.

Dear LEGO,

.

You wrote:

« Physical appearances are caused by genetics … »

Agreed.
.

« Your premise, that all humans are born with equal intelligence, and it is just environmental factors which cause the differences in intelligence, simply does not stack up … »

I’m sorry if I gave you the impression that it was my premise. I am no expert. I was simply basing my comments on the results of recent biological research. To cite the American Scientist of March-April 2012:

« The consensus among Western researchers today is that human races are sociocultural constructs. Still, the concept of human race as an objective biological reality persists in science and in society. It is high time that policy makers, educators and those in the medical-industrial complex rid themselves of the misconception of race as type or as genetic population »
.

« I am certain that the homosexual community would be outraged if you told them that their disgusting behaviour was all learned behaviour caused by their culture, language and lifestyles … »

I do not interfere with or moralise on other people’s lifestyles as long as they are freely consented to. I have enough difficulty respecting my own moral values. Homosexuality is as much a natural phenomenon as heterosexuality. As Petter Boeckman, a zoologist at the Norwegian Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo, pointed out:

« No species has been found in which homosexual behaviour has not been shown to exist, ... a part of the animal kingdom is hermaphroditic, truly bisexual. For them, homosexuality is not an issue »:

http://pactiss.org/2011/11/17/1500-animal-species-practice-homosexuality/
.

« Smart parents generally produce smart children … »

Agreed.
.

« Charlie Perkins … was … a racist … »

Some of the worst examples of racism I have encountered during my business trips has been in black Africa – not only in respect of myself as a white Australian. I have witnessed even worse acts of racism between individuals of different black ethnic groups. Apparently, it has nothing to do with the colour of their skin.

.

Hi Banjo, I think that may be oversimplifying a little too much. While there may not be gross genetic differences in most cases, where populations have been isolated there are definitely differences emerging. Sociological constructs can they linger long enough for a particular model or series of similar models to impact human evolution. Our Law is still based on a Roman construct, for example, which has influenced a great deal of our history for several thousand years. That has conceivably been a long enough time for some of the social effects to be genetically influential through influencing breeding patterns. The Pax Romanus and it's modern equivalents allowed the mixing together of people from different regions on a scale that had never previously occurred. Similar things occurred in the Far East, with Chinese traders and then Mongol invaders spreading far and wide. The Abrahamic religions then continued the trend, proselytising all over the world and bringing different local populations into contact.

That's actually a really important series of genetic mixing events, which wouldn't have happened if the social construct wasn't in place to allow it.

Aboriginal populations have been much more isolated. I recently read an article, which I haven't been able to find on short notice, that says latest research shows greater genetic variance between Aborigines of the South West and the North East than Siberians and Native Americans.

That post was a bit disjointed, I posted before editing and my second cup of coffee...

The point was, that if a social construct, wherever it arises, can linger for a long enough time, say 30 generations or 600 years, the chances are good that it will have some influence on the genetics of the population. If mixing occurs, that does too, etc. I'm not sure what defines a "race", but it's beyond doubt that local evolution occurs.

If correlation never denotes causation, AJ, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have nothing to do with Human Induced Global Warming, right? I'll bet you don't accept that. For lefties, correlation does not denote causation when you want it to, but it does denote causation when it is convenient.

If low intelligence "is a major risk factor" then low intelligence is major factor in criminal behaviour. I love the way you always unsuccessfully try and rationalise around plain, inconvenient facts. Human behaviour is a product of nature and nurture. Nature provides the underlying personality, ("hard" babies and "easy" babies) and nurture does the rest. But nature is no egalitarian. People are born with different physical attributes, different levels of physical beauty, different underlying personalities, and different levels (and types) of intelligence. Just because Mozart played the piano at aged 5 does not mean that everyone can do it.

Now you are trying to claim that sexual differences have nothing to do with genetics. Oh Christ, AJ. Don't you realise how stupid that premise is? Genetic differences explain hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, physical attributes, but not sex. Apparently, sexual differences do not equate to physical differences. You once stereotyped Creationists as stupid because of the way that they could think up the most bizarre explanations to deny evolutionary reality, and here you are doing exactly the same thing denying that genetics has anything to do with sexual differences. If you listen real hard, you can hear our readers laughing their heads off at that one.

