> If regression to the mean dominated 100% of the time, evolution would not be possible.

> The reality is that children inherit directly from parents, including some genes that were unexpressed, which can cause changes. But they're still more likely to be smart

I think we are talking past each other (that or I'm terrible at explaining myself).

I made sure to specify that the offspring would return close to the mean while probably being higher.

Many characteristics are dependent of many genes (such as apparently IQ). You mention unexpressed genes and I agree with you on this. You have a pool of possible combinations of expressed/unexpressed genes. In a given population, all the combinations will cluster around a given mean; this gives you a bell curve. Now, if an Asian is born with an IQ of 70, this means that this particular combination was bad, but the rest of his genetic baggage is still able to produce other combinations which are more likely to be within the average.

Let's take a simpler example. Say my current genes would allow these results in a given characteristic: [1, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 10]. Of these results however, only 1 is truly expressed per generation. It so happens that I got lucky and got the value of "10".

Then I mate with someone of a mean "8" having the following combinations: [8, 8, 8, 8, 8].

Our children would be more likely to be between 8 and 5 than between 8 and 10. It would take generations of selective breeding to bring my descendants back to the mean of "8"

----

> I keep bringing it back to America since that's all I know, but race in America is more social construct than biology, and keeps changing over time. For instance the Irish, Italians, or eastern europeans were at some point not considered white.

It's not a social construct, it's just that the resolution at which people are looking at it changed.

It's like trying to name species through evolution. When did rabbits become 'rabbit', rather than their ancestor species? It's a continuum, we just decide that after a threshold of differences, we change the name.
It doesn't mean that differences between species don't exist.

There are many differences between those we usually call "whites".
People in the Netherlands are taller than those in Ireland; depending on the resolution they could probably be called diffrent races/subspecies.

> For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence is measured to be especially high.

Yes and if the genetic hypothesis is correct they apparently had 2 major factors helping this: A selection for intelligence AND a strong cultural tendency to marry within the group. (See a few Kosher rules designed to make sure Jews don't eat/socialise with gentiles.)

> Also randomly, I find it especially strange that the stormfront crowd seems so eagar to separate themselves from jews.

Do you know if they want to distance themselves genetically or from the people with this culture? For example, are they opposed to marrying secular Jews?

> Anyways, the desire for protectionism seems like a never ending quest to me, since we will always find ways to divide ourselves. Even when america was mostly european, this sentiment still existed, and was directed at the Irish, italians, jews, etc.

Well sure, but that doesn't change anything in my desire to not knowingly reduce the chances of my children. It's not just a "I support my local sport team" mentality.

In addition, it seems that most people think that some differences are worth preserving.
I would probably be judged as the devil himself if I had a plan to mix the Jews or Native Americans with Africans until they were one indissociable group.

> Edit: I'm sorry you're receiving downvotes even though you're being civil.

It's HN, I wasn't expecting anything else. ;-)