Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This video outlines the topic pretty well. And it brings up a fact I was not aware of - not only did non-Africans mix with Neanderthals 30-50,000 years ago, but also, around the same time, some Africans mixed with a different, even more distant, extinct human cousin.
I'd also like to know the point of the thread and your revival of it. Why is it in this section of the forum unless you are suggesting a "controversial" topic of ancestral superiority based on being part Neanderthal (lol).
Will note that all people's mitochondrial DNA lead back to Africa, so there is no such thing as a "non-African" since all people are ancestrally an African.
On below:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supachai
You have it backward. Finland is a point higher than the United States.
As to your suggestion that IQ isn't relevant to success, are there neurosurgeons or engineers with IQs of 85? If IQ was meaningless then there shouldn't be a positive correlation between life success and IQ score, but there is. If IQ scores had no value, then we should expect to find numerous examples of people who score badly on IQ tests while at the same time excelling at tasks that take a high degree of cognitive ability. We don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigiri
So the 100's of millions in S. and Central America and even Mexico who trace their ancestry back to Africa 400 years ago - are they just written off in the study?
I think it is interesting to the discussion to point out the fact that "race" is no longer considered a biological concept due to the advances of DNA genetic research. Studies, even the one cited in the OP center on ancestral communities and not "race." As Supachai noted, Finns are very distinct genetically from other Europeans. Yet people still consider them and all other Europeans "white."
Someone else earlier in the thread suggested that genetics should go by the Y-DNA haplogroup. With that into consideration, we'd have to consider the fact that a large percentage of black men in America (African American men) belong to a European Y-DNA haplogroup. So would you now consider those people "Non-African" due to their ancestry.
I know a lot of men in my genealogy circles who are black and who have a Scandinavian Y-haplogroup meaning their fathers-father-father-father-father (how ever far back you want to go) originated in a Scandinavian country.
Will note that I think the advances in genetics are really cool and interesting, but it is sad that so many of you posters are inserting your sociological race superiority/inferiority opinions on this science that is not based on "IQ" test. Intelligence cannot be distinctly defined or measured and the PISA is not an IQ test either. So the whole delving into a discussion of genetics and intelligence is silly IMO.
The discussion can be equally intriguing by sticking to the fact that there were other hominin ancestors that have made it into our gene pool. Just like Europeans have neanderthal DNA remnants, Africans and Asians have denosivan remnants. Ironically, one of the populations most likely to have all 3 are black Americans! So what sort of advantage would that give us
Aside from the political stuff environment (long term) does play a role in genetic development/evolution.
The reason why many folks believe Africans have the lowest IQs is that they never had to problem-solve new environments like the groups that left Africa did. In fact, the Capoids (lowest IQs) never even left eastern African where humans are thought to have originate.
I've pondered this and it makes the most sense to me. Survivng/thriving in a harsh environment would seem to naturally select the smartest, most resourceful. It's a huge, unforgiving pressure.
I've pondered this and it makes the most sense to me. Survivng/thriving in a harsh environment would seem to naturally select the smartest, most resourceful. It's a huge, unforgiving pressure.
Maybe you should research the number of nutritional staple crops and domesticable l animals indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. You might be surprised. Some people have mentioned the guns, germs, and steel TV show, but you might actually want to read the book. Europe, Asia and the Middle East are far more inhabitable and forgiving than Africa. Of course, none of this proved that any race is smarter or more resourceful because of race realism is pseudoscience.
Ok. So let's say sub-Saharan Africans are different from the rest of us. Armed with this knowledge, how should government policy be shaped around this?
Maybe you should research the number of nutritional staple crops and domesticable l animals indigenous to sub-Saharan Africa. You might be surprised. Some people have mentioned the guns, germs, and steel TV show, but you might actually want to read the book. Europe, Asia and the Middle East are far more inhabitable and forgiving than Africa. Of course, none of this proved that any race is smarter or more resourceful because of race realism is pseudoscience.
I make sense of the world I grew up and continue to exist in, the best way I can. I try to be as objective as possible while resisting the urge to let emotion color what logically makes sense.
I notice patterns among different groups of people, including myself, which is no easy feat. Being honest about my capabilities and background was the first major hurdle. I've reflected on and evaluated experiences I've had with all sorts of people throughout my life. I look at who's at the top of the human hierarchy, what they have in common, their culture, etc. How it all trickles down in different countries around the world.
As difficult as it is to accept, I've recognized that we aren't all the same. I've sought out answers for why we can be so different from each other and one "theory" that caught my eye was climate as it pertains to harsher living conditions.
No one has all the answers, it's a broad, complicated topic.
This is an important thread for several reasons, most of all being that we are finding out that scientists really don't know all that much about distant human history. We've been told for decades that all humans came from Africa. Now we're finding out that might not have been the case. We were told that humans came to the Americas no earlier than 15,000-20,000 years ago. Then evidence of human manipulation of mammoth bones from 130,000 years ago appears in San Diego.
In other words, scientists are sure they know the answers until they don't. The sun revolved around the Earth until it didn't. Science is valuable, but it's not infallible.
Secondly, this type of news tends to be very inconvenient to leftists. The left went whole hog for the out-of-africa theory, because it essentially means we are all Africans in a way. I explained earlier in this thread why this is so important for leftist policy. There have been secondary theories for years but the academic mainstream and political left had no interest in hearing other theories. Within the last few months, the out-of-africa theory was delivered a serious (and possibly fatal) blow with new findings.
There's a lot of political correctness tied up in these genetic discussions, as well as a lot of questions we shouldn't ask. One of the most ridiculous arguments that is made is the old "we share 99%+ dna with other humans". Well no ****, humans sit at the pinnacle of billions of years of evolution. But does that genetic similarity even mean that much? We share 97-99% dna with chimps, 90% with cats, 84% with dogs, 80% with cows, 70% with slugs and 50% with bananas.
So yeah, the shared dna argument isn't that impressive. I've said this before on C-D and someone else posted it in this thread: leftists love.science unless it's about human genetics.
Last edited by War Beagle; 11-27-2017 at 04:13 PM..
Just wanted to note I think it is funny the title of this old thread about "Africans and non-Africans" when the OP article and the source of said article (Nature) both spoke about the fact that all modern day people have ancestry in Africa in different waves, an older wave and more recent wave.
I know the report will be "well the chimp-like ancestors came from africa". If we're going to look at it that way, we all came.from some muddy puddle a few billion years ago.
Ok. So let's say sub-Saharan Africans are different from the rest of us. Armed with this knowledge, how should government policy be shaped around this?
That already shows the potential problem: "us" vs "them".
The question is what does "different" mean or imply? Different in what way? The answer to that might cause more problems than ignoring that difference would.
So yeah, the shared dna argument isn't that impressive. I've said this before on C-D and someone else posted it in this thread: leftists love.science unless it's about human genetics.
And racists love science until it they learn that it's been proven that race is nothing more that a social construct
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
