Re: Could anyone explain this please?

From: DesertCactus (desertcactus_at_emailcorner.net)
Date: 07/06/04 

Date: 6 Jul 2004 06:10:41 -0700

Going back to the original post. The website states the below:

"When "black" genes (genes that indicate African descent) are not
visible to the naked eye, they do not appear to have much effect. In
other words, children who have a black parent, grandparent, or
ancestor, but who look white and live within a white community, do not
have lower test scores than whites from completely European descent."

And what P.comm stated in the 'Black genes more dominant by a ratio of
4 to 1?' thread:

"What I know is this. People with a very small amount of black
ancestry are
usually considered black because they LOOK kinda black. They look
black to
other blacks, to themselves, and to everyone else. It's a LOOK that
people
do notice.

When blacks pass as white - totally pass, if they marry other blacks
that
also totally pass as white, forever from then on their kids look
white.
It's like whatever makes the "whole black appearance" comes in a
package -
and once it's bred out - it's gone and it stays gone unless the person
mates
with a black again. So it's my opinion that the ENTIRE "appearance"
that
people notice is a package, much like the package in ONE GENE that can
make
one lineage look and behave like another lineage if that gene is
inserted.
Such experiments were done - but not on humans. The entire appearance
and
behavior - the whole package - was in ONE GENE."

People who 'look white' as the article says, are probably going to be
overwhelmingly white, to the point where it's hardly a relevent point
anymore.

I don't think the 3 reasons the website gives under the hereditry
section fot the score difference not being genetic are very good at
all.(http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/scholarsprovide.htm)

The below is what they state:

Jencks and Phillips say that the argument over the genetic or
hereditary component of intelligence has raged throughout most of the
twentieth century. Many studies have been done to try to tease out the
effects of heredity on intelligence. Jencks and Phillips say that
while heredity clearly plays some part, the research is still unclear
on just how important it is. They say that research on racially mixed
children, research on black children raised in white homes, and
research on racially mixed children in other countries provide three
tentative conclusions:

Black or mixed-race children raised in white households have higher
test scores than black or mixed-race children raised in black
households.
When "black" genes (genes that indicate African descent) are not
visible to the naked eye, they do not appear to have much effect. In
other words, children who have a black parent, grandparent, or
ancestor, but who look white and live within a white community, do not
have lower test scores than whites from completely European descent.
In America, when black children raised in white homes reach
adolescence, their test scores drop (indicating a change in
environment rather than a change in the students' innate abilities).
Jencks and Phillips conclude that:

". . . we find it hard to see how anyone reading these studies with an
open mind could conclude that innate ability played a large role in
the black-white gap." (p. 20)

Any comments on the 3 reasons they give for it not being genetic?
Thanks.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Barcoding DAFNz
    ... >> African descent who have darker skin have a broader range of genes ... >> within this artificially selected group than the difference between ... > breeds of Africans, ...
    (sci.med)
  • "Genes are followers not leaders". Was: Birds of feather...
    ... of genes in heredity and evolution as expressed in her Developmental Plasticity ... have control systems for maintaining their structure and function. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Phylogenetic question for John Harshman
    ... Denoted by a single letter. ... by integers in the order the genes were gained horizontally. ... Either generation now picks up a new unit of Heredity for example, ... Now either units can undergo modification ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Genes are followers not leaders". Was: Birds of feather...
    ... > biologists still believe that genes determine the heredity of all the ... > synonymous to heredity and hereditary!). ... > a growing minority of distinguished biologists that do not endorse that view, ... the issue of whether genetic or environmental inheritance ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Charles Kennedy
    ... Nobody understand heredity properly. ... Even genes aren't ... you are what you eat ... upbringing and circumstances, and so effects cascade down the ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)