If you admit that there is a link between crime and genetics, and different races have different genetics, and some races have measurably low intelligence, and those races are very disproportionately represented in criminal behaviour, and low intelligence is a factor in criminal behaviour, then only a person who thinks like a Creationist can not see the obvious connection.

I don't rule out socio-economic factors. But dumb people have dumb cultures. Just listen to the misogynistic, violence glorifying, drug glamourising, rap "music", of African blacks, so popular among other dysfunctional minorities.

Dear Rodney.

To a very a large extent, Science is about classifying concepts, and working out what properties those classifications have. We classify, rocks, molecules, animals, stars, trees, diseases, and even people.

Human beings have always been classified by race, because racial differences are so glaringly obvious. The Roman historian Plutarch remarked that in Anatolia (eastern Turkey), the Celtic race and the "Asian" race were mixing and producing an interesting mixed breed with interesting characteristics.

But we are living in an age where some people are using the stature of science to support their bizarre Socialist social theories. From the beginning of the 20th Century, Socialists claimed that the "social construct" of "class" did not exist. Later in the century, they claimed that "race" was a "social construct", and it did not exist. Today they are going so far as to claim that "sex" is a "social construct" and it does not exist, either.

Now on one level, they are right, because all classifications are the result of the human perceptions of reality. But the Socialist ideal of creating a "classless society" fell flat on it's face. Classes do exist because in any population over about 200 souls, different skill specialisation involving different levels of intelligences, and types of intelligences, always creates a layered society.

Next came "race." the Socialist Egalitarians pointed out that not every ethnicity could conveniently fit within the narrow concepts of "black", "white" and "Asian" races. Therefore the concept of race was invalid. But "race" is simply a classification, and within the scientific world, it is rare but still valid, that some phenomena do not neatly fit scientific classifications. The idea of a furry, warm blooded, duck billed creature which laid eggs was so bizarre, that many scientists in the 19th century proclaimed the Platypus a hoax.

"Class" may be a "social construct" but it exists as a valid classification. "Race" may be a "social construct" but it also exists as a valid classification. Nobel Laureate Francis Crick ( co-discoverer of the double helix) was recently ostracised for simply saying that African blacks had low intelligence.

LEGO,

Your problem is that you think that correlation proves causation. It doesn't. You need additional evidence for a causal relationship.

<<If correlation never denotes causation, AJ, then the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere must have nothing to do with Human Induced Global Warming, right?>>

Climate scientists do not make the same mistake, and are not relying on correlation to prove causation.

<<Now you are trying to claim that sexual differences have nothing to do with genetics.>>

Now? No, I’ve always pointed out to you that people don’t inherit sex, it’s determined by chromosomes and hormones at conception.

<<Genetic differences explain hair colour, skin colour, eye colour, physical attributes, but not sex.>>

Correct, sex is chromosomal.

<<Apparently, sexual differences do not equate to physical differences.>>

This is the deductive fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_fallacy). That makes two fallacies now.

<<If you admit that there is a link between crime and genetics …>>

I always have. Why you’ve been trying to prove it with biological sex, I’ll never know.

<<… and different races have different genetics …>>

Skin colour is only determined by ten genes out of 24,000. Humans have one of the smallest gene pools on the planet. Furthermore,

“… an individual can be more genetically similar to someone of a different race than to another of their own race.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330445)

<<… and some races have measurably low intelligence …>>

“… how have your dodgy theories accounted for factors such as poor nutrition, poor education, poor parenting, low socioeconomic status, postcode and the resulting high stress levels during the developmental years, for criminal behaviour and low IQ?” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330439)

<<I don't rule out socio-economic factors. But dumb people have dumb cultures.>>

So how have you controlled for them then? If you haven’t ruled them out, then how do you know that it’s not impossible to attribute genetics across large populations (Hint: it is)? After all,

“… an individual can be more genetically similar to someone of a different race than to another of their own race.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18533#330445)

And the genetic combinations for personality propensity are far more complex than, say, skin colour.