Come on, I asked for a citation

More cognitive, but we aren't from another planet

Surely it's massively researched

No, its not

So, you're saying you don't have evidence...

Animal domestication is much more different from behavioural patterns

Why would there be, can you find a study on human behavior that isn't circumstantial

Aggression was bred out of them

Hence, aggressive behavior can be passed on in one form or another

As can passivity

Also, knowledge, in some species

I think if you say "citation needed" for eveything, you are being a bit closed minded

These things are extremely complex

Indeed

@B[] Unless you've got the genome completely mapped out, you can't say for certain that the differences would only be "some small changes in appearance related DNA". Also, it doesn't make much sense that only appearance would've been affected since there is really only one enviromental factor in prehistoric times leading up to today where appearance might've granted a survival edge, and that would be the relative sunlight exposure (black skin protects better against high sun exposure, white skin allows for more absorption of sunlight in places that have fewer hours of sunlight of the year).

But there were so many more factors to take into account which has influenced the survival strategies and ways of thinking with prehistoric tribes than just sunlight.

The fact that we can interbreed "without issue" (disputed claim, but I'll go with it for the moment) doesn't prove anything, since humans could interbreed with far more removed variants of hominids, like the fact that white people are a result of hybridization between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, while black people have no genetic trace markers from homo neanderthalensis at all.

Neanderthals where further genetically removed from homo sapiens, in pre historic times than white people are today from black people, yet they could still interbreed.

Domestication is something completely different

There are literally genetic markers in some animals that control aggression (hence floppy ears)

Its behavior being changed through generations, if behavior couldn't be passed on, aggressive species would stay that way

Sharing knowledge is a completely different thing again

Not entirely, there will be mechanisms for it that we know nothing of

Recent research also suggest that behaviour and even memories are inherited https://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/ancestors-genetic-memories-passed-on-14-generations/

If you make a flatworm learn a maze, grind it up, feed it to another flatworm it will complete the maze as if learned, they manage to process memory by digestion

so its not out of the question

"This particular study looked at C. elegans nematodes, types of roundworms with very short lifespans. The researchers genetically engineered them to carry a glowing gene, a protein that fluoresced, so they could track it under UV light.

They then placed the worms in a cold environment and watched as the gene glowed, but dimly. Moving them to a warm environment, they saw the gene glow far more brightly. When they were moved back to the cold room, the gene continued to glow, which suggested the “memory” of the warm environment was maintained.

Incredibly, when these worms reproduced, this memory, via this glowing gene, was passed on through an unprecedented 14 generations, no matter whether they received it via eggs or sperm. This means that their offspring would be “aware” of the warm environment even without having experienced it themselves."

That's cool

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence#Global_variation_of_IQ_scores

I don't like cross correlations between race and intelligence

Its too complex a thing

@Seven Proxies

> Unless you've got the genome completely mapped out, you can't say for certain that the differences would only be "some small changes in appearance related DNA". Also, it doesn't make much sense that only appearance would've been affected since there is really only one enviromental factor in prehistoric times leading up to today where appearance might've granted a survival edge, and that would be the relative sunlight exposure (black skin protects better against high sun exposure, white skin allows for more absorption of sunlight in places that have fewer hours of sunlight of the year).

I obviously don't have the human genome mapped out, and of course if I did, I wouldn't have the ability to comprehend it in a meaningful way. But, what I can do is look at how long it took for other features to develop and hypothesise about how long it would take to make significant changes to the brain.

From an evolutionary perspective, all races pretty much faced the same types of hunter/gatherer survival scenarios where they had come down from their trees and began to make tools. There's not much reason for them to have massively changed.

> The fact that we can interbreed "without issue" (disputed claim

Disputed by who? I'm talking strictly from a "does a valid baby get made" perspective, not any social issues you may or may not have.

> doesn't prove anything, since humans could interbreed with far more removed variants of hominids, like the fact that white people are a result of hybridization between homo sapiens and homo neanderthalensis, while black people have no genetic trace markers from homo neanderthalensis at all.

They were still quite close.

> Neanderthals where further genetically removed from homo sapiens, in pre historic times than white people are today from black people, yet they could still interbreed.

It's because they weren't massively different. If you can still breed with another race/species, then your genetic markers haven't changed too much.

@OneTrueGod Of course it is. But it has to be put in there if someone argues that the only differences between races are "appearance based".

Now while the exact cause of IQ differences is yet to be pinned down, the fact that differences do exist also makes it impossible to claim that the only differences between races are appearance related.

Well, as a baseline, I think the west produced more intelligence, just by comparing technological progress by orders of magnitude

but that could be due to location and resources

@OneTrueGod You quoted ILFS... But anyway, it just sounds like a hormone is affecting growth, in the same way oestrogen does in human babies: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6335/320

@B[] I'm not regering to any social issues either. I'm refering to the possibility of various genetic diseases and syndromes that might result from interbreeding between races that do not occur in monoracial breeding.

Don't start strawmanning me, because I haven't done it to you.

As to the other argument, you're kind of moving the goalposts. The capability of interbreeding does not prove "sameness" or dismiss racial differences as irrelevant.

sargon ever come here?

I think differences in IQ are mostly cultural, it's well known that a) some of these Countries have shitty education and b) different races living within western nations tend to be raised differently within their communities.

@B[] No I quote the study which IFLS brings up. It's not IFLS making the claims, it's the people behind the study.

If you've got tangible arguments against the study, then I'll hear them. But I won't accept any shooting of messengers based simply on who they are.

What's ifls

@B[] IQ is not about education. IQ is a measurement of logical reasoning, which even completely educated people are capable of.

@Seven Proxies

> I'm not regering to any social issues either. I'm refering to the possibility of various genetic diseases and syndromes that might result from interbreeding between races that do not occur in monoracial breeding.

Again, cite them and I'll concede.

> Don't start strawmanning me, because I haven't done it to you.

I didn't? I said "may or may not", i.e., I don't know your position.