I know what you mean, but this is where I try to be very precise as it gets into complex scientific fields, and I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on them.
For instance, I obviously don't deny that there are differences. Tibetans have unique genes for high-altitude living. Inuits have adapted to cold and fatty diets. There are population-level statistical differences in traits such as sprinting that track ancestry. These traits are described by experts as highly localized and they developed under specific, intense selection pressures. And in the case of sprinting, I believe environment still plays a role to some extent. When I say 'superficial' I am only meaning that they are regarded as local and non-generalising, and experts would argue that they do not justify claims of deep biological divergence between human populations.
Similarly, with regard to what I referenced earlier in this thread about IQ: there are notable group differences in IQ test scores, and if it turns out that those differences are genetically determined, fine. However, from my understanding, that is not something that we can claim based on current evidence, as the differences appear to more closely track environmental factors (nutrition, education, stress, exposure to toxins, etc.). This is evidenced by the Flynn Effect, which shows massive increases in IQ scores over just decades in countries with improving education and health. Intelligence is heritable and affected by genes, but also massively shaped by environment.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that there are significant differences in moral norms and cultural practices (as opposed to biology) around the world, and that I believe in defending secular, enlightenment values as opposed to embracing beliefs that stand in opposition to that.
Hahaha. How dare you!!
Nonsense. IQ is determined by genetics, environmental factors are trivial - which is why there are no super genius aboriginals.
