Gee whiz, you've totally convinced me now!

I guess the "technology" of observing data (of a large enough data pool), recording data and presenting said data to be interpreted has changed somehow?

You don't need an academic community to agree on anything, that's what that squishy grey matter between your ears is for.

I should clarify why I so its by no means absolutely correct believe Europeans evolved to be more intelligent. It seems to me that Europeans had a diet much higher in protein and much lower in sugar than africans do not too many fruits in northern & eastern Europe, and the ones there are are naturally low in sugar

That goes into my geography point. It doesn't show that white cultures are more advanced and I use that term extremely loosely , it shows that civilization favors temperate climates with distinct growing seasons. Grains, which are the basis of agriculture, do not grow well in Africa. Fruits don't store well and in tropical climates are available year round. There is no incentive to develop agriculture in most of Africa. The importance of agriculture to the development of civilizations cannot be understated.

On top of that, Africa is much harder to traverse than Europe or Asia. This means no trade which is what necessitated the development of things like writing and mathematics. It also means no spread of information and technology.

When you compare African societies to those of more comparable circumstances, they don't fare any better or worse than anybody else. West African societies were certainly as developed, if not more so, than many of their Northern and Eastern European contemporaries until relatively recently. Compare someone from a Yoruba society to someone from a Celtic society and there's practically no difference. They're certainly more developed than most pre-Columbian American or Polynesian societies.

And still, white people have also tried and failed to colonize Africa for the last 500 years despite our supposed racial superiority. It's no coincidence that the one place that it's been successful, South Africa, is the most temperate part of Africa.

Nice vague answers, my friend. Dont use observation, trust "advanced science".

"advanced science"

Thefuckdoesthatmean?

Oh, you mean the scientists you agree with?

No, I mean the ones using the best available technology to test hypotheses whose results are then peer-reviewed and then use the available knowledge-base to come to a general consensus within the academic community about what the data suggests.

Gee whiz, you've totally convinced me now!

I guess the "technology" of observing data (of a large enough data pool), recording data and presenting said data to be interpreted has changed somehow?

You don't need an academic community to agree on anything, that's what that squishy grey matter between your ears is for.

You have to start thinking for yourself, my friend. Use observational skills. How many people of different races have you talked to in your life? I've been friends with plenty of people from all different races.
What exactly is the selective pressure for an elephant to be smart?
Why exactly have different races accomplished different things?

I am thinking for myself. I don't deny that there are racial differences but from my personal experience these clearly have more to do with culture and upbringing than any inherent capacity for learning or development. Having grown up in a metropolitan community, I've seen geniuses and idiots of all types and colors. That said, I'm going to defer to the scientists who are much more knowledgeable than I am so I'm not just some jackass on the internet.

What is the selective pressure for an elephant to be smart? Clearly very little given that their brain is 3x the size of ours yet they are much less intelligent. Most of their brain goes into controlling their massive bodies and articulating their trunks.

And different races have accomplished different things for a variety of reasons, mostly related to geography.

I should clarify why I so its by no means absolutely correct believe Europeans evolved to be more intelligent. It seems to me that Europeans had a diet much higher in protein and much lower in sugar than africans do not too many fruits in northern & eastern Europe, and the ones there are are naturally low in sugar

That goes into my geography point. It doesn't show that white cultures are more advanced and I use that term extremely loosely , it shows that civilization favors temperate climates with distinct growing seasons. Grains, which are the basis of agriculture, do not grow well in Africa. Fruits don't store well and in tropical climates are available year round. There is no incentive to develop agriculture in most of Africa. The importance of agriculture to the development of civilizations cannot be understated.

On top of that, Africa is much harder to traverse than Europe or Asia. This means no trade which is what necessitated the development of things like writing and mathematics. It also means no spread of information and technology.

When you compare African societies to those of more comparable circumstances, they don't fare any better or worse than anybody else. West African societies were certainly as developed, if not more so, than many of their Northern and Eastern European contemporaries until relatively recently. Compare someone from a Yoruba society to someone from a Celtic society and there's practically no difference. They're certainly more developed than most pre-Columbian American or Polynesian societies.

And still, white people have also tried and failed to colonize Africa for the last 500 years despite our supposed racial superiority. It's no coincidence that the one place that it's been successful, South Africa, is the most temperate part of Africa.

Nice vague answers, my friend. Dont use observation, trust "advanced science".

Islam is based on the belief that the bible is written by man, and is influenced by the politics and desires of the men who wrote it. They believe their prophet told directly the will of God, and had it written down as the direct will of God.
It is, in fact, the God of Abraham. The God shared by Judaism and Christianity.
ISIS represents Islam as much as the Spanish Inquisition represents Christianity.

The climate of place where ancestors settled affected not only body, but also minds. Example given: If you live in Amazonia, you do not need to stack food for winter = plan ahead/prepare.
Every talk about races differences revolve around intelligence and everyone takes it as personal attack against him. But it does not have to be vague "intelligence", it can be things like: waking up in middle of the night (originally to add wood to fire), number of children you desire to have, autumm bad mood (winter is coming panic mode), sensitivity for certain sounds, ...
Even things like language have great impact on humans brain. Example given: Chinese do not find copying as bad. Teaching process of written chinese is only copying process - here copy this symbol until you copy it perfecly, great, repeat it few thousand times... you are now educated.
Of course it does not affect "inteligence" but it affects brain...

