory and origins. The HGDP will permit the large scale organization and examination of the details of human genome diversity with the ultimate goal of an improved understanding of human evolution.


C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Sciences de la vie / Life Sciences
1998.321,443-446

[Fadix]

Are there racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality? A critique of Lynn's (2002) racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality

Marvin Zuckerman,

Department of Psychology, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716, USA

Received 1 April 2002; revised 30 May 2002; accepted 6 November 2002. ; Available online 30 August 2003.


Abstract

Lynn's claim that certain races or ethnic groups have a higher incidence of psychopathic personality is not substantiated by large scale community studies in America that show no differences between these groups in the diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. No consistent racial differences are found in traits closely associated with psychopathy, sensation seeking and psychoticism, and, Lynn to the contrary, the Psychopathic Deviate scale of the MMPI. Antisocial behavior in Blacks is less related to personality than in Whites. The results on criminality are not compatible with Rushton's r/K theory of evolutionary selection, as claimed by Lynn, because Native Americans and Hispanic groups are of Siberian Mongoloid origin in the case of the former and mixed Central-American Indian and Spanish Caucasoid in the case of the latter. The differences between African-American, Native-American, Hispanic, and European-American groups in antisocial behavior seems to be more a function of social class, historical circumstance, and their position in Western society rather than racial genetics. Following [Rushton, 1988 and Lynn, 2002] has presented a pastiche of population statistics on delinquency, criminal and sexual behavior, truancy, parenting, aggression, and disorders like Conduct Disorder (CD) and Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) to support the hypotheses that: (1) the races and ethnic groups differ in the incidence of "psychopathic personality"; (2) these population differences are based in strong part to genetic differences between the populations; (3) the differences have their distal origins in the different evolutionary histories of the races (Rushton's r–K theory of race differences). Lynn claims that Rushton's theory "...has now become widely accepted by scholars", citing only those who support the theory and ignoring those who have criticized it ( [Lynn, 1989, Weizmann et al., 1990, Zuckerman, 1990 and Zuckerman and Brody, 1988]). Consequently, some of those criticisms as well as those based on more recent data are addressed to the specific arguments in Lynn's article.

Author Keywords: Race; Ethnicity; Antisocial personality; Genetics; Evolution

--------

1. Diagnosis and ratings

At the offset, a distinction must be made between psychopathic personality, now called Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD), and criminal behavior. APD is diagnosed only in those persons whose history of antisocial behavior begins before the age of 15 and persists beyond the age of 18. APD must be distinguished from ordinary criminality by personality traits that apply to all areas of relationships, not just the criminal world. Although criminal history is often used as a surrogate for APD, actual diagnosis must inquire beyond the mere history of arrests and convictions. Otherwise there is no point in the distinction.

Conduct Disorder may be a precursor of APD but the majority of delinquent youths change in the post-adolescent years and do not end as persistent criminals. [Lyons, 1996] has shown in twin studies that early criminal behavior can be entirely explained by shared and unshared environment with no genetic component; early arrest by an equal contribution of genetic and shared environment; and later criminal behavior and arrests by genetic factors (30–39%) plus unshared environment alone. This supports [Lykken, 1995] distinction between the "Sociopathic Personality", or subcultural delinquency, based largely on family and neighorhood environmental factors, and the "Psychopathic Personality" which may arise in any type of family or social class and therefore would be more due to temperamental-genetic factors. [Cloninger et al., 1975] reported that their data showed no genetically based differences in sociopathy between Whites and Blacks. This means that the differences in crime between these populations could be almost entirely a function of environment.

The most relevant statistics, therefore, would be the incidence of diagnosed APD rather than population statistics on crime. The Environmental Catchment Area (ECA) study is the largest community study of diagnosis ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). This study found no significant differences between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in the incidence of APD. Similarly, the other large community study, the National Comorbidity Study (NCS, [Kessler et al., 1994]), found no significant differences between Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics in APD diagnoses. Blacks were significantly lower than Whites in substance use disorders. Thus two major community studies, using standardized interview methods for diagnosis, found no differences in ethnic or racial incidences of APD!

These data would seem to be in contradiction to the larger proportion of the Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations than the White population arrested and imprisoned for crime. Fewer Blacks who are arrested meet the criteria for APD compared to Whites, but Blacks who are arrested are more likely to be sent to prison than Whites, even when types of crimes are equated ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). Criminal behavior is less related to personality in Blacks than in Whites. Less association has been found between ratings of psychopathy and personality traits in Blacks than in Whites ( [Kosson et al., 1990 and Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995]). Both of these studies showed that a laboratory test of passive-avoidance learning was related to psychopathy in Whites but not in Blacks.

