Riddle me this, sci

so u sayin we iz kangz n sheit?

I'm pretty sure east and west Africa are among the first where agriculture first emerged.
Am i missing something?

You can make a million of these threads and it won't make you correct.

who is more dumb,

farmers: put stuff in the ground, wait for it to grow, eat it

hunter gatherers: strength, finesse, intelligence to outsmart another animal and consume it, intelligence to utilise environment to survive

selective pressures cause evolution, and by definition selective pressures are where an organism will not survive if it does not posess certain traits, would a stupid person survive in the wilderness? no, get over your silly irrational racism, nurture has a much greater influence

I wish the mods would just rename /pol/ to scientifically incorrect.

Hmm... Interesting point, OP, reminds me of something I discovered recently related to evolution: The main story people want us to believe is that 4-6 million years ago, humans didn't exist, and that we had a common ancestor with a chimpanzee. They say that this "wan't a chimp" but that it also "wasn't a human." So that means it would have to have features of both. The problem is, chimpanzees don't have features of both, and humans don't have features of both. If humans and chimps don't have features of both, then how could the common ancestor have features of both? That means either humans evoluved from chimps, or chimps evolved from humans. Obviously since humans are more advanced than chimps, the humans must have "evolved" from chimps. However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps? According to evolution, birds evolved from dinosaurs, therefore there are no dinosaurs left. If humans evolved from chimps, then IT MAKES NOT SENSE FOR THERE TO BE ANY CHIMPS

> However, if chimps evolted into humans, then how are there still chimps?

Like so

>theory of evolution
There is no such thing
It is the theory of natural selection

This has to beg the question, why do so many scientists believe in evolution? Even though many scientists do NOT believe in it, there is still a significant percent that does. If you think about it, the darwinists have the same evidence as us, but we can come to different conclusions because we don't have the bias of darwinism. Darwinism is the biased assumption that Richard Darwin had all the correct ideas about life science, based on the fact that he was a leading scientist of the time (the 19th century). Actually, Darwin wasn't even a real scientist, he just drew pictures and made stuff up on a boat, but the darwinists don't want to hear that. The bias of darwinism makes many people deluded into thinking that the evidence always points in favor of THEIR view, even though to an unbiased person that would not be the case. But the delusional/biased people aren't the only ones that make up believers in evolution. Since evolutionists have a monopoly on the media and on education, they are able to brainwash (for lack of a better word) aspiring students. That is how some people can continue to be deluded. However, science teachers also dismiss any evidence against evolution a priori, and even refuse to discuss it at all. Many students end up thinking that the only evidence out there is evidence IN FAVOR of evolution, and they're just ignorant of the facts that go against the mainstream theory.

Man you're really sheltered if you believe this shit
I hunt. With bows and with guns, and with traps. It doesn't require intelligence. It barely requires intuition. That's why fucking animals can do it you dumbass

Farming is difficult. It requires tools. It requires steady care. It requires knowledge of the seasons and irrigation. It requires planning. It requires the invention of new version technology (ie the plow) to increase efficiency. Theres a reason rabbits don't farm. They're too stupid

If anyone is wondering why a racist evolution thread pops up pretty much every day or several times a day, the entire title of Origin of Species should give you a clue:

"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

These people aren't brainlets they're actually interpreting Darwin correctly. Which is just one of many reasons why you shouldn't believe in Evolution.

It's racist, it always has been, and it's complete nonsense.

Playing word games doesn't make you appear smart. We know that you know what evolution means, that that's the common word used for the past who knows how long, etc. so diverting away from whatever the topic is by picking on word choices isn't going to get you anywhere.

Besides, there IS a theory of evolution now, that's what it's called, and you know it. Natural selection is only one part of the theory, now a days. And you know that too.

It's all a moot point though because anything except micro-evolution never happened.

But also for the record I'm not actually against you (this is person who pointed out word game thing.) Because I also don't believe in OP or their racism. So sorry if I was a little over harsh for no reason, truly I apologise.

What ? Are you trying to downplay what Darwin has achieved ? He wrote a whole book collection, and all by himself. He explained his theory with lots of examples and backstories. Also you should know his books have many parts about his travels and how he felt about it, and were covering many topics. You can't discard him that easily.
I think everyone should read Darwin's work, because he was an interesting man and had great theories about everything.

Interesting observation OP, although everyone on this board is so full of egoism they probably won't give your comment a mear glance before reporting your post and tossing it to the side. I think it's also hilarious in the same sense that many of them accuse you of being racist when many of them actually hold their own selves above the rest of society due to their perceived superior intelligence, almost like the same way a "racist" perceives their superior genetics/race etc. Thankfully for you I'm not going to brush aside your post, and I as well am fascinated to see if their is any evidence to link lower IQ with African people when compared to other races such as Europeans. Remember, many scientific studies began with curiosity that others deemed silly or frivolous, however that should not deter you from continuing to look for the truth, and I for one am with you on this.

