/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10673951]

Thought's about conclusion ? Could this be the prove for different iqs between races? https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5236/08b8f60ec5700e8126eb1890dfb573f8062c.pdf

[Anonymous No.10673954]

>proof of different iqs between races
But that's well-known and not controversial among serious thinking people. It is the debunked "blank slate" theory that needs proof.

[Anonymous No.10673965]

Whats ur idea of an iq? I got an uncle who became a mechanic self taught but never went to school didnt know how to read nd write. Is he as smart as s qualified mechanic or nah

[Anonymous No.10673980]

>>10673951
Authors don’t make that retarded conclusion.
“Negative pre-adoption circumstances may have persistent influences on cognitive development. The prognosis from a cognitive perspective may still be good regardless of age at adoption if the quality of care before adoption has been ‘good enough’ and the adoption selection mechanisms do not reflect an overrepresentation of risk factors – both requirements probably fulfilled in South Korea.”

You did, so there’s probably something wrong with you.

[Anonymous No.10673983]

>>10673954
The majority of geneticists reject a link between race and intelligence, and there’s a growing lack of belief in “race” at all. Who are these “serious thinking people”?

[Anonymous No.10673989]

>>10673983
There's no evidence for that conclusion though.

[Anonymous No.10673991]

>>10673989
Null hypothesis, shithead.

[Anonymous No.10673992]

>>10673980
This

[Aus Shitposter 90 No.10674013]

>>10673951
I hate niggers

[Anonymous No.10674126]

>>10673951
Is /pol retarded? Oh yeah. You know what spice is needed and which field to put it in folks.

[Anonymous No.10674161]

>>10673965
>emotional blackmail
>political-position blackmail
>making it about yourself
>>10673983
>simultaneous appeal to authority and to herd mentality
>while literally making shit up

[Anonymous No.10674649]

>>10673983
>The majority of geneticists reject a link between race and intelligence, and there’s a growing lack of belief in “race” at all. Who are these “serious thinking people”?
The better question is: who are these "geneticists"?

[Anonymous No.10674683]

>>10674013
I actually forced air at a higher than average velocity out of my nose as a result of reading this comment, lol. You have to realize though that your personal beliefs have no place here, because this board is solely for the discussion of science and all things directly related to science, redneck.

[Anonymous No.10674694]

>>10674161
>>while literally making shit up
Last time I came across one of these people, he was stating very confidently that there was no link between genetics and intelligence, and that it was all about how much your exercise your brain.
When I probed him a little he revealed that his entire knowledge of neuroscience was limited to literally one line (that he misinterpreted) from the abstract of a study, while ignoring everything else in the study beside said line.

[s*ge No.10674696]

>IQ

[Anonymous No.10674707]

>>10674161
>simultaneous appeal to authority and to herd mentality

Nope.

>while literally making shit up

Nope.
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

>>10674649
https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Human_Genetics

People with professional knowledge in the field of human genetics. As in not you.

>>10674694
Cool story.

[Anonymous No.10674714]

>>10673951
>>>/pol/ btfo by study

>There are three main reasons for such a choice. The first one concerns how South Korean children were selected for international adoptionduring the 1970s. Most of them were born ‘out of wedlock’ and relinquished by their mothers due to socio-cultural prejudices towards single parenthood(Tahk, 1986; Kim, 1995). When compared with other types of selection criteria (e.g. mental illness,poverty – implying a risk for malnutrition, and drug/alcohol abuse) this background is most probably prognostically favourable for the child.

>The second reason for regarding the prerequistes of Korean inter-national adoptees specially is the quality of care before adoption (Chandraet al. 1999). The pre- and postnatal care was well developed early, partly as a response to reactions from donor countries (Kim, 1995). Third, for decades South Korea has been known for its high-level control of adoption agencies. Since the 1960s, agencystaff requirements include a psychologist, a physicianand a nurse. At least 50% of the children’s counselors must have 4 years of college-level social work training(Kim & Caroll, 1975).

>In addition to well functioning orphanages, adoption agencies in Korea for many years have also operated pre-adoptive foster family homes as an alternative to infant residential care(Tahk, 1986). Selection criteria and quality of care ofthe mother as well as of the child to be adopted in other donor countries probably vary considerablymore (Triseliotis, 2000; Fonseca, 2002).Thus, there is reason to believe that many children adopted from South Korea are less exposed to manyrisk factors usually involved in international adoption.

[Anonymous No.10674722]

>>10674707
>https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(18)30363-X.pdf
Oh my... Someone in academia posted a politically charged paper in resposnse to the shitstorm started by Nobel Laureate Dr. James Watson.
By the way, did you really manage to read that whole page?? Even the references?? That's just amazing.
I'm sure, then, you can answer this question very easily: What are the two main hormones involved in the learning process, that we know so far?

[Anonymous No.10674727]

>>10674722
>Shifting goalposts

GG

[Anonymous No.10674735]

>>10674727
No not really. I just assumed that since you claim to be qualified to give your opinion on this matter, you can at least answer that.

When you do that, I can bother with debunking your claims "supported" by the brochure that you posted.

[Anonymous No.10674745]

>>10674735
>No not really. I just assumed that since you claim to be qualified to give your opinion on this matter

Never did. Only gave the opinion of the authorities. Your issue is with them. Lie again, please. It’s funny.

>When you do that, I can bother with debunking your claims "supported" by the brochure that you posted.

Do so. It should be funny to see a /pol/ anon argue against a collective of scientists,

[s*ge No.10674746]

>>10674735
>bumping race bait threads
>bumping IQ threads

[Anonymous No.10674750]

>>10674746
Pretty sure that’s OP bumping his

[Anonymous No.10674755]

>>10674746
Pretty sure that’s OP bumping his own thread. I’m sure not. Might be best to stop feeding him so he stops bumping it.

[Anonymous No.10674773]

>>10674745
>Never did. Only gave the opinion of the authorities. Your issue is with them. Lie again, please. It’s funny.
Right, thanks for the honesty. I just didn't want to be the one to say it.

>Do so. It should be funny to see a /pol/ anon argue against a collective of scientists,
Well, James Watson, the Nobel Laureate, isn't one of them. Also, scientists disagree all the time.
Can you at least give me the argument on top of the claim? I mean, you do think for yourself, correct? You are not just complying with that statement without questioning it, are you?

[Anonymous No.10674799]

>>10674755
>Might be best to stop feeding him so he stops bumping it.
*so he stops exposing your profound lack of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.10674806]

>>10673983
geneticists do not reject races, they just call them genetic clusters instead due to current political climate

[Anonymous No.10674816]

>>10674773
>Well, James Watson, the Nobel Laureate, isn't one of them.

Uh oh, one old senile guy. Watch out.

>Also, scientists disagree all the time.

Dogs sometimes roll in the grass. Can we spout off more irrelevant things? What matters is the evidence.

>Can you at least give me the argument on top of the claim?

