AJ wrote

"Once again, LEGO, you fail to account for the differences in the heritability of, and the influence of environmental factors on, the physical and the behavioural."

Once again AJ, all you have is wishful thinking and unsupported statements.

AJ wrote

"No, they're the same discipline. You even provide a quote explaining just that:"

Try again. Population Genetics is a SUBFIELD of genetics. Did you innocently or deliberately write it down wrong?

AJ wrote

"Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own."

You are now deliberately pretending that I am talking about cross breeds. I am not, and you know I am not. I am talking about sub-species of animals and humans. The term "sub-species" is an ethology term and is not normally used to describe human ethnicity. But sub-species by definition equates exactly with ethnicity. You know it, and I know it. Confronted by indisputable proof that group behaviour is heritable, you slyly pretend that you don't understand.

AJ wrote

"So it’s not quite as bad as the time you attributed my pointing out that African Americans, at the rate their IQs are rising, will be smarter than whites in a few decades, if the trend continues. I’ll take that part back."

Of course you will. You know you stuck your foot right in it and now you need to retract to wriggle out of it.

AJ wrote

"But that doesn’t negate anything I’ve said. The fact remains that the influence that environmental factors have, are far greater effect on behaviour and intelligence than they are on physical attributes, and this is what you are currently trying to skirt around."

That is a nice little unsupported assertion you have there. I don't know how you are going to sell that to our readers, especially since you never bother to provide a supporting argument. My oft repeated arguments can be understood by any reader who studied high school genetics

I know, LEGO.

<<Population Genetics is a SUBFIELD of genetics.>>

Read my second post.

<<You are now deliberately pretending that I am talking about cross breeds.>>

No, I didn't say anything about cross breeds.

<<I am talking about sub-species of animals and humans.>>

I know, and I've already explained why races are not subspecies. You’re a little slow.

<<But sub-species by definition equates exactly with ethnicity.>>

“Nope. Subspecies can’t always breed successfully and, unlike with races, a member of one subspecies can never be more closely related to an individual in a different subspecies than they are to another individual within their own.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#332177)

<<... you slyly pretend that you don't understand.>>

Apparently not.

<<That is a nice little unsupported assertion you have there.>>

No, I've already supported it with an example:

"For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18600#331960)

Then there's those articles you won't read:

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability: http://goo.gl/65v7tw
How Heritability Misleads About Race: http://goo.gl/ZOU4ck
Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children: http://goo.gl/WLJ7YS
Race and IQ: Molecular Genetics as Deus ex Machina: http://goo.gl/yPwG5t
Race and Intelligence: http://goo.gl/AXUhwW

You're really struggling here, aren't you LEGO.

AJ wrote

"No, I didn't say anything about cross breeds."

Of course, not. "Always imply, but when challenged, deny." You IMPLIED you were talking about sub species, but then you said that these were usually not fertile. That meant that you were talking about hybrids like mules, beefaloes, and Ligers, which are offspring from two different species. But I was not, and you knew that all along. I was talking about sub-species, which are identifiably different members of the same species. Natural selection within particular and very different environments can cause organisms from within the same species to change into identifiably different sub species. That same process of natural selection applies to all organisms, animal and human. It results in sub species which are not only physically different, but temperamentally different as well.

The fact that genetics is a significant factor in behaviour within entire groups of organisms, is a provable premise. I know you are going to find some way to sneer at that, but it makes sense to every reader of this post. You on the other hand, have no contrary argument because you refuse to post any up. That is why you are losing.

AJ wrote

"No, I've already supported it with an example: "For example, one could ensure that a child grew up to be angry, and someone who probably scores low in IQ tests, by abusing them severely throughout their childhood, but their skin colour will remain the same.""

Excuse me? How does this relate to your invalid claim that genetics is only a significant factor in individuals, and not within groups of individuals? Do you really think that just posting up any sort of unintelligible babble is going to impress anybody?

AJ wrote

"Then there's those articles you won't read"

I am winning because I have done my homework and I can submit arguments which make sense, and which cross connect with each other to make even more sense. You want me to do your homework for you and then argue against my own premises. Like hell I will, sunshine

No, I didn’t imply that, LEGO

<<You IMPLIED you were talking about sub species …>>

I was talking about them specifically.

<<… but then you said that these were usually not fertile.>>

I said nothing about fertility. Although, that is one possible outcome in the offspring.

<<That meant that you were talking about hybrids like mules, beefaloes, and Ligers, which are offspring from two different species.>>

No, I said nothing about hybrids. I said subspecies can have difficulty breeding together, unlike ethnicities.

<<But I was not [talking about those], and you knew that all along.>>

That, I did.

<<I was talking about sub-species …>>

Correct.

The rest of what you have said about subspecies is correct. You just stuffed up at the point where you tried to make it look like I was conflating species with subspecies by introducing the notion of hybrids.

<<Excuse me? How does this relate to your invalid claim that genetics is only a significant factor in individuals, and not within groups of individuals?>>

You’re excused, and I haven’t said that. Once again, I was referring to heritability when discussing groups.

<<I am winning because I have done my homework and I can submit arguments which make sense ….>>

Yes, LEGO, the only one here who has committed a fallacy (fifteen of them, in fact, some of them multiple times) and has had to misrepresent what the other has said in order to formulate an argument, is “winning”

That’s adorable. Just keep telling yourself that.

And no, all you have posted is a bunch of oversimplifications that still have those problems you won’t address.

<<You want me to do your homework for you and then argue against my own premises.>>

You must have a lot of confidence in the articles' ability to convince if you think they’ll get you arguing against your own position. No wonder you’re too afraid to read them, given how desperately you need to maintain your position.

We couldn’t find out that we had spent most of our lives being wrong now, could we?

AJ wrote

"No, I said nothing about hybrids. I said subspecies can have difficulty breeding together, unlike ethnicities."

Could you post up your source that says that Cape Buffaloes "have difficulty" breeding with other African Buffaloes? Or that Grizzly Bears "have difficulty" breeding with other Brown Bears? Or that Siberian Tigers, or Sumatran Tigers, "have difficulty" breeding with other tigers, or for that matter, each other?

Sub-species are simply members of a species which have evolved in isolation to develop environment specific traits that set them apart in terms of appearance and behaviour from others within their own species. But they are still capable of breeding within their species and creating fertile offspring. Animal sub-species equate exactly with human ethnicities, and though you will never admit that because it proves you are wrong, anyone who has any idea of high school genetics can see it quite clearly.

AJ wrote

"You’re excused, and I haven’t said that. Once again, I was referring to heritability when discussing groups."

But what you wrote was unintelligible babble. You claim that genetics is a significant factor in individual human behaviour, but claim that genetics is "drowned out" into insignificance with individuals within groups. But you can not submit a reasoned argument that displays how that could happen. Instead you write complete blather and somehow think that it impresses us. it doesn't.

OK, so now I have once again showed how your premise is wrong. Now I am going to submit another reasoned argument. One which proves once again that behaviour within groups is heritable. Pacific Islanders are renowned for their low intellects. Anyone who is reading this and who has socialised with Pacific Islanders knows it to be true. And you don't even need an IQ test to confirm it's validity. It is obviously an ethnicity specific problem. They all have low intelligence, and the entire ethnicity pass that low IQ trait along to their kids. The low heritable IQ's of Pacific Islanders results them being notorious within western countries for their very disproportionate levels of welfare dependency and their high levels of criminal behaviour.