>There hasnt been enough time
Are you shitting me?
Have you ever heard of a tibetan? In 1500 years alone they've adapted to the low-oxygen conditions of their mountainous homeland.
it is not stupid to think that in 10,000 years Asians and Europeans adapted to be more intelligent than other races.

Mate, do you even realize how short 10,000 years is in an evolutionary perspective?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium

What's your point? Evolution is an ongoing, progressive process through mutations, takes millions of years to evolve, unless there is a MASSIVE selective pressure, which modern humans have not experienced.

As I already mentioned, there is a huge difference between the selective pressure for things like oxygen intake and intelligence.

You're right, it's not stupid to think that 10,000 years is sufficient to produce significant differences along the lines of intelligence. It's completely fucking moronic and is in direct opposition to the most advanced science of today.

"advanced science"

Thefuckdoesthatmean?

Oh, you mean the scientists you agree with?

No, I mean the ones using the best available technology to test hypotheses whose results are then peer-reviewed and then use the available knowledge-base to come to a general consensus within the academic community about what the data suggests.

Gee whiz, you've totally convinced me now!

I guess the "technology" of observing data (of a large enough data pool), recording data and presenting said data to be interpreted has changed somehow?

You don't need an academic community to agree on anything, that's what that squishy grey matter between your ears is for.

You have to start thinking for yourself, my friend. Use observational skills. How many people of different races have you talked to in your life? I've been friends with plenty of people from all different races.
What exactly is the selective pressure for an elephant to be smart?
Why exactly have different races accomplished different things?

I am thinking for myself. I don't deny that there are racial differences but from my personal experience these clearly have more to do with culture and upbringing than any inherent capacity for learning or development. Having grown up in a metropolitan community, I've seen geniuses and idiots of all types and colors. That said, I'm going to defer to the scientists who are much more knowledgeable than I am so I'm not just some jackass on the internet.

What is the selective pressure for an elephant to be smart? Clearly very little given that their brain is 3x the size of ours yet they are much less intelligent. Most of their brain goes into controlling their massive bodies and articulating their trunks.

And different races have accomplished different things for a variety of reasons, mostly related to geography.

I should clarify why I so its by no means absolutely correct believe Europeans evolved to be more intelligent. It seems to me that Europeans had a diet much higher in protein and much lower in sugar than africans do not too many fruits in northern & eastern Europe, and the ones there are are naturally low in sugar

That goes into my geography point. It doesn't show that white cultures are more advanced and I use that term extremely loosely , it shows that civilization favors temperate climates with distinct growing seasons. Grains, which are the basis of agriculture, do not grow well in Africa. Fruits don't store well and in tropical climates are available year round. There is no incentive to develop agriculture in most of Africa. The importance of agriculture to the development of civilizations cannot be understated.

On top of that, Africa is much harder to traverse than Europe or Asia. This means no trade which is what necessitated the development of things like writing and mathematics. It also means no spread of information and technology.

When you compare African societies to those of more comparable circumstances, they don't fare any better or worse than anybody else. West African societies were certainly as developed, if not more so, than many of their Northern and Eastern European contemporaries until relatively recently. Compare someone from a Yoruba society to someone from a Celtic society and there's practically no difference. They're certainly more developed than most pre-Columbian American or Polynesian societies.

And still, white people have also tried and failed to colonize Africa for the last 500 years despite our supposed racial superiority. It's no coincidence that the one place that it's been successful, South Africa, is the most temperate part of Africa.

Nice vague answers, my friend. Dont use observation, trust "advanced science".

The cell wouldn't even replicate. Too many genes important to the basic functions of the cell rely on the first X chromosome. If a cell divided so it only got a y or got yy, it would be incapable of dividing at all. The only possible living cell that can survive like this is a sperm cell, and they have a very short lifespan because of it.

Oh yeah, I get that, that's why it's a hypothetical question. I'm just curious as to what would happen if somehow you did get a YY combination.

The cell wouldn't even replicate. Too many genes important to the basic functions of the cell rely on the first X chromosome. If a cell divided so it only got a y or got yy, it would be incapable of dividing at all. The only possible living cell that can survive like this is a sperm cell, and they have a very short lifespan because of it.

not entirely, forensic anthropologists can indeed tell the differences between races and ancestry by skulls with fairly high accuracy.

but as far as I know, arabs have never been considered anything but an ethnic group.

That's not the same at all. You'll often find "Mongoloid" features in "Caucasoids" or "Negroids." Jumble those three up and it'll hold true every time. Humans fuck around too much for any substantial amount of genetic material to be isolated to a single group. There is no delineation sufficient enough in humans to be considered a unique race, human genetics is a sliding scale of thousands of tiny traits that vary slightly from one population to its neighbor. You have to go to your neighbor's neighbor's neighbor's... neighbor before there's enough difference to warrant separate races but then you have to account for all those neighbors in between the two. It just doesn't hold up with a modern understanding of the human genome.

An ethnic group is the better answer because it's actually something that exists. You might as well ask "Well if Obama isn't a leprechaun, or a centaur, or a unicorn, then what is he?" The best answer is "human being", not "Loch Ness Monster."