Both the authors of the study cited by OP and the human genetics community in general disagree with the claim that race has meaningful relation to intelligence. What do you think you know that they don’t, and why, if you’re OP, did you cite a study that, if you had read it, discussed confounding factors that would make your suggestion that it could be “prove for different iqs between races“ baseless?

> I mean, you do think for yourself, correct? You are not just complying with that statement without questioning it, are you?

People that aren’t retarded go with expert consensus on topics they’re ignorant of. It’s something you should learn, unless you’re genuinely an expert in the field, in which case you should provide evidence against the null hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.10674821]

>>10674806
Interesting conspiracy theory.

>>10674799
Nope.

[Anonymous No.10674847]

>>10674816
>Both the authors of the study cited by OP and the human genetics community in general disagree with the claim that race has meaningful relation to intelligence. What do you think you know that they don’t, and why, if you’re OP, did you cite a study that, if you had read it, discussed confounding factors that would make your suggestion that it could be “prove for different iqs between races“ baseless?
I'm not OP. If your argument is "What they said", you shouldn't bother discussing this. Or at least preface it by saying that you know nothing about the subject.
Can we spout off more irrelevant things? What matters is the evidence.
It's not irrelevant. One of them will often be wrong. How do you know which one?
>What matters is the evidence.
Right. But so far you provided none. Just an appeal to authority. And it's not even an unanimous consensus.
>What do you think you know that they don’t
I know plenty. Which is why it's very disappointing when you state a claim like you did here >>10673983 but can't provide one single argument for me to refute. You could at least copy and paste the argument from the paper itself, but I guess your are either too lazy or too stupid to even understand what they are saying.
>People that aren’t retarded go with expert consensus on topics they’re ignorant of. It’s something you should learn, unless you’re genuinely an expert in the field, in which case you should provide evidence against the null hypothesis.
People with average or bellow intelligence go with the consensus of the experts. People with gifted intelligence learn and reach their own conclusions.

[Anonymous No.10674852]

>>10674847
>Right. But so far you provided none.

Evidence is yours to provide, not mine. Null hypothesis reigns by default.
I await data.

[Anonymous No.10674868]

>>10674852
>Evidence is yours to provide, not mine. Null hypothesis reigns by default.
>I await data.
It's not a Null hypothesis. Since there are differences in intelligence between races and you claim genetics can't account for it, it has to be enviroment. Otherwise how do you explain it?

[Anonymous No.10674877]

>>10674868
>it has to be enviroment
*all enviroment

[Anonymous No.10674887]

>>10674821
>Interesting conspiracy theory.
James Watson had his career destroyed because when challenged that.
We are past theory, at this point.

[Anonymous No.10674917]

>>10674887
I'm a little conflicted, he did say Jews are the most intelligent race genetically which as a jew is great. But he also said a bunch of retarded shit without anything to back it up and kind of seems senile. I'm leaning more toward agreeing with him

[Anonymous No.10674934]

>another IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10674935]

>Moreover, he added, although he wished everyone were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”
based

[Anonymous No.10674977]

>>10673951
Not at all, though it is possibly a proof of the importance of prenatal conditons and inheritance of mitochondrial dysfunction.

[Anonymous No.10674981]

>>10674917
>But he also said a bunch of retarded shit without anything to back it up and kind of seems senile.
What the fuck are you talking about??

[Anonymous No.10674984]

>>10674917
Rosalind Franklin has facial features indicative of autism and after reading biographical accounts of her life she is a textbook high iq autistic woman.

Blacks much like south asians have much stronger time preference than many other peoples and are routinely incapable of maintaining proper adherence to tight schedules

Fat people have lower avg iq, higher impulsivity and generally divergent response to stress and emotional stimuli from metabolically healthy people, this is extremely well documented

Black iq even if adjusted for some of Lynn’s questionable methodology is on average 1-2.5 SD’s below white iq and this is reflected in lower levels of attainment in the sciences and mathematics

Basically nothing he said was incorrect or unsupported by empirical evidence he was just socially inept for saying it in the manner that he did knowing how sensitive his colleagues and field is to charges of scientific racism.

[Anonymous No.10674987]

>>10674917
>Jews are the most intelligent race
Verbally intelligent but lacking in other aspects (i.e: visual-spatial reasoning)

[Anonymous No.10674991]

>>10674977
nothing you said has any meaning until you elaborate on the evolutionary dynamics it entails and the mechanism by which mtDNA mutations effect cog function.

[s*ge No.10674996]

>another racial IQ thread

[Anonymous No.10675002]

>>10674996
Lets be honest. Many people woke up through these discussions.

[s*ge No.10675005]

Let's be honest, this thread is garbage and OP needs to go back.

[Anonymous No.10675040]

>>10674868
>It's not a Null hypothesis.

Yes it is, lmao holy shit.
The null hypothesis is that there is no relation between two observations or variables, etc.
Therefore, the null hypothesis is that there is no genetic relation between “””race””” and IQ.
It’s your job to provide the data if you want to challenge the null hypothesis.

>Since there are differences in intelligence between races and you claim genetics can't account for it

They could, but you have to justify that.

[Anonymous No.10675052]

>>10675002
No, /pol/tards shitposting doesn’t “wake” people up

[Anonymous No.10675063]

After years of careful tweaking of the test to eliminate bias and analysis, why do the children of wealthy blacks still score so low on tbe sat? Is it purely cultural?

[Anonymous No.10675068]

>>10675063
>Income is the only other relevant factor

[Anonymous No.10675069]

>>10675040
>Therefore, the null hypothesis is that there is no genetic relation between “””race””” and IQ.
The argument is that there is a relation between genetics and IQ and the concept of race is grounded in genetics.

It necessarily can't be a Null hypotheses. This is what you are not understanding. Since you claim it's not genetics, you are by default claiming it's enviromental. But you failed to provide any arguments about that.
The evidence for the genetics argument would be the Minessota Transracial Adoption Study. Now, before you start shitting on that study, give your argument for defending the envorimental hypothesis and post your evidence.

Btw, I am not denying that enviroment has nothing to do with it. It has plenty, but genetics is also a very significant factor.
Also, many scholars who study IQ, claim it's about 80% genetics and 20% enviroment. They are also wrong. These percentages are not fixed, but the argument for this goes way more in depth than the expertese of your conventional scholar who studies IQ.
You could only make such claim by assuming a fixed cultural and educational paradigm.

[Anonymous No.10675075]

>>10675063
Because they are afraid of being called coons

[Anonymous No.10675095]

>>10673951
ITT: Almost nobody actually reads the study and just argues about race and IQ for a while.

[Anonymous No.10675104]

>>10675069
>The argument is that there is a relation between genetics and IQ and the concept of race is grounded in genetics.

Nope. The concept of “race” is grounded in 1700’s skull measuring. Modern anthropologists and geneticists acknowledge the term’s dubious value.