The association between poverty or social class and crime is well-known. Lynn uses IQ to control for this factor in comparing racial and ethnic groups on behaviors that he considered indices of psychopathic personality. However, intelligence in the ECA study was related to APD diagnoses much more strongly in Whites than in Blacks and Hispanics ([Robins and Regier, 1991]). [Hare, 1991], summarizing many studies of the relationship between intelligence and ratings of psychopathy on his Psychopathy Check List, concluded that there was no relationship. [Robins, 1978] found that criminality is more related to socioeconomic class of origin in Blacks than in Whites. Control for social class would have been more appropriate in analyses of the forms of social behavior discussed in this article. Analyses of crime, illegitimacy, and similar variables in Almanac statistics are usually not controlled for this variable.

2. Test scores

Lynn interprets several studies to show that Native Americans, Blacks, and Hispanics score higher than Whites on the Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) Scale of the MMPI. Those who know this scale realize that a number of the items ask about antisocial behavior during childhood rather than current behavior. Furthermore it is incorrect to interpret the MMPI based on a single scale in isolation from the profile. Many groups with other kinds of disorders score high on the Pd Scale, but even higher on other clinical scales. It is only when the Pd Scale is high and accompanied by a peak on the Hypomania (Ma) scale that the results are interpreted as indicative of a psychopathic personality. But the interpretation of the single scale results, based on studies selected by Lynn, is contradicted by [Greene, 1987] comprehensive review of studies comparing ethnic groups. Greene concluded that in normal, prison, or psychiatric populations there is no evidence of any consistent differences between Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans on any of the MMPI scales. The moderator variables of socioeconomic status, education, and intelligence were more important determiners of MMPI performance than race or ethnicity.

[Fadix]

(article continued)

3. Sensation seeking

Sensation seeking, particularly Disinhibition, or excitement seeking, is among the personality scales showing the highest relationships with psychopathic personality disorder ([Blackburn, 1978, Emmons and Webb, 1974, Harpur et al., 1989, Harpur et al., 1994 and Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995]). Lynn's review discusses other personality traits but omits this one. [Zuckerman, 1994] reviewed 10 studies involving comparisons between Blacks and Whites in normal children and adults, college students, general population, delinquents, and drug abusers. In eight of the 10 studies Blacks scored lower than Whites on the Total score of the Sensation Seeking Scale (SSS), and there was no significant difference in the two remaining groups. On the Disinhibiton subscale, which is the most culture-free of the subscales and the one most highly related to psychopathy, there was no significant difference between Blacks and Whites in five of the six studies analyzing this subscale and Whites scored higher than Blacks in the remaining study. These results do not confirm the prediction that Blacks should score higher than Whites on sensation seeking if they have a higher incidence of psychopathic personality.

4. Psychoticism

Like Rushton, Lynn ignores the [Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976] Psychoticism Scale in his racial comparisons. The Eysencks broad concept of psychoticism includes psychopathy. Delinquents and prisoners are among the highest scoring groups on this scale, scoring higher than actual psychotics. I have suggested that the scale might be more appropriately called Psychopathy rather than psychoticism ([Zuckerman, 1989]). The scale is the best marker for a factor consisting of low conscientiousness, agreeableness, and socialization, and high impulsivity, sensation seeking, and aggression, all consistent with the psychopathic personality ( [Zuckerman et al., 1993 and Zuckerman et al., 1991]).

[Barrett and Eysenck, 1984] did a large cross-cultural study using a modified form of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire that was comparable across all countries studied. The countries included European, Asiatic, and African countries with populations predominantly of one of the three races. Among males the three highest scoring countries were India, Australia, and Hong Kong, the first two predominantly White and the last predominantly Asian (Chinese). The three lowest scoring countries for males were Israel, Spain, and Nigeria, two Caucasoid and one Negroid nation. Ugandan males scored in the middle range. Among the females the three highest scoring nations were India, Yugoslavia, and Uganda, and the lowest were Hungary, the United Kingdom, and Iceland, and the next lowest were Israeli and Nigerian women. Clearly there is no relation of psychoticism (or psychopathy) to the race of these populations, and the Nigerian group is actually among the lowest on the P scale for both men and women.

[Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976] state that the content scales of the EPQ, particularly P, cannot be interpreted without consideration of the Lie (L) scale scores. The L scale is regarded as a social desirability type of measure, although elsewhere they have suggested that it also might assess the trait of conformity. Conceivably, group differences in L scale might account for differences in P. If this were the case the groups scoring high on P should score low on L and the low P groups should score high on L. Although this general tendency is apparent in their data, a comparison of two of the racial/ethnic groups, Indians and Nigerians does not clearly support this idea. Among males, the low P Nigerian men did score relatively high on L but not much higher than the Indian males who were among the high P groups. Among females, the low P Nigerian women actually scored lower on L than the high P Indian women. The differences between these two racial/ethnic groups on P does not appear to be a function of differences on L.

