I see no reason to be civil with uncivil people, and leftists are far from civil.

The general figure for the heritability of IQ, according to an authoritative American Psychological Association report, is 0.45 for children, and rises to around 0.75 for late teens and adults.

Citation needed.

Yes, extreme poverty resulting in malnutrition or abuse can lower IQ. But the base IQ was genetic. So much so that adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. You can fuck kids up, but you can't really make them much smarter than they were born, due to their genetics.

And of course as predicted the handwave:

And the ad hominem:

Better question: are you perhaps a self-hating white? Why else deny the completely obvious, well-studied, and easily available via a google search research on the heritability of intelligence and the differences between geographically separated human haplogroups? I say specifically "self-hating white" because you can't really be anything else. No one else in the world believes this tripe. Go to China, to Japan, to India, to any non-western scientifically developed nation and ask their anthropologists and geneticists if different groups of humans (for lack of a better word "races") have differences in intelligence distributions and they'll say "of course." Ask the Africans in Africa even, they'll agree. Only white-guilt plagued western leftists will cover their eyes and ears and shout insults. Oh and then will turn right around and claim their moral superiority over the religious and conservatives because they FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE.

Science does not agree with you. Early school programs do not boost IQ and adopted adults’ IQ is so unrelated to the IQ of their adoptive mother that in some studies the correlation shows up as nonsignificantly negative. So Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's adopted African kids are going to have IQs the correlate to their birth parents, and not to Brangelinas', even though they had it as good or better than Shiloh.

I'm not assuming. It's science. Intelligence is inherited. It is nature, not nurture.

Also, as I predicted, the specious handwave:

Followed by the ad hominem:

Yeah, shame on the Democratic Party for supporting a lifelong Democrat who had done massive amounts of work to support other Democrats over the Socialist who became a Democrat recently only so he could run for President. They should've been more like the Republicans!

" it is "obviously wrong". Why is that?"

Russian astroturfers all over the net.

But that's not how selection pressure works. It's "you must be at least this fit to ride this ride." Do you understand the difference between a low-pass filter and a high-pass filter?

What causes "income-earning potential," then? Are people born with "doctoring potential," which lets them score high on an IQ test? What are the independent variables and what are the dependent variables here?

To be honest, I don't even know what you're arguing for here. Do you think every group of humans (however you slice them) has the same distribution of intelligence? What theory compatible with evolutionary biology explains this?

This is the type of meaningless, muddying-the-waters handwave I was talking about. It doesn't matter what you call the different animal group: species, haplogroup, ethnicity, race, "bunch of people who vaguely stayed in this geographic area for this length of time." At the end of the day you have a group of animals to which a different selection pressure was applied over tens of thousands of years, which results in different traits.

Unless of course, man is some kind of magical animal where populations can be separated by 50,000 years plus, and yet have the only changes be cosmetic. How did that happen? Was it God?

Intelligence being good for you is not the same as stupidity being bad for you. We generally talk about selection pressure working against a trait, not for it. A seasonal climate with harsh winters that needs to be prepared for selects against those who cannot engage in long term planning. In a temperate or tropical setting with food available year-round low intelligence isn't selected against.

What is regression to the mean.

But correlation is required for causation. Are you suggesting intelligence is irrelevant to income-earning potential for most people?

There's that ad hominem. Please argue science instead of your politics.

Okay. Reality is a bunch of 4channers spammed Nazi frogs to troll the media and the Clinton campaign. So the people posting the frogs aren't evil KKK nazis, it's that hacker on steroids known as 4chinz.

In terms of mining, I'm curious about mineral concentrations on Mars. On Earth billions of years of geologic, hydrologic and biologic processes have concentrated minerals for us to mine. What about a geologically dead world like Mars? Same thing with people talking about asteroid mining. Yes, there's millions of tons of platinum on that there asteroid. There's an atom of it over there, an atom over there, an atom over there...

I'd be curious to see what happens when the space SJWs get involved, furious because there aren't an equal number of midget lesbian Eskimo Electrical Engineers and transgendered Australian Aboriginal neurosurgeons on the Mars colony. And what about the space Muslims?

Since you need that to route using the internet protocol. And, yes, it is possible to attach a location to an ip address. Which may not necessarily match your real location.

Bra-fucking-vo.

What's worse will be the space SJWs, furious because there aren't an equal number of midget lesbian Eskimo Electrical Engineers and transgendered Australian Aboriginal neurosurgeons. And what about the space Muslims?

Muffley:Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.

Dr. Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition. Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years.

Muffley: But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief-stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?

Dr. Strangelove: No, sir...excuse me...When they go down into the mine, everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! [involuntarily gives the Nazi salute and forces it down with his other hand]Ahhh!

Turgidson: Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?

Dr. Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious...service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature.

Russian Ambassador: I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor.

It's kind of the other way around. Evolution tells us that different environments create selection pressure for/against different traits, which causes species to differentiate into distinct haplogroups or entirely different species. Most everyone agrees that modern humans left Africa and spread throughout the world between 50,000 - 100,000 years ago. Now if I were to take any other animal, say a canid, and stick a bunch of them in northern europe and a bunch of them in Africa and then ask if you if it's possible that after 100,000 years we'd get very different animals descended from the common ancestors, you'd agree. And if I suggested those differences might be more than mere coloration, but extended to speed, strength, size, and even temperament and intelligence you would probably agree. But if that animal is man instead of a dog you'd call me an evil racist to suggest that perhaps the cold climates of northern europe selected against those humans who weren't intelligent enough to make long-term plans while the year-round abundance of food in Africa selected against the weak and slow but not against the unintelligent.

We're basically having the Scopes monkey trial all in reverse, where the "progressives" take as dogma the claim that mankind is special and stopped evolving the instant they stepped out of Africa.

The way the political left gets their power is by first declaring that different groups are equivalent (without evidence or proof), enforcing this false equivalence as a moral issue (you're not just wrong but evil and morally repugnant if you don't agree), then pointing out the differences in outcome between these groups (actually caused by their biological differences, not deliberate actions), but since you've already accepted the false equivalence, the only explanation must be that the more successful group is oppressing the less successful group. This justifies giving political power to the left in order to correct this injustice. If you recognized the fundamental inequality of ability, there would be nothing to do and the left would have no power. It would just be the way it is.

For instance, in the United States the average IQ for blacks is 85, 92 for Latinos, 100 for whites, 108 for asians, and 115 for Ashkenazi Jews. This correlates very well to income levels for each group. In the US the median incomes for Jews is the highest, followed by Asians, then whites, then Latinos and then blacks. When confronted with this fact, politically motivated leftists will "debunk" the research by attacking the researchers, attacking the tests, and generally by making a bunch of hysterical and fallacious arguments. They then cite each other as proof the research has been "debunked" when in fact it hasn't, and any points they may have had (like for instance the idea that the IQ tests themselves are biased towards one group or another) have been addressed and either explained or corrected. But the results still stand.

It would be nice if the left would acknowledge this and stop calling society (and whites particularly) evil because, say, the proportion of engineers working at FaceBook who are black doesn't match the proportion of blacks in society. That's basically impossible because when you look at the distribution of intelligence by race a much smaller proportion of blacks have the, say, 120+ IQ required to get through engineering school than whites or asians. No societal injustice is taking place, it's just that bitch Mother Nature.

So if you want to know how these groups justify their existence, it's because the evil racists are factually correct and the leftists deny basic evolutionary biology because without their false premise of innate equality their ideology falls apart, and no one will give them power anymore.