/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15674148
>half of advancement at that stage in civilization was trial-and-error RNG.
At what stage and in who's civilization? Also, trial and error is the very foundation of the scientific method. The very fact that some groups couldn't do this is the most definitive proof of genetic diffs of intelligence.

>it was through no actual understanding of the subject.
No understanding of the subject? Is that how the wheel came about? Ships? Rifles? Gunpowder? Paved roads? Huh? Your position gets even more absurd by the post. You are now stating that the significant advancements that allowed certain groups to gain dominance is chance? That's absurd and you are wrong and have no evidence to support that.

>pretend for a moment that Native Americans were 500% as intelligent
You keep throwing up hypothetical situations because there is no real world evidence for your position. 1. That's literally a fantasy you made up, you have no way of knowing the desires and intentions of a people without a written history. 2. Whys and why not's do not matter. They had the resources to do so, and did not and were conquered for it. A clear lack of genetic traits allowing for the ability to navigate the environment around them. A measurable difference between a population of a subgroup.

1/72