5. Race and ethnicity

Whereas Rushton confines his theory to races, combining diverse populations within the descriptions Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, Lynn makes a distinction of ethnic categories, particularly Hispanic, in contrast to race. However, he still regards Whites, Blacks, Asiatics, and Native Americans as pure racial representatives of their respective groups. The 19th century conception of race is not widely accepted among modern anthropologists and ethologists. There is simply too much diversity in genetic types among broad groups designated as Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid, to make these meaningful descriptions of populations ([Zuckerman, 1990 and Zuckerman and Brody, 1988]).

However, accepting the premises that these are races within the context of Rushton's r/K theory the data do not make a great deal of sense in terms of a ranking of races on psychopathy. Blacks and Native Americans score highest on psychopathy as defined by Lynn. But Native Americans are of Asiatic origin, emigrating across the land-bridge from Siberia to Alaska about 30,000 years ago. Asiatics, according to the theories of Lynn and Rushton, are the least psychopathic or the most conscientious of the three primary racial groups. The current Native-Americans are primarily a mixture of these early ancestors of Asiatic origins and Caucasoid groups after the European invasion of the North American continent in the 16th century. Why then should they have psychopathic traits equivalent to those of African ancestry?

Intermediate degrees of psychopathy are said to exist in the Hispanic groups, largely Mexican in these studies, who are mostly a mixture of Caucasoid (Spanish) and Central-Native American stocks. The racial/genetic explanation is not consistent in explaining the ethnic differences. An explanation based on history, poverty, cultural prejudice, and isolation from the dominant groups in the society is more reasonable.

6. Evolution and the r/K hypothesis

Lynn uses the r/K hypothesis propounded by Rushton to explain the purported racial differences in psychopathy. According to Lynn the source of racial differences is climate. He says that the problems of survival in the colder climates of Euroasia, affecting Mongoloids and Caucasoids. led to stronger bonding between males and females with greater commitment by males to provisioning their families, more responsible parenting, enhanced capacity to delay gratification, and stronger control over aggression and sexuality than in the tropical climes of Africa.

Stringent controls over behavior and the formulation of laws to govern human behavior probably originated in the early civilizations that formed in the warmer climes of the Mediterranean basin, the fertile African Nile basin, and the fertile crescent between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers in Babylonia. Agriculture-based civilizations, with their class hierarchies, required stability of residence and tighter regulation of family and social behavior, began in the warmer areas of the world, including Central America, tropic West Africa and the Sahel, the Indus valley, New Guinea, and the Andes and Amazonia as well as Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Western Europe ([Diamond, 1999]). Siberia was the last place where stable law-abiding societies arose. The American Plains Indians were direct descendents of the Siberian Mongoloids and most of these tribes were hunters and gatherers even into the 19th century. They were not characterized by strong controls over aggression or cruelty. Neither were the ancient or modern Europeans for that matter. For prototypes of psychopathic leadership who can top the Mongolian Ghengis Khan or the European Hitler?

All of these kinds of retrospective evolutionary arguments are problematical. To suggest that the behavior of modern descendents of these ancient regional ethnic groups is a function of evolved genetic mechanisms which are specific to their ancestry is not a plausible hypothesis. The more recent history of ethnic populations is much more relevant. Psychopathic personality does have a genetic component, probably mediated through the personality traits that compose it, but the evidence suggests that it is equally distributed across ethnic groups. The indisputable differences in criminality and antisocial behavior between groups has both genetic and environmental sources, but one cannot generalize from genetic explanations of behavior within groups to the sources of differences between groups.

[Fadix]

References

Barrett and Eysenck, 1984. P. Barrett and S. Eysenck, The assessment of personality factors across 25 countries. Personality and Individual Differences 5 (1984), pp. 615–632. Abstract

Blackburn, 1978. R. Blackburn, Electrodermal and cardiovascular correlates of psychopathy. In: R.D. Hare and D. Schalling, Editors, Psychopathic behaviour: approaches to research, Wiley, New York (1978), pp. 157–164.

Cloninger et al., 1975. C.R. Cloninger, T. Reich and S.B. Guze, The multifactorial model of disease transmission: II sex differences in the familial transmission of sociopathic (antisocial) personality. British Journal of Psychology 127 (1975), pp. 11–22. Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Diamond, 1999. J. Diamond, Guns, germs, and steel: the fates of human societies. , Norton, New York (1999).

Emmons and Webb, 1974. T.D. Emmons and W.W. Webb, Subjective correlates of emotional responsivity and stimulation seeking in psychopaths, normals and acting-out neurotics. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 42 (1974), pp. 620–625. Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE

Eysenck and Eysenck, 1976. H.J. Eysenck and S.B.G. Eysenck, Psychoticism as a dimension of personality. , Crane, Russak, & Co, New York (1976).