>It necessarily can't be a Null hypotheses.

It necessarily has to be a null hypothesis.
This is what you are not understanding.

>Since you claim it's not genetics

Never did so. I and others claimed that it was unjustified to claim that any difference can be attributed to genetics. That case has not been demonstrated.

>you are by default claiming it's enviromental

The evidence that environmental effects influence the average difference between “races” has been presented and demonstrated ages ago. The question is whether genetics also play a part. That remains to be demonstrated.

>The evidence for the genetics argument would be the Minessota Transracial Adoption Study.

It’s the opposite, actually. The Minessota Transracial adoption Study is great data for the case that the difference is environmental. Thanks for doing my job for me!

https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3200/5/1/1

[Anonymous No.10675132]

>>10675104
>The concept of “race” is grounded in 1700’s skull measuring. Modern anthropologists and geneticists acknowledge the term’s dubious value.
No it isn't. Here is the definition of race:
https://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Race

>Never did so. I and others claimed that it was unjustified to claim that any difference can be attributed to genetics. That case has not been demonstrated.
No, you are back tracking. Let me refresh your memory. This was the post that ensued this discussion:
>>10673983
>The majority of geneticists reject a link between race and intelligence
You didn't say "any" difference. You basically made an appeal to authority saying they reject the link between race and intelligence (without any qualifiers).

>The evidence that environmental effects influence the average difference between “races” has been presented and demonstrated ages ago.
What evidence? I specifically asked you to provide some. You couldn't even copy and paste one of them.

>It’s the opposite, actually. The Minessota Transracial adoption Study is great data for the case that the difference is environmental. Thanks for doing my job for me!
No, did you read the whole thing?
By their late teens the average IQ of the different groups of adoptees regressed to about the same as the average IQ of their respective races, thus supporting the genetic argument.

[Anonymous No.10675145]

>>10675132
>Doesn’t read study

K bye

[Anonymous No.10675179]

>>10673951
Some guy really tries to deny the existence of races despite them being obviously there both pheno- and genotypic.

[Anonymous No.10675264]

>>10675145
I can tell you didn't really read the MTAS, you just read the "rebutal" and thought you know now enough.
I actually read both the study and and the "rebutal" on top of several neuroscience studies and books.
If you could just provide one argument denying genetics I could refute it for you. But so far your couldn't. Not a single one other than appeal to authority and posting links.

And the study that you linked is basically excusing away the findings in the original studies, not by providing counter evidence, but by comming up with alternative explanations.

It even disregards the fact that in the MTRAS the "asian" average IQ was a mixed bag of indians and east asians. These are groups with a very significant difference between their average IQs.

[Anonymous No.10675296]

>>10675145

Cont from >>10675264

Btw, even James Flynn could give an evidence based explanation for the IQ regression and your link is comming up with all kinds of excuses based on hypotheticals.
The fact is that the is a very clear and well established neurological property that explains this very phenomenon.
Of course, no "expert" knows this because of their intellectual limitations.

[Anonymous No.10675300]

>>10675296
>even James Flynn could
couldn't*

[Anonymous No.10675312]

Same old /pol/ thread
>hur durr blacks are inherently and genetically inferior
>but anon, all of the scientists and geneticists say that is wrong
>hurr durr it's a global Jewish conspiracy to cover up the truth! All the scientists are paid to lie!

[Anonymous No.10675317]

>>10674806
Please explain what data is represented by PC1, PC2, and PC3. Otherwise just shut up and leave.

[Anonymous No.10675327]

>>10675312
>>hur durr blacks are inherently and genetically inferior
Why are you calling them inferior? Just because one group has as higher average IQ than the other, doesn't mean it's superior. It just means they are different.

>>but anon, all of the scientists and geneticists say that is wrong
Who says that, and what exactly is their argument?

>>hurr durr it's a global Jewish conspiracy to cover up the truth! All the scientists are paid to lie!
Not in that cartoonish way, but it's true that James Watson had his career destroyed for making politically incorrect remarks and Bruce Lann said "There is not that's simply not worth having" before having his career in the West destroyed. The silverlining is that he is probably back in China, making genetically engineered babies.

[Anonymous No.10675329]

>>10675327
>"There is not that's simply not worth having"
there is knowledge*

[Anonymous No.10675742]

>>10674987
Not what James Watson said so I'll go with the actual expert on this one

[Anonymous No.10675766]

>>10673951
i dont get it anon did anyone read the article?

[Anonymous No.10675859]

>>10675766
>Acknowledgements
>This study was supported by grants from The Bank of
Sweden Tercentenary Foundation.

You can skip the whole study and just read the Acknowledgements to get the point.

[Anonymous No.10677091]

>>10674126
sage is a herb, dickhead

[besnydenis. No.10677146]

>>10677091
get fucked, gypsy rat.

[Anonymous No.10677253]

>>10673983
>geneticists
>ignoring clear correlations between evolutionary geography and genetic differences
>ignoring the basis of the theory of evolution altogether
>ignoring that human genetics are the basis for physical organs and that the brain is a human organ
They must be so open minded that all their brains fell out

[Anonymous No.10677265]

>>10673951
> Could this be the prove for different iqs between races?
Nice bait. The paper, if you bother to follow the link, is in urban vs. rural North Korean citizens.

It says nothing about race, as IQ scores are compared between Koreans and … well, Koreans.

[Anonymous No.10677270]

>>10675052
Yes, it does.

[Anonymous No.10677274]

>>10677253
That would be cool and all if race had a genetic basis, but it doesn't.

[Anonymous No.10677282]

>>10677270
Getting propaganda'd and confirmation biased into reinforcing your pre-existing racism doesn't count as getting woke up, sry.

[Anonymous No.10677288]

>>10677265
Also
> Another IQ vs black people thread
Have sex.

[Anonymous No.10677312]

>>10675068
>>10675075
niggers are so weak and submissive that even with overwhelming institutional and financial advantages over working class whites who have contend with horrible textbooks, no test prep and incompetent teachers they still can’t match them in what amounts to a watered down iq test which can be easily gamed using memorization and heuristics.

[Anonymous No.10677340]

>>10677274
Yes, it absolutely does. Differences in “race” or “genetic clusters” are detectable in both dna sequencing and observed in phenotypes. The exact same environmental pressures that would create genetic differences in skin color - which you have to concede is genetic - would also place pressures leading to other significant differences. These differences can be readily observable, such as in the skeleton, or more subtle, such as in social behaviors. To deny this is to deny the theory of evolution and observable reality.

[Anonymous No.10677343]

>>10677282
It was being shown an alternative theory that inspired me to make up my own mind. Is this skepticism not the very basis of science?

[Anonymous No.10677357]

>>10677343
>Is this skepticism not the very basis of science?
Not when you take a troll opinion just as seriously as an expert's. You will never understand the intricacies of genetics and neurology. Appealing to authority is not the worst thing.

