Grunty <gruntingdwarf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> The problems with this silly racist analysis are numerous
>> 1) There were plenty of predators outside of Africa including
>> the more-intelligent-than the-typical-animal Neanderthals.
>
>Neanderthals were preys rather than predators.
Were you there? How would you know?
They obviously had the means to survive for tens of millennia in a
harsh environment that supposedly the proto-Europeans needed to become
something "special" in order to survive in.
>> 2) The homeland wasn't hardly stagnant.
>
>A gradual change *within* the environment makes much less of a
>challenge than a gradual change *of* environment.
1. Your evidence is lacking.
2. There is plenty of change "of" environment entirely within Africa.
Within a few hundred miles there are tropical rainforests, the
Kalahari desert, the Serengeti plains, the Rift Valley, and the snows
of Kilamanjaro
>> 3) Africans show greater genetic diversity than non-Africans,
>> so an analysis that suggests that they changed less than
>> those who left Africa or that "the homeland" in some way
>> constricts evolutionary change, is contradicted by reality,
>
>Genetic diversity in which functional areas?
When you supply a genetic functional map, we can talk about it.
>The changes we're
>referring to are those that may have taken place specifically in the
>intellective area.
When you find the genes for intelligence, then we'll know whether
yours are any different then those of normal humans.
>It doesn't take an anthropologist or paleontologist to accept that the
>incentive to evolution (intended as species' abilities enhancement)
Evolution has nothing to do with "enhancement". Better leave it to
the paleontologists.
>is a change in the environmental conditions
Adaptation to the environment is certainly involved in evolution.
>- typical example: dynosaurs.
But that is a singularly poor example, not to mention misspelled.
>> 4) there is no reason to suspect that tools were of greater
>> advantage outside of Africa than inside
>
>The different levels intellective activity and its products industry
>and culture reached in both worlds, suggest that.
The "different levels" have all been achieved within a few thousand
years *long* after humans were pretty much all over the world, and had
supposedly adapted to different environments.
The earliest major advances in these arenas took place in areas that
more geographically uniform than Africa, and not at all like Europe
(specifically the development of writing in the Middle Eastern desert
- something that took the northern Europeans longer to learn than the
Ethiopians).
As I said, Diamonds explanations, based on resources, make a helluva
lot more sense than yours.
>> 5) until so recently that evolution isn't easily implicated,
>> those outside of Africa had no significant superiority in
>> tools or civilization to those in Africa.
>
>"Significant" is the keyword.
>Throughout Paleolithic, any small changes in their rudimentary
>techniques meant, in relative terms, great improvements.
No.
>Therefore,
>your "no significant superiority in tools" actually could mean a
>significant improvement in intellectual development.
Or it could mean anything else, since your evidence of the improvement
just disappeared.
>Intelligence (number of neurons? synapses?)
Now there is an interesting (and entirely unsup****ted) definition of
intelligence. How many neurons do you have, as compared to the
typical African? How many synapses? Did Einstein have more neurons
or synapses than the typical moronic racist?
>is a muscle,
Now there is an uninteresting and silly redefinition of a biological
term contrary to anything resembling relevance.
>it gets enhanced by practice.
Your evidence is lacking. Maybe you should try to practice.
>It gets gradually fixed into genetic content like any favorable mutation
does.
You have yet to evidence any relevant favorable mutation, or why
"practice" has anything to do with mutations and genetics.
>Over those primitive eras, knowledge and technology must have
>ac***ulated at an exasperately slow pace,
There is no evidence that it ac***ulated at all.
>until certain point at which
>they got triggered in accelerated expansion, producing the advent of
>Neolithic.
The advent of the Neolithic era may have first started in Melanesia,
and had the most significant changes in the Fertile Crescent and the
Nile Valley (which of course is in Africa). Europeans were latecomers
to the concept (as were southern Africans) because the regions lacked
suitable natural grains.
Even so, real scientists don't claim to know what triggered the
Neolithic area when and where it happened.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Revolution
>But prior to that, light race
There is no "light race".
>had got to develop some more intelligence than black,
Your evidence is lacking.
>by virtue of their more demanding environments.
Your evidence is very lacking.
>> Jared Diamond's explanation works a lot better
>> than any racial one.
>
>From Wikipedia:
>"Diamond argues that the gaps in power and technology between human
>societies do not reflect cultural or racial differences, but rather
>originate in environmental differences [...] "
>
>My point doesn't differ actually.
You claim that genetics is involved, Diamond demonstrates that
genetics needs have nothing to do with it.
>Races are
nonexistent, being social creations of the modern era.
>a consequence of (originated in) adaptations to
>environmental differences, produced not by local environmental changes
>but by migrations, this meaning different latitudes, continents,
>climates.
Your evidence is lacking
>Which of both groups, originated in a common ancient trunk, was
>supposed to make the heavier adaptive efforts
"effort" is a silly concept in the context.
> the one that stayed
>home or the one that emigrated to a different environment? That group
>is the one that *had* to reach a higher level of intelligence.
Clearly not. It simply is NOT the case that migration leads to a
noticeable increase in intelligence, in the short term or the long
term.
>> > (On top of this natural fact, a historical fact - the oppresion
>> > lights subjected blacks to in recent centuries taking
>> > advantage of their superior development, just pronounced
>> > the differences.)
>
>> You assume your conclusion of "superior development".
>
>Lights' "superior development" is an historical fact.
No.
>True, over Historical era, superiority
is a social definition, first of all.
>is more and more due to artificial (cultural) superiority in a much
larger degree than the ancient
>genetic difference.
It is entirely cultural, including the definition thereof. Suffice it
to say that the people of many non-European countries consider their
culture superior to yours (whatever it is).
>> There are plenty of examples in history of conquerors
>> and oppressors being less intelligent and advanced
>> than those that they oppressed.
>
>But few of them are *inter-racial*
Since "inter-racial" is a socially constructed bit of nonsense, your
argument lacks substance.
The Mongols, Huns, and eventually the Tatars were quite successful in
conquering other civilizations that were more "advanced" in
technology. Most racists consider them a separate "race" from those
that they conquered.
>I think of Mongolian Khans invasions over Europe, but they didn't last
>long
You are entirely too Eurocentric. They conquered all of Asia as well.
>- for their own brutality and primitivism they weren't capable of
>keeping together what they conquered.
The resident Tatar may correct you on that. But just in case.
The Tatars ruled Russia for a few hundred years, and China even
longer. They conquered and held the Middle East (which was neolithic
revolution country).
>Two racial oppressions lasting for centuries are:
That you seem especially proud of ...
See above re Tatars and Russia, Tatars and India.
>Whites over African blacks, either in Africa or transplanted to
>America.
Actually didn't last all that long - a couple hundred years, but it
was extreme. The Arabs were doing it for a lot longer, except that
they didn't see it in such racial terms (and indeed most of Europe
didn't either - remember that Peter the Great of Russia turned his
black slave into one of his top generals and advisors, his kids
married into nobility, and that slave's great grandson, Pushkin, was
the pinnacle of Russian poetry)
>Whites over American Indians (Mongoloids in essence).
Once you decimate and destroy a civilization, it isn't hard to
maintain oppression as long as you care to. There are plenty of such
"interracial" destructions of culture that lasted in perpetuity
because the losing side was either wiped out or assimilated.
>Whites, whites, whites....
It's all in your subhuman racist mind.
There are no "whites". We are all mongrels.
lojbab
|