Greene, 1987. R.L. Greene, Ethnicity and MMPI performance: a review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 55 (1987), pp. 497–512. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-MEDLINE

Hare, 1991. R.D. Hare, The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. , Multi-Health Systems, Toronto, Canada (1991).

Harpur et al., 1989. T.J. Harpur, R.D. Hare and R. Hakstian, Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment 1 (1989), pp. 6–17. Abstract

Harpur et al., 1994. T.J. Harpur, S.D. Hart and R.D. Hare, The personality of the psychopath. In: P. Costa and T.A. Widiger, Editors, Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (1994), pp. 198–216.

Kessler et al., 1994. R.C. Kessler, K.A. McGonagle, S. Zhao, C.B. Nelson, M. Hughes, S. Eshleman, H.-U. Wittchen and K.S. Kendler, Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry 51 (1994), pp. 8–19. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-EMBASE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Kosson et al., 1990. D.S. Kosson, S.S. Smith and J.P. Newman, Evaluation of the construct validity of psychopathy in black and white inmates: three preliminary studies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 99 (1990), pp. 250–259. Abstract

Lykken, 1995. D.T. Lykken, The antisocial personality disorders. , Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ (1995).

Lynn, 1989. M. Lynn, Race differences in sexual behavior: a critique of Rushton and Bogaert's evolutionary hypothesis. Journal of Research in Personality 23 (1989), pp. 1–6. Abstract-PsycINFO | Abstract-EMBASE

Lynn, 2002. R. Lynn, Racial and ethnic differences in psychopathic personality. Personality and Individual Differences 32 (2002), pp. 273–316. SummaryPlus | Full Text + Links | PDF (257 K)

Lyons, 1996. M.J. Lyons, A twin study of self-reported criminal behaviour. In: G.R. Bock and J.A. Goode, Editors, Genetics of criminal and antisocial behaviour, Wiley, Chichester, UK (1996), pp. 61–70.

Robins, 1978. L.N. Robins, Aetiological implications in studies of childhood histories relating to antisocial personality. In: R.D. Hare and D. Schalling, Editors, Psychopathic behavior: approaches to research, Wiley, Chichester, UK (1978), pp. 255–272.

Robins and Regier, 1991. L.N. Robins and D.A. Regier, Editors, Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study, The Free Press, New York (1991).

Rushton, 1988. J.P. Rushton, Race differences in behaviour: a review and evolutionary analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1009–1024. Abstract

Thornquist and Zuckerman, 1995. M.H. Thornquist and M. Zuckerman, Psychopathy, passive-avoidance learning and basic dimensions of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995), pp. 525–534. Abstract

Weizmann et al., 1990. F. Weizmann, N.I. Wiener, D.L. Wiesenthal and M. Ziegler, Differential K theory and racial hierarchies. Canadian Psychology 32 (1990), pp. 1–13. Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman, 1989. Zuckerman, M. (1989) Personality in the third dimension: a psychobiological approach. Personality and Individual Differences.

Zuckerman, 1990. M. Zuckerman, Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American Psychologist 45 (1990), pp. 1297–1303. Abstract-MEDLINE | Abstract-PsycINFO

Zuckerman, 1994. M. Zuckerman, Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking. , Cambridge University Press, New York (1994).

Zuckerman and Brody, 1988.M. Zuckerman and N. Brody, Oysters, rabbits, and people: a critique of "race differences in behaviour" by J. Rushton. Personality and Individual Differences 9 (1988), pp. 1025–1033. Abstract

Zuckerman et al., 1993. M. Zuckerman, D.M. Kuhlman, J. Joireman, P. Teta and M. Kraft, A comparison of three structural models for personality: the big three, the big five, and the alternative five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (1993), pp. 757–758.

Zuckerman et al., 1991. M. Zuckerman, D.M. Kuhlman, M. Thornquist and H. Kiers, Five (or three) robust questionnaire scale factors of personality without culture. Personality and Individual Differences 12 (1991), pp. 929–941. Abstract

[loseyourname]

It's a little difficult to see why you posted that, Fadix. You have just confirmed that there is, indeed, an observable genomic difference between distinct human populations. The degree to which you assign one to a particular "race" is really just arbitrary. The four races currently recognized are really just a result of the Nixon administration's attempt to simplify the US census. It is also based on the fact that there were four continents inhabited in ancient times (Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa). Perhaps aboriginal Australians should be considered a separate race as well, but they are probably not taken into consideration because there are so few of them. Certainly there is a great deal of variation between the peoples initially descended from these four large groups, but that hardly seems to disprove the concept of race. It just blurs the lines. The same phenomenon is seen in the rest of the biological world. The theory of symbiotic evolution is doing a great deal to blur the traditional taxonomic lines. It is clear that species once thought to have evolved completely distinct from one another have in fact shared a great deal of their genomes. Even the human genome shows a great deal of junk left over from past bacterial plagues and other such gene-swapping activity. The fact that races have both intermingled and sub-divided into distinct populations within each race doesn't mean that the races never existed to begin with.