[Anonymous No.10677368]

>>10677340
>These differences can be readily observable, such as in the skeleton, or more subtle, such as in social behaviors.
These differences are indeed observable. In every single human on Earth. If I had to categorize the most easily observable skeletal traits, I'd have to conclude that short people are a different race than tall people. And it's genetic too!

[Anonymous No.10677373]

>>10677357
>Not when you take a troll opinion just as seriously as an expert's
Let me ask you this: how exactly do you define an expert?

[Anonymous No.10677378]

>>10673980
this

also sage IQ threads

[Anonymous No.10677398]

>>10677373
A PhD, published work with lots of citations.

Strong consensus among experts is the authority you should appeal to, not any single one in most cases.

[Anonymous No.10677443]

>>10677368
>If I had to categorize the most easily observable skeletal traits, I'd have to conclude that short people are a different race than tall people
Immediate siblings can vary when it comes to height. I am not discussing individual traits. I am discussing traits at a macro level. Averages across populations, if you will. In general, height is a heritable trait, just like every other genetic trait, and is correlated in line with the other geographic genetic clusters aka races.

[Anonymous No.10677444]

>>10677368

I've actually thought about this before. Tall people are usually more successful and more likely to be in leadership positions. Part of this is because of discrimination of course. But for thousands and thousands of years this has been true, and most leaders throughout history have only ever bred among themselves. This is true even for ancient Greece and Egypt. The ptomic dynasty (after Greece conquered Egypt and tried to mix races) was at least half white / half black by the time of Cleopatra, but I guarantee they were tall / tall mixed).

[Anonymous No.10677450]

>>10677378
Why do you want to sage IQ threads instead of debate in them? If you are so right, why not categorically disprove the ideas you disagree with?

[Anonymous No.10677461]

>>10677443

>Immediate siblings can vary when it comes to height

Same thing is true with skin color. It's actually the fastest / easiest trait to change among humans, and there are black "races" that aren't even related to Africans but are essentially Assians who moved South where the sun is brighter (there are also white "races" who aren't European).

[Anonymous No.10677469]

>>10677398
>consensus and establishment credentials
I don’t suppose you think that Galileo should have been imprisoned for his theory on heliocentric solar systems, do you? You will never understand the nature of the celestial bodies, will you? Did he not diametrically oppose the scientific establishment of the time? Did he not violate the consensus?

Do you see the problems with an appeal to authority? You should be able to disprove my arguments using readily observable, testable, and repeatable phenomena. That is all that matters in science. Not establishment credentials and certainly not consensus.

[Anonymous No.10677477]

>>10677450
that's incredibly intellectually dishonest. i literally replied to a post explaining why this thread is dumb. debating low-effort, poorly thought out racebait isn't the point of this board.

[Anonymous No.10677478]

>>10677461
Are you going to claim that skin color (shorthand for melanin pigmentation concentration) isn’t correlated with evolutionary geography? Because that is what you’d be required to claim if you’re using that as evidence against the genetic existence of race.

Short of albinism and other abnormalities, do parents with the same skin tones give birth to children with wildly different skin tones? No, they do not.

[Anonymous No.10677486]

>>10677477
I can’t tell which posts are yours, you idiot. But my question still stands: if it is so obviously wrong, why can You not disprove the theory using another scientific theory?

[Anonymous No.10677490]

>>10677486
>But my question still stands

no it does not
please read

[Anonymous No.10677503]

>>10677478

I actually think height is a better metric for a collection of genes than skin color is. I know there's no scientific proof for this (I just think it's interesting to think about) but there's no scientific proof that skin color really means anything either.

[Anonymous No.10677507]

How does science explain the rise of the white skinned pre-indo European farmers? They literally replaced the hunter gatherers for all intents and purposes, evolved the ability to digest milk and have white skin to make easy Vit. D.

It seems they are a product of this behavior genetically almost. They still do exist in populations like Sardinia and Scandinavia.

So if these groups of people are so linked to their behavior that they evolve with it, can we say that this tribe and its clades are have some intrinsic qualities that go beyond White skin and milk digestion?

[Anonymous No.10677512]

Talking about haplogroup I2a1 or I-M26

But also I2's in general.

The second indigenous European population before the Hunter Gathers. They evolved white skin and milk drinking from being the first farmers from the near east to settle the area

[Anonymous No.10677514]

>>10677490
Link to your post so I can read it dumbass

[Anonymous No.10677517]

>>10677503
Height is somewhat correlated with geography of origin for the isolated population (or race) but not as sharply as skin color. You would be deliberately tying one hand behind your back in an effort to avoid a certain conclusion and create a murkier than necessary picture if you did that. Funny!

[Anonymous No.10677518]

The reason they evolved white skin is because as farmers they didn't eat meat often and lost melanin to produce more Vitamin D.

They Hunter Gathers they competed against had dark skin and blue eyes. All of them had blue eyes.

These new farmers had white skin and dark eyes.

[Anonymous No.10677533]

>>10677518
Be careful about this. There is a never a reason something evolved, only a reason why it was successful. Pale skin and low hair and eye pigmentation was a reproductively advantageous mutation because of low sunlight, which makes vitamin D production low with excessive skin pigmentation.

[Anonymous No.10677542]

>>10677507

There are similar population dynamics in Africa among strictly black people also. One group of ethnicities called the Bantu expanded from South to North and absorbed / replaced most of the hunter gatherers in the area. They are an ethnic group as different genetically from other African ethic groups as Indo-Europeans would have been compared to other pre-European ethnic groups.

That's actually one of the reasons why skin color is such a bad metric for race. Africa has more genetic diversity among different populations than the entire rest of the world has combined. If you looked at someone who was Bantu vs someone who was Maasai and said they're both black / African and therefore the same, you'd be as wrong as trying to group Eskimos with Micronesian peoples.

[Anonymous No.10677559]

>>10677542
>If you looked at someone who was Bantu vs someone who was Maasai and said they're both black / African and therefore the same
Nobody makes this claim. You can make the claim that they’re both African and there will be some correlations therein that are more pvevalent in Africa, though. For example, you can claim that they are both African and that they both have never invented the wheel independently, but you can’t claim that they are the same as they have different genetic traits and the Bantu are more prone to cannibalism.

[Anonymous No.10677572]

>>10677559
The point is it disproves this idea that you can lump people together based on skin color.

And that isn't even the only problem with doing that: once you leave Africa there are other populations of black people who are more closely related to Europeans than they are to Africans.

[Anonymous No.10677578]

>>10677533
But it wasn't just for low sunlight, correct? It was also due to the fact that their diet started to loose the main source of Vit. D?

[Anonymous No.10677587]

>>10677578
In other words, the hunter gathers or the first humans to mingle with Neanderthal had darker skin than the farming haplogroups that replaced them.

This same haplogroup is known as the Megalithic builders because every human remain found around them is of the I* type and this type is only found in areas that have megaliths.

