Is the evolution theory racist?

[jaded]

All dogs evolved from the wolf. They all are 99% DNA identical...yet look at the Great Dane and the Chihuahua.

I believe that all men evolved from the ape...and continued to evolve into different races as did the dog over a very long time. Factors such as migration amongst many others lead to environmental adaptations. I believe man is still evolving and always will...as do all species. Dark skin adapted to block sunlight...light skin adapter to compensate for lack of it for better Vitamin D absorption. Many different factors differentiated the races of all species on the planet. All men's origins can probably be traced to algae...which evolved from sunlight's affect of a microorganism in stagnate water...and was probaly one of the oldest life-forms. The only exception is AlexKid. I don't know where the fuk he came from.

[2Fast]

Link please........

Does it matter if I provide evidence. Its obvious that you prefer to live in your politically correct bubble.

[TBear]

Thats not true. African children who are adopted why white parents still perform worse at school, at IQ tests and so on than white children

Last week you made a thread saying "negros evolved into Caucasians"

I have zero tolerance for your agenda. Make another thread and test me!

[siablo14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnes...Adoption_Study


Harvard psychologists took a look at how black children adopted by well off upper-middle class white families at a very young age perform on IQ tests once they grow up in white families with good socioeconomic conditions. Black children adopted by white parents average 89 on IQ tests at age 17 (slightly better than the 85 average for blacks nationally). White children who grew up in the same households and had white biological parents on average scored 109. Even with the same socioeconomic upbringing, the racial IQ gap remains.
The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study examined the IQ test scores of 130 black or interracial children adopted by advantaged white families. The aim of the study was to determine the contribution of environmental and genetic factors to the poor performance of black children on IQ tests as compared to white children. The studies' general findings were that the IQs of children of a particular race did not differ significantly depending on whether they were raised by their biological parents or by adoptive parents of a different race. The gap between black and white IQ scores remained even if growing up in the same family.

Some have suggested that differing pre-adoption experiences, including age at adoption, explain the racial patterns in the results. Lee (2009) argues against this interpretation, pointing out that there is no evidence from other studies that variables such as age at adoption exert an effect on IQ lasting until late adolescence. In the Minnesota study, the proportion of IQ variance associated with pre-adoption variables declined from .32 to .13 between ages 7 and 17. Lee further suggests that causality may run from IQ and other behavioral variables to differences in pre-adoption experiences rather than the other way around, and that race by itself as a visible characteristic may have affected pre-adoption experience.[4]

The average difference in IQ scores between the testing at age 7 and testing at age 17, seen in all groups, may be due to the use of different IQ tests.[2] The original study used Stanford–Binet Form L-M, WISC or WAIS tests, depending on age, while the follow-up used WISC-R or WAIS-R. Weinberg, Scarr and Waldman point describe the effect of this change in test:

Declines in IQ scores have been documented when individuals are retested on a revised form of an original measure, as well as when a test used at a first administration was normed earlier than a test used at a subsequent administration (see Flynn, 1984, for a review). For example, the decline in Full-Scale IQ score from the WAIS to the WAIS-R averaged 6.8 points across a number of studies (reviewed by Sattler, 1988) and was 7.5 points in a sample of 72 35- to 44-year-olds tested as part of the standardization of the WAIS-R (Wechsler, 1981). This is precisely the test combination used for adoptive parents in our study.

Furthermore, the data needed to be corrected for the Flynn effect as stated by Ulrich Neisser:

Everyone involved in this debate is well-aware that such comparisons must be corrected for the Flynn effect: Mean scores on all standard IQ tests seem to rise steadily at about 0.3 points per year. In the Minnesota study, where the tests used in the follow-up were generally not the same as those that had been given the first time, these corrections are complex and must be made on an individual basis. Until they have been made–Waldman et al. reported that they are in progress–raw figures like those above are relatively meaningless.[5]

The data corrected for the Flynn effect was published in 2000 by John Loehlin in the Handbook of Intelligence