[Darorinag]

Dan, your article is only an evidences that they were black, Northern Black Africans does not carry this marker.

THey were not 100% Negroid. They were mixed. My argument is not about mixed peoples, but more or less about those who have higher (90%+) Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid mtDNA. You are twisting my arguments.

while I select relevent documents not found on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that.

While I select relevant documents FOUND on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that. The very fact that they're not available on the web shows the very reliable nature of their studies... And of course, I don't mean just ANY website. I mean educational websites or journals. I have access to a lot of scientific journals, FYI. I only copy and paste relevant material, and I read what I post. You only look at the title, and if it's good enough (i.e. claims that there are no races), then it's good to post. Which is why you are constantly contradicting yourself.

As for Irish, just reffer to Lynn list where he give 78 as IQ.

Dear lad, Richard Lynn's estimate of Irish IQ is 93. See below. Where you got the 78, is beyond me. Perhaps he revised his findings.


National IQs Based on the Results of Intelligence Tests and Estimated National IQs (marked by *) Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries.

Note: IQ purists say anything within a four point range is considered the same or comparable.


Country - National IQ


a.. Hong Kong - 107

b.. Korea, South - 106

c.. Japan - 105

d.. Korea, North - 105*

e.. Taiwan - 104

f.. Austria - 102

g.. Germany - 102

h.. Italy - 102

i.. Netherlands - 102

j.. Luxembourg - 101*

k.. Sweden - 101
l.. Switzerland - 101

m.. Belgium - 100

n.. China - 100

o.. New Zealand - 100

p.. Singapore - 100

q.. United Kingdom - 100

r.. Hungary - 99

s.. Poland - 99
t.. Spain - 99

u.. France - 98

v.. Australia - 98

w.. Denmark - 98

x.. Iceland - 98*

y.. Mongolia - 98*

z.. Norway - 98

aa.. United States - 98

ab.. Canada - 97

ac.. Czech Republic - 97

ad.. Estonia - 97*

ae.. Finland - 97

af.. Latvia - 97*

ag.. Lithuania - 97*

ah.. Argentina - 96

ai.. Belarus - 96*

aj.. Russia - 96

ak.. Slovakia - 96

al.. Ukraine - 96*

am.. Uruguay - 96

an.. Vietnam - 96*

ao.. Malta - 95*

ap.. Moldova - 95*

aq.. Portugal - 95

ar.. Slovenia - 95

as.. Israel - 94

at.. Romania - 94

au.. Armenia - 93*

av.. Chile - 93*

aw.. Bulgaria - 93

ax.. Georgia - 93*

ay.. Ireland - 93

az.. Kazakhstan - 93*

ba.. Macedonia - 93*

bb.. Yugoslavia - 93*

bc.. Brunei - 92*

bd.. Cyprus - 92*

be.. Greece - 92

bf.. Malaysia - 92

bg.. Costa Rica - 91*

bh.. Thailand - 91

bi.. Albania - 90*

bj.. Croatia - 90

bk.. Peru - 90

bl.. Turkey - 90

bm.. Cambodia - 89*

bn.. Indonesia - 89

bo.. Suriname - 89

bp.. Laos - 89*

bq.. Colombia - 88

br.. Venezuela - 88*

bs.. Azerbaijan - 87*

bt.. Brazil - 87

bu.. Iraq - 87

bv.. Jordan - 87*

bw.. Kyrgyzstan - 87*

bx.. Mexico - 87

by.. Samoa (Western) - 87

bz.. Syria - 87*

ca.. Tajikistan - 87*

cb.. Tonga - 87

cc.. Turkmenistan - 87*

cd.. Uzbekistan - 87*

ce.. Burma (Myanmar) - 86*

cf.. Philippines - 86

cg.. Lebanon - 86

ch.. Bolivia - 85*

ci.. Cuba - 85

cj.. Morocco - 85

ck.. Paraguay - 85*

cl.. Algeria - 84*

cm.. Dominican Republic - 84*

cn.. El Salvador - 84*

co.. Guyana - 84*

cp.. Honduras - 84*

cq.. Iran - 84

cr.. Kiribati - 84*

cs.. Libya - 84*

ct.. Marshall Islands - 84

cu.. Micronesia - 84*

cv.. Nicaragua - 84*

cw.. Panama - 84*

cx.. Papua New Guinea - 84*

cy.. Puerto Rico - 84

cz.. Solomon Islands - 84*

da.. Tunisia - 84*

db.. Vanuatu - 84*

dc.. Afghanistan - 83*

dd.. Bahrain - 83*

de.. Belize - 83*

df.. Egypt - 83

dg.. Kuwait - 83*

dh.. Oman - 83*

di.. Saudi Arabia - 83*

dj.. United Arab Emirates - 83*

dk.. Yemen - 83*

dl.. Bangladesh - 81*

dm.. India - 81

dn.. Maldives - 81*

do.. Mauritius - 81*

dp.. Pakistan - 81*

dq.. Seychelles - 81*

dr.. Sri Lanka - 81*

ds.. Ecuador - 80

dt.. Trinidad & Tobago - 80*

du.. Comoros - 79*

dv.. Guatemala - 79

dw.. Madagascar - 79*

dx.. Barbados - 78

dy.. Bahamas - 78*