It seems that this haplogroup had a profound influence on Europe before the indo-european takeover.

White skin just may have been a part of the package for them. The current white skin of the Europeans is a vestige from them perhaps?

Do we even know what color the tribes from Afghanistan (R1 etc) were before they rushed out into the world?

[Anonymous No.10677592]

>>10677572
>disproves this idea that you can lump people together based on skin color
Slow down for a minute. I never said lumping people together based on skin color was a good idea. Never even addressed it. What I said was that skin color is determined by genetics, those genetics are determined by the geographic location of the last 40k years or so of general reproductive isolation, and that the same environmental pressures that would make different skin pigmentations successful would lead to other trait changes as well. Nobody has refuted that at all. Nobody CAN, without rejecting the theory of evolution. I sincerely have more respect for a creationist theologian who denies the existence of race than someone who believe in evolution but denies he existence of geographically incentivized genetic differences in humans.

What someone does with the knowledge of the truth is up to them, but I don’t think keeping this a secret is a valid choice.

[Anonymous No.10677595]

>>10677587
>>10677578
I believe the dietary source of vitamin D being less common would also incentivize skin pigmentation that leads to more vitamin D, yes. What was the primary source of dietary vitamin D in preneolithic Europe?

[Anonymous No.10677596]

>>10677592
The white farmers that replaced the dark skin hunter gatherers in Europe came from Western Asia, not Europe.

The humans already in Europe were dark skin. So why would the farmers have white skin other than the fact that they dropped meat as a major part of their diet? So would it not just be based on geographic location but actually behavioral genetic traits/consequences thereof?

[Anonymous No.10677597]

I may be wrong there. I think they picked up farming tech from the West Asians. They are native to europe

[Anonymous No.10677613]

>>10677595
I'm assuming meats.

The funny part is these early farmers didn't evolve lactose tolerance until thousands of years after domesticating cows. So the only way they could make up the Vit. D issue was with white skin until that happened.

[Anonymous No.10677621]

>>10677596
>>10677595
Adequate vitamin D can come from diet if you're a good farmer; milk, eggs, fish, rotten/fermented bacteria heavy foods.
I would think it would be harder to outsource vitamin production if you weren't maintaining the ecosystem around you.

[Anonymous No.10677644]

>>10677596
>So why would the farmers have white skin other than the fact that they dropped meat as a major part of their diet?
Because the mutation for low pigmentation occurred in the indo-European migratory population instead of the Neanderthal hunter gatherers. It wasn’t really a choice; the mutation happened and it turned out to be an advantageous trait. If they had stopped eating meat and were eating milk instead, that would indicate that the indo-European migratory white skinned population and the proto-European or neandethalic dark skinned population were significantly different behaviorally along traits that would involve very different temperaments, likely in no small part due to their geographic origins for the recent evolutionary past.

So, again, different population groups can be and are very different along behavioral lines. These traits are usually correlated with reproductive and geographic isolation in the recent past. In the modern day, this frequently aligns with skin color, even if it didn’t in the past. It might. It in the future. But I’m the current day and age, skin color is very indicative of different racial groups. Someone would have to be crazy not to see this

[Anonymous No.10677651]

This thread has derailed so fucking hard.

[Anonymous No.10677652]

>>10677621
Haplogroup I-L460 (I2a) is presented at levels 21.9% [15] according to 808 Bulgarian male samples of the largest-scale study from 2013. By higher levels are defined the profiles of Ukrainians and all South Slavs other than Slovenians.[16] Evidence points to European origin for macro-haplogroup I, and Levantine for its immediate ancestor- IJ. Its exclusive and now patchy distribution within Europe suggested a very early entry in to Europe during Palaeolithic colonization, which was confirmed by the lack of its ancient DNA outside of the continent and ~13,000 years old European Cro-Magnon remains belonging to I2a.[17] I2a2 is the most frequent haplogroup of European male remains dated to the Metal Ages, while I2a1 and I2a1b are most common on Mesolithic remains,[17][18] as such they were the primary haplogroups of pre-historic European hunter-gatherers. Initially a Holocene expansion of I2a in Southeastern Europe is supposed;[19] however Dinaric is descended by several 'only child' sublclades and it is suggested that its most recent common ancestor is aged only 2200 years[20] making it the youngest and most common micro-group.

So we also know that the neolitih farmers had lighter skin and replaced their darker skin HG counterparts, but they were all from I* branch.

They seem to have picked up lighter skin genes from the same time that they did farming, but the skin color wasn't intrinsic to the genetic population.

The genetic population got pretty much paternally wiped out after the Indo European invasion though. (And the darker skinned HG groups finally made a comeback during this time)

[Anonymous No.10677658]

>>10677592
Other traits correlate much more than skin color though. It's literally the worst trait that you can use to group populations together.

FWIW modern science, the same science that brought us evolution and disproved creationism, also disproved our ideas about race. Like it's not even controversial: if you believe in the existence of race, than you're wrong, plain and simple. You would be laughed at just the same as we laugh at creationists and flat earthers.

[Anonymous No.10677661]

>>10677644
The low pigmentation occured thousands of years before the indo-European population came. We aren't talking about Neanderthals.

I'm talking about the first humans to join them, who had white skin before the indos arrived. The white skin was present only when the I2 haplogroup neolitihic farmers began farming.

The I1 and I2 groups that didn't farm had darker skin and blue eyes.

The indos may not have even had white skin.

[Anonymous No.10677671]

>>10677658
>Other traits correlate much more than skin color though
Which ones ?

[Anonymous No.10677672]

>>10677652
You are making erroneous assumptions and imaging things that are not stated in the date you posted. You also demonstrate you do not understand the subject matter.

Haplogroup only trace a single mutation. They are only a tool finding general ancestry. Haplogroups do NOT say anything about population genetics or the genetic variation of people divided into haplogroups. Haplogroups have nothing to do with the variation of genes in populations. Humans share far too much genetic variation with all populations for this assumption to even be remotely true.

[Anonymous No.10677673]

>>10674887
James Watson said random BS that we tried to pass off his opinion as fact.

>>10674984
>Basically nothing he said was incorrect or unsupported by empirical evidence he was just socially inept for saying it in the manner that he did knowing how sensitive his colleagues and field is to charges of scientific racism.

This is like me saying all Russians, Austrians and Malays are oedipius complex ridden homos and trying to pass that off as science.

[Anonymous No.10677674]

I don't know to what degree race influences intelligence, But It's a bit silly that we can't talk openly about it without our lives being ruined. We have solid reason to believe that IQ, cognition, Aptitude or whatever you want to call it is primarily heritable under healthy conditions
The current figure is around 80% heritable.
If you can identify a difference between racial groups and IQ, The genetic explanation ought to be thrown around at least a little bit without everyone losing their shit.
Maybe we are just waiting for gene editing to mature enough to deal with the problem. But we should at least talk about it. We might learn something.

