but what about your evidence

?

consensus on the idea perhaps but I think genetic statistics speak for themselves

@Ano , you need evidence to back up your claim

also, there are still race realist researchers, that get published. their publications are just riddled with holes and thus justly picked apart by academia

@Forte58 , I've seen some already

e.g the bell curve

@Ano Galileo Galilei had evidence behind him

so therefore your point can work on him

I understand

And the catholic church were in no way experts on astronomy, they specialized in theology and political games.

Before I spam studies, when I find my secret racist folders, I must reject the the assumed idea that the rejection of materialistic internationalism is predicated on whether or not biological race exists. Humans are naturally tribalistic and I believe there is more truth in our natural predispositions towards strangers than can be dismissed with education and the civilizing process. Note this is not an argument.

Good, at least you try to state that what you are doing is not stating an argument, just your personal view.

not stalling, I have to find out why half the features on my documents aren't working, could def take a while tho, idk

While I'm waiting, I fixed the problem I think, it's important to talk about the studies I use. They will never say within them that "race is real" and are easily definable in every scenario. These individually look in to racial metrics and provide insight therein. I'm not denying any nuance from either side of this debate by spamming these.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15508000

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(15)00671-5

http://www.unz.com/isteve/nyt-white-black-a-murky-distinction-grows-still-murkier/

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html

there is so much wrong with nichola wades shit

on the second studty I have a more recent study about race within the biomedical field and its utterly dangerous inaccruacy as to prescriptions and treatments

theres also a significant difference between anctesry and race and their defintiions and specificness in regards to your third study

https://www.nature.com/articles/mp201185

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289608000305

there is no objective definitionf of intelligence

nor measurement

http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

same for your second study, which focuses evn further by talking about *g* and cognitive ability assessment, which is far from any sort of objectivemeasurement of intelligence

that jbhe website looks extremely outdated

and it talks about SAT scores in the 2000s

that was *years* ago

Cognitive ability is heritable. Regression towards the mean will highlight racial trends regardless. This is showing that the brain is subject to differences at minimum, therefore no blank slates.

cognitive ability and the *g* factor are not, however, objective measures of intelligence

and the heritability of these things is still under debate

I disagree, how is cognitive ability not an objective measure of intelligence?

On Consensus http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1994egalitarianfiction.pdf

Its a measure of potential economic success under contemporary conditions. Not of intelligence.

Thats 25 years old

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1977-07996-001

It first posits racial intelligence is real, based on "intelligence tests"

As discussed, these tests are *not* objective measures of intelligence