[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think the common argument is that these genetic traits aren't uniformly grouped between different populations of humans, because there tends to be just as much genetic variation within what we consider a race as there is between them.

The "more variation within groups than between groups" argument is a red herring. Let me give an example. Let's look at something like height. For argument sake, let's say white people vary from 4'6" to 7', with an average height of 6'. Further, let's say Asians vary from 4'4" to 6'10", with an average height of 5'6". The range of heights for either population (2'6") is much greater than the difference in average height (6"), but would you then say that means the difference in average is meaningless? If someone were to say that whites were on average taller than Asians, would you claim they are incorrect because there's more variation within each group? Of course not.

Things like IQ and brain size are also muddled by nutrition, poverty, etc.

Absolutely, but there is also a strong genetic component to IQ. The current scientific understanding is that genetics determine a kind of upper limit on IQ, which can be raise slightly (5-10 points at most) by the perfect environment, but can be lowered greatly (30 points or more) by a very bad environment.

Of course, it's not a very sound argument, especially when you have traits like hemophilia, sickle cell anemia, and fused rhomboid muscles that are highly clustered within otherwise "genetically diverse" populations within a single racial construct. Genetics are allowed to affect behavior in dogs, but not in humans apparently... golden retrievers and labrador retrievers have different nuances in their personality, yet are extremely genetically similar.

Good point.

And talking about the implications of this, I'd be willing to bet culture is still 90% responsible for behavior. If you credit genetics for the success and prosperity (or failure) of a race, it's hard to account for the fact that merely 1,000 years ago, Europe was an unsophisticated backwater barely able to hang on against superior Arabic civilizations. Also the genetic similarity between steppe nomads, Han Chinese, and Native Americans in spite of their very disparate outcomes. It also doesn't help that it's pretty much illegal to conduct actual science about this.

Yeah, the lack of science in this area is unfortunate. It's not so much that it's illegal, but funding is nearly non-existent.

On the topic of culture, it's without a doubt true that both genetics and culture play a role in behavior. I'm starting to think that the two are intertwined though, and that cultures develop based on biological imperatives. For instance, if you have a culture that values a certain trait, individuals will begin being selected for that trait. If we lived in a society where food acquisition required long distance running, we would end up selecting for genes that are best for long distance running. Our cultures specialize to deal with the challenges that they face. Going back to your dog example, we've been breeding dogs for certain traits for thousands of years, and really we kind of do the same with selecting our own mates. We look for traits that we believe our children will benefit from having.

And just incidentally, the rise in Europe may actually be attributable to the black plague. There is a theory floating about that since the black plague killed so many people and tended to go after the poor more often (due to bad sanitation), that this had a side effect of raising the average IQ through a rather brutal form of selection pressure.