[Anonymous No.10677683]

>>10677672
We know for a fact that the first Europeans were I* groups. This includes Cro-Magnon.

The European neolithic farmers were also I2. We also know these haplogroups are the first to have white skin.

How am I wrong? I branch was in Europe for 30,000 years. They began farming much later.

[Anonymous No.10677686]

>>10677674
You are stupid and do not understand the subject matter. Heritability is a specific scientific term. It does NOT mean how much of an individual trait in an individual is influenced by genetics. It is a population level statistic. A trait can have high measured heritability, but also have high influence from environmental factors.

What you "can't talk about openly" is your ideas that people are inherently superior or inferior to one another based solely on skin color, and that certain people should have certain rights and others shouldn't, based on skin color.

[Anonymous No.10677688]

>>10677683
Human agriculture only dates back 10-20 thousand years.

[Anonymous No.10677690]

>>10677658
>Other traits correlate much more than skin color though
That may be, but it is NOT evidence for skin color NOT correlating with traits in racial clusters. And it is most certainly not “literally the worst”. Not only is that a statement of value judgement (which I am not engaging in), but it is actually one of the best indications of a person’s other traits as the same pressures that would make a skin tone advantageous would also make other traits advantageous to that environment, IQ being one of them. Data on IQ reflects this difference.

>FWIW modern science, the same science that brought us evolution and disproved creationism, also disproved our ideas about race. Like it's not even controversial: if you believe in the existence of race, than you're wrong, plain and simple. You would be laughed at just the same as we laugh at creationists and flat earthers.
This is an appeal to authority and consensus, which does not apply to the scientific method. If I am so out of whack and plainly and simply wrong, then you should be able to easily disprove the correlation of racial groups (traits held by reproductively isolated population groups) and genetics. I will wait.

[Anonymous No.10677693]

>>10677690
>That may be, but it is NOT evidence for skin color NOT correlating with traits in racial clusters.
Ok. Here you go.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381
Trying to put people into populations based solely on genetic similar does not reproduce race.

[Anonymous No.10677695]

>>10677688
Correct. The European neolithic farmers were made up of the I2 haplogroup. These were also the tribe associated with megaliths and lighter skin compared to their HG counterparts.

We know this because we have analyzed the DNA found from human remains around these megaliths and hunter gatherer remains.

The HG remains and the Neolith Farmer remains all share the same differences:

The HG's had darker skin and blue eyes (all of them) and the farmers had light skin and brown eyes.


But they are all from the same I branch.

[Anonymous No.10677697]

>>10677673
>James Watson said random BS
“the pioneer in DNA studies made a reference to a view that genes cause a difference on average between blacks and whites on IQ tests.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46856779
James Watson, one of the discoverers of the helical DNA structure, made the precise same claim that I am today and that fully matches scientific evidence and was stripped of a lifetime of honors for not being politically correct. The same happened to Charles Murray. Do you see a problem with this or not? You have the vocabulary and diction of a teenager so I assume you have not yet developed the empathy to take issue with this.

[Anonymous No.10677699]

>>10677695
Nothing you said is possibly scientifically correct.

[Anonymous No.10677703]

>>10677686
>What you "can't talk about openly" is your ideas that people are inherently superior or inferior to one another based solely on skin color
Nobody is saying skin color determines IQ. We are saying it is correlated with race, otherwise known as a population of people who has been reproductively isolated for the recent past. That these racial groups correlate with skin color only makes sense, as skin color differences would be made under environmental pressure that would create other genetic population differences.

[Anonymous No.10677704]

>>10677697
Watson saying he was "gloomy about the prospects in Africa" is not the same as him presenting scientific evidence that one race is verifiably genetically superior to another. He made some bad comments during an interview in which he didn't think he was being recorded. They were just his own thoughts. They were not based on science. He is not some martyr in some kind of global conspiracy. /pol/ is not smarted than the entire scientific community of geneticists.

[Anonymous No.10677707]

>>10677703
>I'm not saying it's skin color, but it's skin color!

[Anonymous No.10677709]

>>10677695
What isn't correct?

"Evidence points to European origin for macro-haplogroup I, and Levantine for its immediate ancestor- IJ. Its exclusive and now patchy distribution within Europe suggested a very early entry in to Europe during Palaeolithic colonization, which was confirmed by the lack of its ancient DNA outside of the continent and ~13,000 years old European Cro-Magnon remains belonging to I2a."


Almost all of the paelo and Neolithic remains found in Europe have been from I2

[Anonymous No.10677715]

>>10677699
You realize they can analyze DNA from remains and predict the skin tone right?

You realize that every hunter gather had darker skin tone and every Neolithic farmer had lighter ones?

And that they all were from the same haplogroup branch or subclades?

[Anonymous No.10677719]

>>10677699
"Why? Scientists have long thought that light skin helped capture more vitamin D in sunlight at high latitudes. But early hunter-gatherers managed well with dark skin. Dr. Reich suggests that they got enough vitamin D in the meat they caught.

He hypothesizes that it was the shift to agriculture, which reduced the intake of vitamin D, that may have triggered a change in skin color."

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/24/science/agriculture-linked-to-dna-changes-in-ancient-europe.html

[Anonymous No.10677759]

>>10677707
I’m saying skin color and IQ are both heritable and genetic traits that are subject to the exact same environmental pressures. In a reproductively isolated population that becomes different enough for long enough, you will see differences in many many traits, including skin color and IQ. So you understand the subtleties of this argument? Or shall I go into detail?

[Anonymous No.10677762]

>>10673951

[Anonymous No.10677767]

>>10677704
>”gloomy about the prospects in Africa"
A continent made up of peoples with a lower average IQ than the rest of the world will never be able to create the same society. That said, their numbers are increasing while European strains are decreasing in numbers. As a germ line, seen only through an evolutionary lens, Africa is in Bette reshape

[Anonymous No.10677776]

>>10677686
>You are stupid and do not understand the subject matter.
Nice opener
>Heritability is a specific scientific term. It does NOT mean how much of an individual trait in an individual is influenced by genetics.
That is a strawman. I never said a word about an Individual. You did. and that was weak.
"The heritability of IQ for adults is between 57% and 73% with some more-recent estimates as high as 80%"
Plomin, Robert, and Ian J. Deary. "Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings." Molecular psychiatry 20.1 (2015): 98-108.
>It is a population level statistic.
sure is. You'd have to be daft to think I was saying otherwise.
>A trait can have high measured heritability, but also have high influence from environmental factors.
That's why I said "primarily heritable under healthy conditions" That is what Plomin, Robert, and Ian J. Deary claim.
> is your ideas that people are inherently superior or inferior to one another based solely on skin color
never said that. You should stop writing your own story.
>and that certain people should have certain rights and others shouldn't, based on skin color
That was made up too.
But you serve to prove a useful point. Any attempt to explain why different populations have different scores will instantly be mobbed on with absurd accusations of racial superiority.

