@ Fasces - For significant evolutionary divergence like you're talking about to occur populations need to be isolated. But we know for a fact, we have genetic and archaeological evidence that humans have not been genetically isolated from one another for any significant amount of time in history. Gene flow and other forms of exchange have existed between continents, and all over the world throughout human history.

@Invictus: I would like to see someone with an IQ of 80 raised in your rich neighborhood and someone with an IQ of 120 raised in your poor neighborhood. Assuming the modern day public vs private school education which one would be more likely to get a scholarship in a IVY league?

@Mafia: 12,000 years is plenty, it was long enough to create varying skin colour differences. Its exactly invictus put it:
"Race is just about as important as eye color. Sure, there are some small biological differences (like how most people in East Asia are lactose intolerant and how blacks with sickle blood cells have a resistance to malaria), but when it comes to other traits any differences are produced solely by culture."
So malaria is more commonly found in Africa, and those with African descent are more resistant to it, does that not make sense for an evolutionary trait to have been developed to combat local diseases?

Don't you fucking dare appropriate what I said to support your racist beliefs, you bigoted Canuck.

What I said was basically that evolution makes certain populations develop certain biological characteristics as a response to their environment (like Asians not eating dairy and Africans living with malaria). That's a far cry from saying race as such can affect IQ. It's a matter of the individual's opportunities in life, and is not biologically tied to what skin color they might have. Ergo the eye color comparison.

"What I said was basically that evolution makes certain populations develop certain biological characteristics as a response to their environment (like Asians not eating dairy and Africans living with malaria). That's a far cry from saying race as such can affect IQ. It's a matter of the individual's opportunities in life, and is not biologically tied to what skin color they might have. Ergo the eye color comparison."
Well as you said, to quote you:
"certain populations develop certain biological characteristics as a response to their environment"
Isn't brain power a biological characteristic? Or was it something other then evolution that caused humans to be smarter then caterpillars?

I hope you get attacked by a moose.

@Fasces - name one species where different breeds/races show distinct differences in intellectual capacity. And if you say dogs, I argue that everyone thinks their chosen breed of canine pet is smarter than all the others *and* even if it is true, dogs have been bred to enhance those characteristics along with personality. Man has intervened so evolution doesn't apply in dog breeds.

"I hope you get attacked by a moose."
I hope you get attacked by whatever eats mushrooms in your local area. Cause you're a fucking mushroom.

"@Fasces - name one species where different breeds/races show distinct differences in intellectual capacity. And if you say dogs, I argue that everyone thinks their chosen breed of canine pet is smarter than all the others *and* even if it is true, dogs have been bred to enhance those characteristics along with personality. Man has intervened so evolution doesn't apply in dog breeds."
Natural selection and artificial selection (which forced breeding did in dogs) still causes evolutionary traits to be adopted.

You didn't show me a natural selection example where different breeds/races within the same species have different intellectual capacity. Until you do, being an intellectual racist is not a valid view.

Epic fail, Fasces.

I already gave an example:
Negroids (average IQ of 88) and Mongoloids (average IQ of 106)

"12,000 years is plenty, it was long enough to create varying skin colour differences. Its exactly invictus put it:" - That might be so but no population has been isolated from any other population for anything approaching that kind of time, gene flow has existed, for all intents and purposes, constantly throughout human history, between all populations. (Incidentally this is also what makes the equivalency between human race and dog breed a false one. For the purposes of this argument, we can say that dog breeds do exist in genetic isolation from one another.)
Genetic traits do distribute based partly on geography, what's interesting is that not all traits distribute along the same geographic lines. Blood type is an interesting case for instance. It does distribute geographically but the lines it follows aren't the same divisions that mark what we would consider different racial groups. The point is, you will find that there is as much genetic variation within a race as without and two people of different races can be more genetically similar to one another than to other people of the same "race". That's what makes the concept fictitious.

One final note. Even if I accepted that racial differences could result in an intellectual difference, that would not make racism OK. Because the definition of racism assumes superiority of one race over another. If one race did have higher IQs, the other might be better athletes. Neither race would be superior to the other.

Here is Webster's definition of racism.

Definition of RACISM
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2: racial prejudice or discrimination

So recognizing differences and adaptability is not racism, but having a belief of superiority because of those differences is, and racism is socially unacceptable as a result.

IQ tests aren't a valid measure, and no results like that are taken seriously among people who actually study things like this. You really should know that by now.

As Mafia points out, IQ tests aren't a valid measure. They are culturally biased and measure what someone has learned at the start, making assumptions about the base competency in certain skill sets of the test taker. In fact, there are some I do poorly on because they use color schemes in the pattern recognition. When you are color blind, you can't see those colors. That doesn't mean color blind people are stupid.

