This is one case where it does. However, one example where it likely doesn't is prostate cancer. African Americans have higher rates of prostate cancer. This is likely genetic, but not due to the same genes that make up one's skin color. They are completely separate genes. However, because the people who have the same skin color share closest ancestors with people who have a higher risk of prostate cancer, there is a positive correlation to both genes being in the same body.
Here, let me paint the future for you since you're being willfully ignorant about it. Big pharma puts out lab baby offer to weed out cancers and other horrible ailments (say like Harlequin syndrome). Since our health care system is for profit, it is obviously a pricey proposition,, so the monied take up the offer in numbers (maybe some day this "trickles down" as it scales up to late adopters). Monied clients push big pharma about wanting a smarter/taller/lighter baby. Despite laws in place for our new "ethical eugenics" program, pharma lobby is going to lobby so they chip away at those laws to open up for "cosmetic eugenics" because "freedom". As the next pro-eugenic MAGAtard installs himself, he does away w/all eugenics regulation. Because of exclusivity, not everyone can afford the latest 200+ IQ upgrade, only the top 1% which with their corruptly obtained enhancements become the top .01%. They then create a "worker/undermensch" class of babies to do their bidding. One w/o remorse and an obedient demeanor to put down the uprisings.
The Wildchild statement "They have verified that different ethic groups have different mean intelligence scores" Then we have a piece from academic research. "In the US, individuals identifying themselves as Asian generally tend to score higher on IQ tests than Caucasians, who tend to score higher than Hispanics, who tend to score higher than African Americans." Both statements are 100% in agreement with each other. Where did I get this statement from? From the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence What on Earth could have possibly inspired me to look at the page? Another instance where FreddyForeskin, a Canadian, gets destroyed.
I don't mind cosmetic eugenics. Honestly, I'm 5'7 and have male pattern baldness. I had bad acne in my teenage years/early 20's. I would fix that stuff. People practice this with what kind of partner they select. So if they have the ability to do it with their children, I'm cool with it. I think the cost could be fairly cheap eventually. However, because of the stakes, I think the government needs to control the patents and let big pharma/science produce it for a royalty.
Alan really puts this entire speech together brilliantly but he hits on the exact point at about the 2 minute mark, although you really should watch the whole thing.
Yeah, but you're a white supremacist. So it's easy to determine to what you would attribute any differences. If for no reason other than because you brought the point up in a discussion about eugenics. However, from the same link: Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin. Since you didn't point out any IQ differences to environmental factors, I can only assume that you were implying genetics...given that you raised the point to begin with in an exchange about eugenics. Which puts you squarely in the camp of those circa 1920s eugenics lobbyists. See how that works?
The truth is that there isn't a single person on the planet that knows how much of that is behavioral and how much if any of the disparities are due to mother nature. Anybody saying otherwise is lying to you. IQ tests don't perfectly measure natural cognitive ability as the questions are biased. It's hard to come up with a test that isn't biased, because you can't control babies in a lab and feed them the same information. If you want to know the actual truth we would need to further study DNA. That being said, the causation of lower IQ would not be the same genes that effect skin color. It would simply be genes correlated with them. So...let's say you wanted to take your baby. The only change you would make are the genes that change the skin color. It would be highly unlikely this would effect the baby's natural intelligence. The same could probably be said for most visible physical characteristics that people associate with different races.
If we are going to say what skin color is the most superior, I would argue black, because as pointed out, it's the least likely to develop skin cancer. Being albino appears to be the most dangerous to one's health.