While I'm not sure if they were among the "first" they definitely did practiced it independently early on without introduction from outside populations.

It was only animal husbandry within general agriculture that was not performed innately and was later introduce by northern Africa and middle East.

Farming is actually really hard.

>Darwin based his theory of evolution
>on observations of two birds
Lrn2darwin fgt pls

Ethics dictates that you do not discriminate humans.
Even though your argument may hold merit, it will never be discussed.

Look it's not just that.

We know IQ is heritable, around .5-.6. Same goes for many other mental traits.

We know different human populations differ in allelic frequencies when it comes to physiological, non-mental traits, like height, weight, skin color and so on.

We know different human populations differ in allelic frequencies when it comes to mendelian diseases, both in terms of how frequent certain diseases are and in terms of which alleles most frequently cause them.

We know different human populations differ in allelic frequencies when it comes to multifactorial diseases, same kind of difference as before, ranging from alzheimer, diabetes, inability to process milk and gluten and so on.

We know different human populations differ in terms of ancient hominid admixures: europeans don't have denisovan admixture, lots of africans don't have neanderthal admixture, most of the world aside from africa doesn't have much of paleo-african admixture.

We know SNP hits from GWAS on IQ and similar stuff aren't equally frequent in every population.
BUT SOMEHOW every single human population is supposed to be equal to every other one in terms of genetic potential for mental traits.

Please, somebody explain to me how, every single time this subject or something closely related to it comes up I have to self-censor because I don't see how this isn't patently absurd.

Evolution—Myths and Facts
>wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233

Myth #2 talks about the birds

"So, does natural selection really create entirely new species? Decades ago, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams began questioning whether natural selection had such power.26 In 1999, evolutionary theorist Jeffrey H. Schwartz wrote that natural selection may be helping species adapt to the changing demands of existence, but it is not creating anything new.27

Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.” They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, information about these birds exposes the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner."

>JW propaganda

IQ is only moderately heritable, thus environment (e.g. mom's basement) exerts a significant effect on one's cognitive abilities. Perhaps you should consider the role of income inequality when making race-based comparisons.

>In africa, the agricultural revolution never happened
Wrong

>resulting in Blacks having bigger physical strenght but lower IQ's than Europeans
Sub-saharan Africans are very genetically diverse, some ethnicities are very short. There is a genetic component to intelligence, but we don't know how much impact genetics has on average IQ diferences between ethnicites because education and economic situation are such huge confounding factors.

Please explain this

RiDdLe My AsS sCi

>agriculture revolution never happened
>So the people remained hunters and farmers

fuck off back to /pol/

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO KEEP MAKING THIS THREAD

How heritable something is does not imply differences in heritability in different populations.

The allele frequencies are small even when looking at a single gene. Over a large number of genes the allele frequencies show no real pattern of clustering. For traits that involve a really small number of gene, such as genetic diseases linked to a SNP, or skin color, those small differences are just more noticeable.

These "admixtures" you talk about amount to DNA similarities to those ancestors by only about 2% on average. They are not significant and will not significantly alter a person's phenotype.

I'm only aware of one cofirmed GWAS hit that probably explains a single IQ point and that was published last year. The significance of this is staggering. If you were aware of sheer statistical power of current genetics studies, you would see the problem. We will likely find a very large number of genes that account for 1 IQ point or less, not a small number of individual genes with lots influence. We surely would have found those by now with our current computing power in bioinformatics.

No one is censoring anything. You people just come here with preconceived notions that you already know the truth and refuse to listen when people explain why we're wrong. We have been doing research on human genetics, to include race, intelligence, and evolution of humans for decades and decades. The problem is you refuse to believe scientifically verifiable evidence dating as far back as the 70s. When confronted with this, people like you usually claim it's all a conspiracy.

Are bows guns and traps not tools?

Habitability =/= genetic
Rich people inherit wealth from their parents. This doesn't mean money is genetic.

Now extend this to environment that are or are not conductive to development of intelligence.

Not to say that there isn't a genetic component. But so long as there is an environmental factor you can't just say any intellectual failings is inherent to the individual. /pol/ says blacks are dumb and subhuman for being a standard deviation below 100 IQ on average. But if environment can alter IQ by 5-10 points that's a HUGE difference using /pol/ logic; that's almost an entire standard deviation of at least half of one.