dz.. Bhutan - 78*

ea.. Cape Verde - 78*

eb.. Nepal - 78

ec.. Qatar - 78

ed.. Zambia - 77

ee.. Antigua & Barbuda - 75*

ef.. Grenada - 75*

eg.. Dominica - 75*

eh.. St. Kitts & Nevis - 75*

ei.. St. Lucia - 75*

ej.. St.Vincent/Grenadines - 75*

ek.. Congo (Braz) - 73

el.. Mauritania - 73*

em.. Uganda - 73

en.. Botswana - 72*

eo.. Chad - 72*

ep.. Haiti - 72*

eq.. Jamaica - 72

er.. Kenya - 72

es.. Lesotho - 72*

et.. Mosambique - 72*

eu.. Namibia - 72*

ev.. South Africa - 72

ew.. Swaziland - 72*

ex.. Sudan - 72

ey.. Tanzania - 72

ez.. Côte d'Ivoire - 71*

fa.. Ghana - 71

fb.. Malawi - 71*

fc.. Burundi - 70*

fd.. Cameroon - 70*

fe.. Rwanda - 70*

ff.. Angola - 69*

fg.. Benin - 69*

fh.. Togo - 69*

fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*

fj.. Djibouti - 68*

fk.. Eritrea - 68*

fl.. Mali - 68*

fm.. Somalia - 68*

fn.. Niger - 67*

fo.. Nigeria - 67

fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*

fq.. Gabon - 66*

fr.. Zimbabwe - 66

fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65

ft.. Gambia - 64*

fu.. Liberia - 64*

fv.. Senegal - 64*

fw.. Sierra Leone - 64

fx.. Ethiopia - 63

fy.. Guinea - 63

fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*

ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*

gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article_intelligence/t4.htm

[Darorinag]

Sao Tome/Principe - 59
Equatorial Guinea - 59

You know, what I don't understand is how, if it's due to poverty and all that, poor Armenians do not score as low as 59... Hmmm..
Assuming (and a big assumption that is) that a gap of 15 is indeed marginal error, that makes it 59 + 15 = 74. Now compare that to the estimated IQ for Armenia = 93. Suppose that the REAL IQ is 90.. how much difference does that leave us with? 90 - 74 = 16.

Perhaps Mr. Fadi can explain that to us?

[Fadix]

Oh boy, you really don't get it do you? The marker that is found among Sub Saharian Africans is not necessarly found among other blacks elsewhere. This is only purly statistical analysis, but since you consider blacks as inferiors, anything that disprove your belief is just wrong. You are acting like a Turk here that no matter what one may provide, won't move an inch from his preestablished belief. The only thing that this genetic test demonstrate is that 40% of the genetic makeup were from Sub-Saharian encestory, the other 60% most probably other blacks who did not possess that marker or others from the region. In order to be more specific, we have to use other genetic markers which would permit to study those 60% left.

As for what I post, because they are not on the web, it must be because they are not relevant? You act exactly like a Turk here that uses this argument everytime I provide them references or studies or researchs they can not find on the web. Unlike what you believe, the web is not everything. And guess what, I have read every single word of everything I have posted, the article that louseyourname is reffering to, I had it in PDF format and had to use a OCD recognising program to convert it to vectorial format, and separate the two collumns into one and change the spacing and everything, and correct the recognition mistakes. So obviously I had to read it to do that. So your claim of me not reading therefore contradicting myself is just plain wrong. That article author says that differenciating races in humans can not be done for this or that reason... yes! Louseyourname might interprate it as support for the existance of race, but since you have even not read the article and have read louseyourname comment, you insinuated that I have no read that article, because the article was saying the contrary of what I affirmed.(what you believed based on anothers opinion)

And here again, you claim that I just read the titles, Dan, give me an example of one of the abstracts(not the newspapers etc...) from scientific papers I posted that could not be found on the web, that from the title it suggest that there is no races. Go ahead, give me an example. If you can not support your stupid charges against me, just don't accuses me of things which you can not support.