"One final note. Even if I accepted that racial differences could result in an intellectual difference, that would not make racism OK. Because the definition of racism assumes superiority of one race over another. If one race did have higher IQs, the other might be better athletes. Neither race would be superior to the other."
If thats the case then I am not as racist as you believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_sports

"IQ tests aren't a valid measure, and no results like that are taken seriously among people who actually study things like this. You really should know that by now."
My other sources measure brain size and race. Stating that Mongoloids have the largest brains and Negroids have the smallest, however this sources was a handout I got in bio in October that I have long since lost.

"The point is, you will find that there is as much genetic variation within a race as without and two people of different races can be more genetically similar to one another than to other people of the same "race""
Its like the same way that some people (you for instance) can be genetically closer to a monkey then to other humans.

"My other sources measure brain size and race. Stating that Mongoloids have the largest brains and Negroids have the smallest, however this sources was a handout I got in bio in October that I have long since lost." - When was this bio class, the mid 19th century? This kind of thing is completely outdated and invalid. It's shameful that a school would continue perpetuating this complete bullshit.

Because insulting me and calling me a monkey is an effective counterargument and completely makes me wrong. I think you've lost this argument Fasces.

"When was this bio class, the mid 19th century? This kind of thing is completely outdated and invalid. It's shameful that a school would continue perpetuating this complete bullshit."
The article was dated 96...

Just because the article itself is relatively recent that doesn't mean the information in it isn't incorrect, out of date, misconstrued or otherwise faulty. Without seeing the handout I obviously can't determine which it is, but I doubt it really had any validity.

"Because insulting me and calling me a monkey is an effective counterargument and completely makes me wrong. I think you've lost this argument Fasces.'
Nah, the point is just as valid as the one you made. I should note that I am talking about averages, I am not saying all Caucasians are smarter then Negroids, I am just saying on average they are, the reasons have to be more then simple social-economic upbringing

"Just because the article itself is relatively recent that doesn't mean the information in it isn't incorrect, out of date, misconstrued or otherwise faulty. Without seeing the handout I obviously can't determine which it is, but I doubt it really had any validity."
I just spent a few minutes looking for the article and to my luck:
http://discovermagazine.com/1993/oct/sexracebrainsand288

its actually dated 93, not 96 I apologize for getting the date wrong...

"The article was dated 96... " As in 1896. :-)

And @Fasces - ad hominem attacks? Really? That's something I would do, but still...

"Nah, the point is just as valid as the one you made." - No it isn't! The thing I referred to is quite common, it's not like, a rare remote possibility, it actually does happen with appreciable frequency. No person alive today is actually more like a monkey than another human.
"I am not saying all Caucasians are smarter then Negroids, I am just saying on average they are, the reasons have to be more then simple social-economic upbringing" - But even on average that isn't the case. What you term "simple social-economic uprbringing" really can account for that difference in average IQ scores. And the fact that you describe it as simple really does show how deeply you misunderstand the issue. Socio-economic background and racial background in society are hugely important determining IQ scores, and every other outcome you can possibly measure or quantify. Seriously, the English language does not provide me with words superlative enough to overstate the importance of Socioeconomic status and structural biases in regards to issues like this.

"And @Fasces - ad hominem attacks? Really? That's something I would do, but still..."
you've never scene me do it before. Wow I need to argue with you more frequently.

""The article was dated 96... " As in 1896. :-)"
October 1993.

"No it isn't! The thing I referred to is quite common, it's not like, a rare remote possibility, it actually does happen with appreciable frequency. No person alive today is actually more like a monkey than another human. "
Monkeys can solve basic math faster then humans...
Monkeys have opposable thumbs as do humans...
the list goes on
"But even on average that isn't the case. What you term "simple social-economic uprbringing" really can account for that difference in average IQ scores."
Then explain why Mongoloids, who generally have poorer upbringings the Caucasians have higher IQs... (101 v 106, its within the margin of error but still)
social-economic upbringing doesn't account for everything...

Fasces, I'm not sure if you read that article in its entirety because all it does is disprove your talking points. I would suggest rereading it.

"racial background in society are hugely important determining IQ scores"
I agree racial background does make a difference in ones intelligence

"Seriously, the English language does not provide me with words superlative enough to overstate the importance of Socioeconomic status and structural biases in regards to issues like this."
You believe in nurture of nature, I believe the opposite, thats the one difference between us.

Yeah, but it's not just a matter of just, what I believe vs what you believe. I'm talking about the very foundations of modern social science. You're just talking out of your ass to justify your preexisting prejudices.

I have to go, but don't think that means this arguement is over