On Nov 9, 9:15 pm, "Megasaurus" streamyx.com> wrote:

If that's the case, why is it that East Asian IQ scores were roughly
the same as they are right now, even though back in the 1950s most of
those countries were roughly at African's level of development?

Furthermore, let's compare first world Japan with third world China.
In spite of a typical Japanese worth roughly 70 times that of an
average mainland Chinese, their IQ scores are remarkably similar.
Shouldn't you expect Chinese scores (like life expectancy which
depends on 'development') to be much lower?

"In 1959, [the American Association on Mental Deficiency] set the IQ
threshold for mental retardation at 85. The civil rights movement of
the next decade forced psychologists to rethink this boundary, because
half the African American population fell below it. In 1973,
responding to this concern, AAMD (by then AAMR) changed the threshold
for retardation from IQ 85 to IQ 70. The boundary moved south by one
standard deviation! The proportion of blacks below the threshold
instantly dropped from about 50 percent to 12 percent."

Of course, you can now define and redefine things. I'd just point out
that some defense lawyers love to use mental retardation to get (often
black) criminals off by saying they're mentally retarded.

And let's put things more diplomatically. A typical African student is
cognitive challenged.

I've posted this before. You have to read this link to understand this
implication. The fact that the Ice Ages only affected the branch of
Africans who left Africa has HUGE ramifications -- essentially all non-
Africans are "African Plus" -- Africa with something more, because
only the fittest survived. If people evolved differently, you cannot
compare apples and oranges. But since everyone came from Africa, you
know which group has endured more hardships and weathered more storms
-- and those who are the fittest survived. So let me post this again:

To summarize a few salient points: At 85,000 years ago a group from
East Africa crossed the Red Sea and headed towards Arabian Peninsula
towards India. All non-African people are descended from this group.
In other words, humans are first and foremost divided not as whites or
non-whites, Asian or non-Asian (if you permit me to use these
'sociological' terms), but rather, Africans and non-Africans. Just
look at any evolutionary tree from any evolutionary or anthropology
textbook and you'll find total agreement.

That implies this: every non-African is virtually like brothers and
sisters to each other, vis-a-vis Africans. Africans cannot say the
same about
themselves - in fact most of the human genetic diversity is still
found in
Africa.

That is something to ponder - non blacks in non-African countries are
really the genetic outgroup and are very close genetic cousins
(relatively
speaking) to each other, **versus** Africans. Everyone including
Europeans, Indians,
East Asians, Amerindians etc are actually descended from this very
small out-of-Africa small group.

The second point is at 74,000 years ago. Mt. Toba erupted, killing all
but 10,000 adults outside Africa. That is a very very important point.
These 10,000 adults
could be lucky, but based on what we know about differential survival
in the face of a harsh environmental constraint, these individuals
were likely highly selected for. But that means that there was a
further genetic bottleneck for this group of individuals. In other
words, a very very profound "founder effect". Such *drastic*
environmental change meant harsh selection pressures, and based on
what we know, were/are ripe for selection of traits that aid(ed)
survival. Africans in Africa were just cruising along, and did NOT
experience this selection pressure. Likely, most of the unfit
survived.

Likewise, another mini ice age took place from 52k to 45k. Again more
selection pressure, Africa was once again spared. The East-Asian split
and European split is typically around 30-40k (not shown explicitly in
video), but then, what happened was the last Ice Age, 22k-19 k, where
groups were once again de-populated, with only isolated surviving
groups locked in refuges. The Bering land bridge was broken, leading
to genetic isolation between NE Asians and Amerindians. that continue
to spread 15K years before. Finally, at 10k, the final collapse of
the Ice AGe heralded the dawn of agriculture. Throughout all these
events, Africa was spared.

What does all the above mean? Do you see how many bottlenecks the
population that moved out of Africa experienced? That implies a *huge*
selection mechanism for the struggle of existence or survival.

Well, is there enough time for selection? Think lactose intolerance.
That trait didn't emerge until agriculture, around 10-13k years ago,
where having the lactose tolerant gene conferred a survival advantage.
Roughly 98%% of Swedes but only 2%% of Thais are lactose tolerant today.
And that's only a few thousand years. Think about what 100,000 years
can do.

But here's the kicker. What's more important is this following
implication that people don't think about: people love to mindlessly
trumpet just how 'advanced' Africans are, because they're here first
(in ethiopia). However, if the out of Africa hypothesis is true, on
the contrary, that precisely demonstrates
how *primitive* Africans are. Here's why.

