Just on bone density alone:
https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/82/2/429/2823249
* Granted, if you are talking about diet and nutrition in previous generations accounting for some change down the line then that wasn't tested, but you'd need to be more specific.
Interesting read, but that study says it's subjects ranged in age from 25-36, yet concluded this:
Racial Differences in Bone Density...
We conclude that racial differences in BMD are established early in childhood
I'd like to see a study looking at dietary/nutritional or behavioral differences in young children before just accepting this as an inherent genetic difference.
So you're saying that the diseases a group is or isn't exposed to influences their susceptibility but selective pressures on intelligence has no effect? Interesting
I am definitely saying the former, yes. It's pretty basic biology and immunology at this point to note that populations are very susceptible to pathogens their bodies have not been exposed to, and therefore have no learned response to.
As for the latter, I'm just very much not convinced. The two are so wildly different topics, not to mention that intelligence is significantly harder to measure than immunological function, that comparing the two as you're attempting to do is neither interesting nor particularly illuminating of anything at all.
There's more but I used it rhetorically. Surely I don't need to explain that?
I know you used it rhetorically. Rhetorically means "in terms of rhetoric or speech intended to impress or persuade."
To "impress or persuade" is exactly why people use phrases like "and so on," or "etc." or "and xyz" - to give the impression their position is backed up by lots of evidence. If there are other things you feel illustrate your point, then specify them.
A quick look brought me to one
article that says (emphases mine):
Distribution of Blood Types
These patterns of ABO, Rh, and Diego blood type distributions are not similar to those for skin color or other so-called "racial" traits. The implication is that the specific causes responsible for the distribution of human blood types have been different than those for other traits that have been commonly employed to categorize people into "races." Since it would be possible to divide up humanity into radically different groupings using blood typing instead of other genetically inherited traits such as skin color, we have more conclusive evidence that the commonly used typological model for understanding human variation is scientifically unsound.
--
- Effects of medications (e.g. in Medicine in the UK a first line drug for high blood pressure is something called an ACE inhibitor, providing you are younger than 55. However, due to differences in genetics blacks would be started on a different drug called a calcium channel blocker which has a totally different method of action.)
@UKMikey already handled this one.
- Differences in lab test results (e.g. eGFR results for blacks)
While I can find some sources confirming that eGFR results do indeed seem to be different among races, I haven't found anything that studies
why those differences exist. And that's the question here, isn't it? Do you have any sources that conclude eGFR disparities are due to genetic makeup rather than environmental factors? Any other lab results other than eGFR? Or is this another rhetorical trick?
Would it be better if I put "etc"?
Nope, it would still be the same transparent effort to inflate your argument.
This is all without going into more social differences like gang membership, % incarceration, political affiliation and so on
How exactly would social differences lend any credence to your claim of inherent biological differences?