[Anonymous No.10677780]

What we've noticed is that white skin is associated with the first neolithic farmers, whom seem to have some contribution all steeming from West Asia with lighter skin.

Then these pre indo-european people in Europe evolved even whiter skin when they picked up farming.

Skin color obviously is just a by product of this tribe who had big brains, perhaps? It's only a "skin deep" marker but it is one.

[Anonymous No.10677781]

>>10677776
Your implication is that other "races" have different genetics for intelligence which is somehow based on skin color. It is the only reason you people from /pol/ raid /sci/.

[Anonymous No.10677786]

>>10677781
> based on skin color
related to skin color
painting your skin brown isn't going to make you any more retarded

[Anonymous No.10677794]

>>10677767
>A continent made up of peoples with a lower average IQ than the rest of the world will never be able to create the same society.

The average IQ in Africa is continually climbing. You are delusional.

[Anonymous No.10677802]

>>10677704
>Watson saying he was "gloomy about the prospects in Africa" is not the same as him presenting scientific evidence that one race is verifiably genetically superior to another.

That's not what he only said.

[Anonymous No.10677804]

>>10677781
Its not based on it. It just so happens that the conversion from hunter gather culture to farming also lead to lighter then white skin as a byproduct.

[Anonymous No.10677805]

>>10677759
>In a reproductively isolated population that becomes different enough for long enough

which is never the case since admixture is rampant as fuck in the world.

[Anonymous No.10677806]

>>10677794
the Chinese are moving there en masse
is the average I.Q. based on African natives or all Africans? also how much aid is being sent to Africa? what are the socioeconomic factors that could contribute to this increase in IQ?
If it's an I.Q. boom then it's not evolutionary.

[Anonymous No.10677807]

>>10677805
Literally the case for most of human history except for a number of somewhat rare events

[Anonymous No.10677810]

>>10677781
>Your implication is that other "races" have different genetics for intelligence which is somehow based on skin color.
I did not imply that. you inferred that. You inferred wrongly.
It is the only reason you people from /pol/ raid /sci/.
I am confident that you won't find a thread on /pol/ calling for a raid on /sci/. I just come here. The subject interests me, so I clicked on this thread. I have also been really polite in all my posts. You have just thrown one wild accusation after another at me.

[Anonymous No.10677809]

>>10677805
not before transportation and capitalism.
Tribalism goes back a long way.

[Anonymous No.10677813]

>>10677709
>>10677695
>>10677683
>>10677652

>t. bulgayrian gypsy thinking he's proto-european
lol

btw, I2 is a retarded fake hg, I1 is the original proto-european haplogroup. I2 people don't even resemble the scandinavians, they have flat back of the heads and look ugly like armenians.

[Anonymous No.10677819]

>>10677805
admixture with neanderthals is literally a thing that made the modern races more different than they would've been otherwise

[Anonymous No.10677825]

>>10677810
The subjects do NOT interested because you do not actually understand anything about genetics. You make assumptions about how genetics work which fit your narrative and you believe anyone that corrects you is wrong. Your only interest in racist politics.

[Anonymous No.10677829]

>>10677819
how would the europeans look if they had 0% neanderthal>?

[Anonymous No.10677830]

>>10677806
>the Chinese are moving there en masse

One million Chinese out of over a billion people there total. You are delusional.

>is the average I.Q. based on African natives or all Africans?

That’s a tautology.

>also how much aid is being sent to Africa?

Irrelevant.

>what are the socioeconomic factors that could contribute to this increase in IQ?

Rapid urbanization, access to education, poverty decline, access to food, etc.

>If it's an I.Q. boom then it's not evolutionary.

I never said it was so I don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Anonymous No.10677833]

>>10677825
>The subjects do NOT interested because you do not actually understand anything about genetics. You make assumptions about how genetics work which fit your narrative and you believe anyone that corrects you is wrong.
The only time you tried to correct me on genetics, you were wrong about my position.
>You make assumptions about how genetics work which fit your narrative and you believe anyone that corrects you is wrong. Your only interest in racist politics.
Talk about assumptions.....

[Anonymous No.10677836]

>>10677813
Aren't they both proto-europeans?

One is north and one south?

[Anonymous No.10677839]

>>10677805
Isolation is never 100%, but it’s enough to be able to denote differences between groups.

[Anonymous No.10677841]

>>10677836
I2 from the balkans is much younger. There are I2 and I1 in northwest europe and are older than those.

[Anonymous No.10677844]

>>10677841
Oh ok. That makes sense to me then. I come up as Scandi in DNA tests and not Balkans.

I thought they were from the same group.

[Anonymous No.10677848]

>>10677830
>If it's an I.Q. boom then it's not evolutionary.
>I never said it was so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
you implied that it mattered that the average IQ was increasing, if it's based purely on sociological or economic factors, like more food easy work, infrastructure, from outside groups like the Chinese who are moving there and becoming "africans" or Americans who send aid then the average IQ will regress once the aid stops or the Chinese leave because the change is not evolutionary.

so what is causing the IQ boom among blacks in Africa?

[Anonymous No.10677853]

>>10677844
There are more subclades of I2

https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml

I2b and I2a2 is found mostly in northwestern european peoples.

[Anonymous No.10677858]

>>10677841
Is it Sardianians that are the closest to the original Europeans?

[Anonymous No.10677864]

>>10677853
This is mine:
I2a1a-M26

Your link says:

I2a1a-M26 was probably one of the main paternal lineages of the Megalithic cultures of western Europe during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. I2a1a1a (L672) was already found in Mesolithic Sweden, which implies that I2a1a had a very wide distribution from Iberia to Scandinavia during the Mesolithic period. Later, they would have adopted agriculture by intermixing with Near Eastern newcomers.


I think this is most common found in Sardinia?

[Anonymous No.10677866]

>>10677858
They aren't in the same subclade as the subhuman turkish dinaro-slavs.

[Anonymous No.10677873]

>>10677853
Haplogroups are not clades.

[Anonymous No.10677874]

>>10677848
>so what is causing the IQ boom among blacks in Africa?

I just told you fucking retarded shithead faggot.

>Then the average IQ will regress once the aid stops

Never attributed it to solely aid. Lie more.

>or the Chinese leave

So few in number as to be irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.10677875]

>>10677858
>Is it Sardianians that are the closest to the original Europeans?
I was told it was the Basques

[Anonymous No.10677876]

>>10677864
Yeah it is, but it's not found among the balkan people. Balkan people have another clade of I2 which doesn't count as proto-european. Usually, slavic haplogroups cannot be proto-european, they're savage immigrants.

[Anonymous No.10677881]

>>10677874
>Rapid urbanization, access to education, poverty decline, access to food, etc.
Wow so everything that the dutch created for them and then was left to break down until the Chinese came in?