If the multi-regional hypothesis were correct, you can make the
argument that different groups have evolved separately to their own
niches, and thus are not strictly comparable. They're very different,
so they have some advantages here, some disadvantages there, like
comparing apples and oranges. They're not strictly comparable.

BUT if you have everyone coming from Africa, you're essentially saying
that non-Africans are, through selection pressures, a 'new and
improved' version of the African. They have weathered more ice
storms, survived harsh conditions, and only the best of the best
passed through the sieve, while their ancestral cousins in AFrica
didn't. Non-Africans are not merely not African: they're in fact
African, but the best of the best African - using the world 'best' in
value-terms to denote that nature has already weeded out the weakest
one. They're the new and improved version if you will. They are the
"African plus".

And if you're still not convinced, let me ask you this. Did Homo
Sapiens emerge earlier or later than Homo Erectus? What about
gorillas and orangutans (great apes)? What about Gibbons (lesser
apes)? What about monkeys? What we regard as simple, primitive life
forms have usually been here longer on earth. Think bacteria vs
mammals. By this criterion, and by all that I explained above,
Africans are actually more 'primitive' than just about any other
population group on the planet - **precisely** because they've been
here
the longest and is the group that has been subjected to the least
amount of natural selection subsequently.

I'm not deliberately trying to argue here. I'm just stating the
obvious to anyone who even has the slightest understanding of
Darwinism or evolution. And so it is always amusing that so many
proponents of this 'out of Africa' hypothesis just don't quite seem to
get it and just mind-numbingly chant wow, Africa is the cradle of
humans etc etc etc.

There is something called regression towards the mean. It is
interesting to note that black parents in the US from the top income
bracket actually score lower than white parents from the low income
bracket.

"A well known phenomenon in genetics is regression to the mean. For
instance, first degree relatives (such as children and parents) of
persons who exhibit extreme values of a genetically influenced
variable, such as intelligence, are closer to the population mean than
those persons are. Those parents exhibit their extreme values because
they just happen to inherit the genes that made for them, or were
affected by one-time environmental effects. In the next generation,
after the genes are reshuffled, the children are less likely to have
inherited the genes that make for extreme values or to have been
affected by these environmental
factors, and hence have IQs closer to the population mean. When the
populations are genetically different, the means that the children are
regressing
to are different. This explains the otherwise odd fact that the black-
white IQ difference is smallest in the offspring of the lowest socio-
economic class parents and increases steadily with the socio-economic
class of the parents. This is predicted by genetic theory if the
populations are genetically different, but is difficult to explain in
theories in which racial differences are *purely* environmental."

"Siblings are especially interesting to study in the context of
regression to the mean because they are exposed to the same
environments. Jensen describes the results of a study he did that
involved 14 schools with over 900 white sibling pairs and over 500
black sibling pairs. "In this school district , blacks and whites who
were perfectly matched for a true-score IQ of 120 had siblings whose
average IQ was 113 for whites and 99 for blacks. In about 33 percent
of the white sibling pairs both siblings had an IQ of 120 or above, as
compared with only about 12 percent of black siblings." This is a
predictable result of regression to the mean when the frequency of
intelligence-enhancing genes differs in the two populations, and is
predicted by a genetic theory of racial differences. There is no
environmental theory that predicts such differences in the siblings of
highly intelligent children."

Fact: Black students coming from families earning over 70,000 are
doing worse on their SATS, on average--it's always on average--than
white students from families in the lowest income group.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/1995-SAT-Income2.png

Wrong. Transracial adoption studies demonstrate otherwise.

Children's background Age 7 IQ Age 17 IQ Age 17 GPA Age 17 class
rank (percentile) Age 17 school aptitude (percentile)
Adopting parents tested when children were 7 and 17 120 115 - - -
Nonadopted, with two White biological parents 117 109 3.0 64 69
Adopted, with two White biological parents 112 106 2.8 54 59
Adopted, with one White and one Black biological parent 109 99 2.2
40 53
Adopted, with two Black biological parents 97 89 2.1 36 42

Blacks are still blacks......as Kipling wrote, " That the Dog returns
to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire...."

And if anything, those with one white and one black should be the
brunt of jokes - in fact there is a study showing how there are
disadvantages to being multiracial. And yet they still do better than
blacks with 2 biological parents.

Evidence is overwhelming:
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

It is not falsehoods that matter; rather it is truth that hurts.
Judging from the sheer hysteria from the public and the media, with
not one iota of counterevidence that Africans have higher IQs than
European populations, you get a pretty good idea as to who is right
and who is not.