Asians were never submitted to the slave trade en masse: their culture was held higher in regard due to its similarities to western culture, ie. having a written language, ornamental material possessions. Thus they were in general treated with far more respect

Ok, but this was addressed before; even if you put the kid in another family, you can't remove the colour of their skin, and they'll always be discriminated against for that reason. The only way you could really test this was if society was completely unbiased, and that's just not possible

So... you admit that IQ tests are shaky grounds, and that you need to correlate them with real life. Ok. But financial, academic and social (And what does that mean? they go down well at cocktail parties, or what?) success, which you are so often hold up as evidence of lesser intelligence is ignoring the fact that people are constantly discriminated against simply because of their skin colour. It's not that they're dumb, and so can't be CEOs- its that the other members of the board are all white and would prefer them to be janitors...

"How do you explain that blacks whites and hispanics all adopted into upper class white families with the same average income and given the same learning opportunities still have the same order of intelligence from the age of 3."
What do you mean? That they all have the same IQ from 3? How do you measure that?

At the height of European colonialism there were numerous experiments undertaken to prove different levels of intelligence between races, such as filling skulls of different races with grapeshot. Inferences about the intelligence of different races were made by measuring  the capacity each races' skull could hold. Of course, the more grapeshot meant the more space for brains...this was seen as totally valid science and was performed by esteemed scientists.

The problem is that while we now know that brain mass does not necessarily correlate to greater or less intelligence, in those days it was an acknowledged 'fact'. What happened then (and still happens today), is that scientists make their evidence fit what is currently accepted as truth. It was simply obvious to people in the early 20th Century that black people were less intelligent, and scientists were not looking to see whether or not this was true, but rather looking for new ways to confirm this.

'Facts' and 'truth' are incredibly relative, and subject to constant change in society as we gain new knowledge, and as our contexts change. I think this is why you're on shaky ground. The IQ test has lost a lot of credibility in modern scientific circles, and is rarely used anymore. If you are going to argue this point, you might want to find yourself some newer science.

see: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2001-10/uoc--sva101701.php
for evidence...

There's a reason that organisms that reproduce sexually are generally superior to those which are asexual. Sexual beings are able to combine genetic traits, and evolution (which, by the sound of him, Afura's flatmate probably doesn't believe in, but lets not go there) slowly weeds out the bad and promotes the good. The greater the range of possible partners means the more selection of genetic traits to be honed. Diversity therefore leads to an overall improvement of the species.

So those who claim that inter-racial breeding is 'polluting' a race are encouraging the denigration of their own race by limiting the scope for the natural mingling of genes which got us to to where we are at now anyway. If people like that were around when we were still all dragging our knuckles on the cave-floor, the wheel would never have been invented. But if you want to stagnate and have your kids be retarded hicks while the rest of us have genetically advanced offspring, be my guest...