The blacks in africa benefit from culture but don't create it in the large swathes that other 'skin colors' do

[Anonymous No.10677882]

>>10677875
Basques are the only “Old Europeans” remaining. Remnant population of the people that resides there prior to the Indo-European migration.

[Anonymous No.10677883]

>>10677875
I-M26 (I2a1) shows up highly in Basques as well as Sardinians

[Anonymous No.10677892]

>>10677881
>Wow so everything that the dutch created for them

What?

>The blacks in africa benefit from culture but don't create it in the large swathes that other 'skin colors' do

They create culture anon.

[Anonymous No.10677893]

>>10677882
>>10677883
well I guess I have a bunch of. I-M26 (I2a1). but It doesn't make me feel special. It probably just gave me an easy tan and weird earlobes.

[Anonymous No.10677900]

>>10677806
>the Chinese are moving there en masse

Many Chinese are temporary workers the recent migrants that are coming tend to leave because they can't compete with Africans since they Chinese are unable to leverage themselves as a middleman group since most Africans order form China directly OR go to China to do it.

[Anonymous No.10677902]

>>10677893
Y hg doesn't decide how you will look, usually it is the admixture.
That's why there are E1b1Bs running around in europe looking like white people, basically they have negro haplogroup but generations of mixing with the local populace (women) 2k-5k years ago made them white.

[Anonymous No.10677905]

>>10677902
Are you the same person that is still pretending to understand halpogroups? You have no idea what you are a talking about. A single SNP does not decide what you look like.

[Anonymous No.10677911]

>>10677839
Many groups look pretty damn similar despite having pretty different dna. many of these differences are arbitrary or many other groups share.

[Anonymous No.10677912]

>>10677881
>Wow so everything that the dutch created for them

Dutch colonization of Africa was minimal and consisted of tiny enclaves except for in South Africa. Most of Africa was conquered by the French or British. What the hell are you talking about?

>and then was left to break down

African nations continue to maintain and construct large amounts of buildings and infrastructure. Dunno what alternate universe you’re in.

>until the Chinese came in?

Africa was developing before China intensified relations with Africa in the 90’s. Why do you keep lying?

>The blacks in africa benefit from culture but don't create it in the large swathes that other 'skin colors' do

Africa has thousands of cultures. What are you talking about, again?

[Anonymous No.10677917]

>>10677905
That's not me. I know that.

My point earlier was that the hunter gathers with the I haplogroups had the SNPs for dark skin.

The neolitihc farmers from the I haplogroups had the SNPs for white skin.

My entire point was that white skin was associated with farming culture.

[Anonymous No.10677925]

>>10677912
>African nations continue to maintain and construct large amounts of buildings and infrastructure
please do show me what infrastructure is being created, who it is being built by and who is funding it.
>Most of Africa was conquered by the French or British
non-progress before colonization.
>Africa was developing before
Which parts, who specifically was developing? the cultures who were entirely black? please post sources because I'm very much willing to learn.
>Africa has thousands of cultures. What are you talking about, again?
not all of whom are black. which cultures in africa are the most productive with the highest IQ? what do the the lowest IQ groups do?

[Anonymous No.10677936]

ITT: Racism

[Anonymous No.10677941]

Is it possible for people to unite based around haplogroups in the future?

[Anonymous No.10677943]

>>10677941
>retarded things /pol/ says

[Anonymous No.10677944]

>>10677925
>please do show me what infrastructure is being created, who it is being built by and who is funding it.

Obvious as fuck. the ADB, the AU, foreign investment, aid, local taxation.

>non-progress before colonization.

what are you talking about?

>Which parts, who specifically was developing? the cultures who were entirely black? please post sources because I'm very much willing to learn.

Look up basic development stats retard. Not out job to spoonfeed you.

>not all of whom are black. which cultures in africa are the most productive with the highest IQ? what do the the lowest IQ groups do?

Stop trying to steer this into race.

[Anonymous No.10677960]

>>10677944
>make a claim
>don't defend it
good job scientist.
our entire argument has been me suggesting that blacks haven't been exposed to the evolutionary pressures that advance IQ and that a lot of the I.Q. 'Boom' is based around advancement that non-blacks have made in Africa that blacks continue to benefit from.

You won't produce any evidence that blacks would have experienced the I.Q. boom that they are without input from other cultures.
you're disingenuous and pathetic.

[Anonymous No.10677969]

>>10677925
>please do show me what infrastructure is being created, who it is being built by and who is funding it.

https://www.icafrica.org/en/topics-programmes/financing-trends-2017/

http://www.au-pida.org/pida-projects/


>non-progress before colonization.

Wrong. Africa had numerous kingdoms with coastal ones participating in international trade. Somalians brought a giraffe to China in the 1400’s.

>Which parts, who specifically was developing?

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg

Read nigga read

>not all of whom are black.

Most are.

>which cultures in africa are the most productive with the highest IQ?

What quantifies “productive”?
The highest IQ in the continent is probably Egypt or something. All the data is ten years old or more that I can find.

>what do the the lowest IQ groups do?

Probably the literal tribals who just hunt and eat herbs in the jungle.

[Anonymous No.10677975]

>>10677960
>You won't produce any evidence that blacks would have experienced the I.Q. boom that they are without input from other cultures.
you're disingenuous and pathetic.

Foreign investment and international trade are literally the most important things economically now. No shit they wouldn’t have.

[Anonymous No.10678002]

>>10677893
You ever feel like you don't fit in?

[Anonymous No.10678024]

>>10677975
>Foreign investment and international trade are literally the most important things economically now. No shit they wouldn’t have.
Foreign investment from where?
That's where the real high IQ people are.
>china, international communication association, the arab coordination group
make up the majority of input into the nations' financing. >>10677969
less than half comes from the fruit of the nations themselves and not all Africans are black meaning not all taxation from africans is wealth created by blacks
plenty of 'races' most of which had lighter skin were capable of creating their own nations (especially Egyptians) and advancing human knowledge and being prosperous enough to live on their own before the world was so dependent on foreign investment.
this implies that blacks, who were conquered by those other nations and advance more quickly with their input, have a lower average IQ than those other races.
Africa has too many resources to not be a super power if IQ is equal between each different skin color.

>>10677969
>Wrong. Africa had numerous kingdoms with coastal ones participating in international trade. Somalians brought a giraffe to China in the 1400’s.
that's incredibly interesting. Do the Somalians have written record of this or was it learned about through Chinese records?

prosperity benefits everyone, but evolution pressures different groups to create different breeding strategies
to claim that I.Q. and genetics are not linked is an out right lie, even more so than claiming skin color is not linked to genes.

[Anonymous No.10678070]

>>10678024
There were several successful empires centered on Somalia, and the city of Mogadishu in particular. Read up on this one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajuran_Sultanate

[Anonymous No.10678126]

>>10678024
>That's where the real high IQ people are.

Turkey us high IQ?

[Anonymous No.10678146]

This thread was moved to >>>/b/800774371