Regardless of the poster in question, the idea isn’t new and there is a wealth of great research on it. The best primer that I know of was written by Spencer Wells who is one of the foremost experts on this subjects on this and travels to remote tribes to get DNA samples and published by the National Geographic Society. It is called Deep Ancestry: Inside the Genographic Project. It is not racist in the least in the way the term is commonly used but it does map out how modern humans differentiated out of Africa in groups with common genes to this day and I have a copy in my hands right now. Ignorant racists piss me off as much as the next person but people who insist that all the differences in modern human groups are only skin deep are way off base as well as the evidence shows. Everyone needs to shut the hell up until they are familiar with the good research that exists on this topic right now and can have an intelligent conversation on it.
I’ve read the book and it does not support the stupid shit this guy is posting. Not the order of migration (which he got wrong in his OP) or that intelligence is related to the distance from Africa. So no, there is not a great wealth of research on “it”.
Well chief, you started two threads along similar lines of thought and have now abandoned them to your alter-ego. It’s not really very hard to figure out.
And the Asian superiority racism is getting quite stale, even from such a ‘new’ poster as yourself.
More like McCarthyism, really. But I’m not sure this entirely qualifies —after all, the question for which scamartistry is being pitted was almost shockingly stupid.
Valid point. I just meant that in general. It doesn’t take any intelligence or education to be a random racist but I do get tired of the stonewalling for the evidence that there are real differences in human populations. Everyone knows it intuitively yet it is forbidden to say but there is some scientific truth to it.
I don’t think there is an unwillingness to accept that there are differences in different populations. It’s one thing to talk about easily quantifiable traits like height, skin color, blood type, etc. But intelligence is not so easily quantifiable. There is way too much pseudo-scientific BS about evolution, that most people would be better off just being YECs, if you ask me. The crap they believe isn’t much better.
Given that people who claim such things have a long, long history of errors and outright lying, extreme skepticism is the sensible position. When the other side is rife with outright liars, “someone wrote a book saying so” isn’t enough.
I have not found the article yet
but I could paraphrase from what I read
this is the background story to put it into perspective:
According to Cavalli-Sforza about 100,000 years ago a small group of Africans started to migrate north.
They reached southeast Asia about 60.000 years ago and Australia 40.000.
After this the migration went north and what is now China and Japan became populated.
The Indians probably reached america between 15000 and 35000 (Cavalli-Sforza).
Little is of course known about what exactly happened during these migrations. But it would be fair to say that these migrations must have been extremely dangerous, with drowning, preys, starvation, storms etc etc…
A probable hypothesis would be that the more intelligent ones , survived more often than the less intelligent in many of these scenarios. (depending on how one define intelligence , of course)
So what does this mean in a time perspective? In the Eastern parts of Asia about 50.000 years of migration plus another 50.000 years of stone age culture.
The average lifespan per generation was somewhere around 25 years.
In 50.000 years that gives us roughly 2000 generations.
This time span should allow for selection of certain environmental adaptations to make a mark on the race/group of people.
So after 50.000 years of migration and another 2000 generations in stone Age we have what we call Orientals today.
Fair to assume that this group of people probably have differences in their genetic makeup compared to their African ancestors.
This has nothing to do with one being better or worse than the other, as some people might want to look at it.
It is explaining that there are differences between different ethnicities, some are internal others are external. As if this would come as a total surprise to anyone
Isn’t it fair to say that staying in Africa would be fairly dangerous? What with predators, floods, drought, poisonous snakes, storms, and the like? And since the ones who left Africa were the ones who couldn’t compete–that’s why they got kicked out after all–couldn’t the losers who ran away be dumber than the winners who got to stay home?
How many revolutions has “rabid” antiracism begun? Generally, racism is a bad idea. Or maybe that’s just me.
But this Pit thread wasn’t just inspired by racism. It’s also about the stupidity of a probable sock puppet who has started several idiotic threads.
Now, go back to sleep, little Aryan. Dream of large-thewed Valkyries.
You think there’s no droughts, storms, or dangerous wild animals in Asia or Europe?
I would argue yes and no and dumb is not really the right word use in this case.
I do not think “staying” makes you a winner, neither do I think “leaving” makes you a winner. These kinds of descriptions does not have any meaning.
Would you however agree that 50.000 years of migration (with old-school natural selection) could make a difference in the genetic make up, as compared to the ancestry tribe?`
Here’s the review from Amazon.com on Genes, Peoples and Languages, by Cavalli-Sforza:
I’ve read the book, and if you’re quoting C-S, you made up the part about intelligence.
So, now you are conveniently omitting the error you posted in your OP in Great Debates that people migrated first to Europe, and you stll have provided no evidence that native North Americans are smarter than East Asians while not as smart as native South Americans.
Your original post was dumb and you have failed to provide any reason to think it was not dumb. As you are claiming it was “just a question,” [where have I heard that before?], your question has now been answered and I should probably lock that thread in GD. Right?
Yes. Yes there were. But Scammer seemed to think that there were none in Africa:
Ah. For a brief horrible moment I thought you were supporting his madness. It’s at times like this I’m grateful I don’t actually have hordes of radioactive bees at my beck & call.
Of course you can lock it if you are satisfied. I do not know the point of closing a discussion (but Im no computer expert). I will admit that my original post might come off as a bit shrewd and frankly unlettered. However I find this an interesting topic. And throwing out ideas can sometimes be good way to stimulate discussion.
However I think this thread was somewhat hijacked by people attacking people to be racist. This is of course interesting , I am sure there are racist people out there. Not being one myself, It is not a big issue and as a consenting adult I can handle debates such as this one.
But by all means of course, feel free to close this “thread” if you believe it has gone overboard. I actually tend to agree when I think about it
You don’t? I would have thought the Rhymer’s would have bred bees immune to Colony Collapse Disorder. Please accept my most heartfelt sympathies on your loss…
NM