Now regarding Lynn, yes! he has modified his tables countless numbers of times... the one that I am reffering to was taken from here.

http://cycad.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/People/Lynn/lynn-race-iq-table1.html

Which was taken off, on the same table he gave 87 for the Spanish.

And another thing, it takes brain dommage to compare Armenia a country that the literacy rate is of 99% with a country where there would be hardly anyone understanding what an IQ test is, because the majority of the population is illetrate. But what can we expact from a Dan, that do believe things not based on supportable evidences, but because of his preconcieved beliefs.

For instance, here we have a direct correlation between your dislike of Jews and your denial of the Shoah, there is as well a direct correlation between your belief of White superiority and the quality of materials you post. (95% of the materials that support your views on my access list of abstracts has Rushton as one of its authors)

The Real American Dilemma: Race, Immigration, and the Future of America by Jared Taylor, Michael, M.D. Levin, Samuel Francis, Philippe Rushton, Glayde Whitney

Read this work, and to that matter anyone should read that work, and see they will even have the goats to affirm that those that wrote it are unbiased "scientifics" that should be taken seriously. What a joke!!!

Originally posted by Darorinag THey were not 100% Negroid. They were mixed. My argument is not about mixed peoples, but more or less about those who have higher (90%+) Caucasoid/Negroid/Mongoloid mtDNA. You are twisting my arguments.


While I select relevant documents FOUND on the web, what your part does is only copypasting materials... everyone can do that. The very fact that they're not available on the web shows the very reliable nature of their studies... And of course, I don't mean just ANY website. I mean educational websites or journals. I have access to a lot of scientific journals, FYI. I only copy and paste relevant material, and I read what I post. You only look at the title, and if it's good enough (i.e. claims that there are no races), then it's good to post. Which is why you are constantly contradicting yourself.


Dear lad, Richard Lynn's estimate of Irish IQ is 93. See below. Where you got the 78, is beyond me. Perhaps he revised his findings.


National IQs Based on the Results of Intelligence Tests and Estimated National IQs (marked by *) Based on the IQs of Neighbouring or Other Comparable Countries.

Note: IQ purists say anything within a four point range is considered the same or comparable.


