On the Impression that Environmentalists (the Term Used Here in the Genetic Sense) Apparently Assume that Populations Which Diverged 150,000 Years Ago Have Evolved Indistinguishably

To me, this is every bit as anti-Darwinian as creationism and maybe even more so (the fact that a lot of creationists now believe in micro-evolution). Yes, it's politically incorrect and uncomfortable to talk about but when you see that East Asians have a cranial capacity of 1,416 cc and an average IQ of 105 while Australian Aborigines have a cranial capacity of 1,225 cc and an average IQ in the low 60s AND that the heritability of intelligence is approximately .75, it's extremely hard to say these differences are ALL environmental....There, I said it...................................................................................................P.S. And I sake you, why is this so combustible? a) It tells you nothing about the individual (the fact that they're simply averages). b) It doesn't preclude the importance of environmental factors or that the environmental impact could in fact be more than .25 in certain circumstances. c) It doesn't advocate that lower IQ groups be treated harshly (history actually shows us that it is the higher achieving groups that tend to get targeted; the Jews in Europe, the Armenians in Turkey, the professionals in Cambodia, the Chinese in Malaysia, the Ibos in Nigeria, etc.). And d) recognizing the fact these differences have existed between the various groups for centuries is surely something which makes it possible at the very least to address them.