Country - National IQ


a.. Hong Kong - 107

b.. Korea, South - 106

c.. Japan - 105

d.. Korea, North - 105*

e.. Taiwan - 104

f.. Austria - 102

g.. Germany - 102

h.. Italy - 102

i.. Netherlands - 102

j.. Luxembourg - 101*

k.. Sweden - 101
l.. Switzerland - 101

m.. Belgium - 100

n.. China - 100

o.. New Zealand - 100

p.. Singapore - 100

q.. United Kingdom - 100

r.. Hungary - 99

s.. Poland - 99
t.. Spain - 99

u.. France - 98

v.. Australia - 98

w.. Denmark - 98

x.. Iceland - 98*

y.. Mongolia - 98*

z.. Norway - 98

aa.. United States - 98

ab.. Canada - 97

ac.. Czech Republic - 97

ad.. Estonia - 97*

ae.. Finland - 97

af.. Latvia - 97*

ag.. Lithuania - 97*

ah.. Argentina - 96

ai.. Belarus - 96*

aj.. Russia - 96

ak.. Slovakia - 96

al.. Ukraine - 96*

am.. Uruguay - 96

an.. Vietnam - 96*

ao.. Malta - 95*

ap.. Moldova - 95*

aq.. Portugal - 95

ar.. Slovenia - 95

as.. Israel - 94

at.. Romania - 94

au.. Armenia - 93*

av.. Chile - 93*

aw.. Bulgaria - 93

ax.. Georgia - 93*

ay.. Ireland - 93

az.. Kazakhstan - 93*

ba.. Macedonia - 93*

bb.. Yugoslavia - 93*

bc.. Brunei - 92*

bd.. Cyprus - 92*

be.. Greece - 92

bf.. Malaysia - 92

bg.. Costa Rica - 91*

bh.. Thailand - 91

bi.. Albania - 90*

bj.. Croatia - 90

bk.. Peru - 90

bl.. Turkey - 90

bm.. Cambodia - 89*

bn.. Indonesia - 89

bo.. Suriname - 89

bp.. Laos - 89*

bq.. Colombia - 88

br.. Venezuela - 88*

bs.. Azerbaijan - 87*

bt.. Brazil - 87

bu.. Iraq - 87

bv.. Jordan - 87*

bw.. Kyrgyzstan - 87*

bx.. Mexico - 87

by.. Samoa (Western) - 87

bz.. Syria - 87*

ca.. Tajikistan - 87*

cb.. Tonga - 87

cc.. Turkmenistan - 87*

cd.. Uzbekistan - 87*

ce.. Burma (Myanmar) - 86*

cf.. Philippines - 86

cg.. Lebanon - 86

ch.. Bolivia - 85*

ci.. Cuba - 85

cj.. Morocco - 85

ck.. Paraguay - 85*

cl.. Algeria - 84*

cm.. Dominican Republic - 84*

cn.. El Salvador - 84*

co.. Guyana - 84*

cp.. Honduras - 84*

cq.. Iran - 84

cr.. Kiribati - 84*

cs.. Libya - 84*

ct.. Marshall Islands - 84

cu.. Micronesia - 84*

cv.. Nicaragua - 84*

cw.. Panama - 84*

cx.. Papua New Guinea - 84*

cy.. Puerto Rico - 84

cz.. Solomon Islands - 84*

da.. Tunisia - 84*

db.. Vanuatu - 84*

dc.. Afghanistan - 83*

dd.. Bahrain - 83*

de.. Belize - 83*

df.. Egypt - 83

dg.. Kuwait - 83*

dh.. Oman - 83*

di.. Saudi Arabia - 83*

dj.. United Arab Emirates - 83*

dk.. Yemen - 83*

dl.. Bangladesh - 81*

dm.. India - 81

dn.. Maldives - 81*

do.. Mauritius - 81*

dp.. Pakistan - 81*

dq.. Seychelles - 81*

dr.. Sri Lanka - 81*

ds.. Ecuador - 80

dt.. Trinidad & Tobago - 80*

du.. Comoros - 79*

dv.. Guatemala - 79

dw.. Madagascar - 79*

dx.. Barbados - 78

dy.. Bahamas - 78*

dz.. Bhutan - 78*

ea.. Cape Verde - 78*

eb.. Nepal - 78

ec.. Qatar - 78

ed.. Zambia - 77

ee.. Antigua & Barbuda - 75*

ef.. Grenada - 75*

eg.. Dominica - 75*

eh.. St. Kitts & Nevis - 75*

ei.. St. Lucia - 75*

ej.. St.Vincent/Grenadines - 75*

ek.. Congo (Braz) - 73

el.. Mauritania - 73*

em.. Uganda - 73

en.. Botswana - 72*

eo.. Chad - 72*

ep.. Haiti - 72*

eq.. Jamaica - 72

er.. Kenya - 72

es.. Lesotho - 72*

et.. Mosambique - 72*

eu.. Namibia - 72*

ev.. South Africa - 72

ew.. Swaziland - 72*

ex.. Sudan - 72

ey.. Tanzania - 72

ez.. Côte d'Ivoire - 71*

fa.. Ghana - 71

fb.. Malawi - 71*

fc.. Burundi - 70*

fd.. Cameroon - 70*

fe.. Rwanda - 70*

ff.. Angola - 69*

fg.. Benin - 69*

fh.. Togo - 69*

fi.. Central African Rep. - 68*

fj.. Djibouti - 68*

fk.. Eritrea - 68*

fl.. Mali - 68*

fm.. Somalia - 68*

fn.. Niger - 67*

fo.. Nigeria - 67

fp.. Burkina Faso - 66*

fq.. Gabon - 66*

fr.. Zimbabwe - 66

fs.. Congo (Zaire) - 65

ft.. Gambia - 64*

fu.. Liberia - 64*

fv.. Senegal - 64*

fw.. Sierra Leone - 64

fx.. Ethiopia - 63

fy.. Guinea - 63

fz.. Guinea-Bissau - 63*

ga.. Sao Tome/Principe - 59*

gb.. Equatorial Guinea - 59

http://www.rlynn.co.uk/pages/article...ligence/t4.htm

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname It's a little difficult to see why you posted that, Fadix. You have just confirmed that there is, indeed, an observable genomic difference between distinct human populations. The degree to which you assign one to a particular "race" is really just arbitrary. The four races currently recognized are really just a result of the Nixon administration's attempt to simplify the US census. It is also based on the fact that there were four continents inhabited in ancient times (Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Africa). Perhaps aboriginal Australians should be considered a separate race as well, but they are probably not taken into consideration because there are so few of them. Certainly there is a great deal of variation between the peoples initially descended from these four large groups, but that hardly seems to disprove the concept of race. It just blurs the lines. The same phenomenon is seen in the rest of the biological world. The theory of symbiotic evolution is doing a great deal to blur the traditional taxonomic lines. It is clear that species once thought to have evolved completely distinct from one another have in fact shared a great deal of their genomes. Even the human genome shows a great deal of junk left over from past bacterial plagues and other such gene-swapping activity. The fact that races have both intermingled and sub-divided into distinct populations within each race doesn't mean that the races never existed to begin with.

More or less what I agree with