I've heard it all now!

[Gold Dalek]

surely the main reason that sub saharan africa struggles has nothing to do with evolution or genetics and more to do with the malarial belt.
If cultural and technological advances take place at the margins then any handicap like malaria f*cks you over before you can even get going.

S.E England was malarial until quite recently

[snaw]

Fancy pointing us in the direction of the genetic evidence you're waffling on about which shows us why sub-saharn africans can't devlop advanced cultures?

You're still going on about genetics as being the reaosn for this, but as far as I'm aware that's never been stated by any scientific body, given genetically we're (all) virtually identical.

Evolution is about evolution of species, the human race is genetically one species, with very little variation in comparison to other species. When you're talking about genetic variation there can be more variation within a 'race' than between, and how that links into a society I'm still waiting to hear. If you'd put the UK in the middle of sub-saharn africa and left it in isolation for a few thousand years I'd bet we'd be nowhere near as advanced than we are now.

When you start using evolution as a divider and banging on about genetics as being a cause for one civilisations advances over another you're basically following the social darwanism/eugenics path trod down by the Nazi's.

We are where we are because of a favourable climate, close proximity to other advanced civicizations and a few lucky historical breaks. Early civilisations rose in favourable areas that provided plentiful food and enforced co-operation, take away that plenty and you've not got much chance.

[Gold Dalek]

"Fancy pointing us in the direction of the genetic evidence you're waffling on about which shows us why sub-saharn africans can't devlop advanced cultures"

>Fancy taking a trip to sub-saharan africa and show me evidence to the contrary?

"If you'd put the UK in the middle of sub-saharn africa and left it in isolation for a few thousand years I'd bet we'd be nowhere near as advanced than we are now."

>I'm not sure what point you're trying to make... are you saying the UK population in Africa would now be indistinguishable from any other African state?

>Are you saying that the climate of Africa stifles innovation and inquiry? similar latitudes between the tropics encompass India, China, Central & parts of Southern America - all of which have produced notable civilisations

>We exported our culture & people to Australia - semi-desert & it seems to be doing OK sor far, America, Canada all have faired OK

"We are where we are because of a favourable climate, "

>Egypt developed and that is mostly desert centred around the Nile


"Early civilisations rose in favourable areas that provided plentiful food and enforced co-operation"

>One of the features of most early civilisations is the ability to raid, take resources and dominate neigbours

"When you start using evolution as a divider and banging on about genetics as being a cause for one civilisations advances over another you're basically following the social darwanism/eugenics path trod down by the Nazi's. "

>It depends on if you accept the basic argument that some have advanced faster than others.

>It also depends on if you accept that as a given, your natural curiosity ask you to question why that is so. Or has evolution stopped altogether?

>Eugenics- we practice it on all of our offspring with the amnicentisis testing and the partners we all choose

>Darwin - accepted fact *except for religious nutters


>You are getting wound up because of a percieved racial slight...let me rephrase... two ape-like creatures originated in Africa, one stayed and the ther left. Over a long long time the decendants of the ape that walked out prospered far greater than the one that stayed - why do you think that is?

[snaw]

Fancy reposting that in a format it's readable in?

In a nutshell are you saying that sub-saharn africans are genetically inferior to everyone else?

If so please point me to some evidence of this.

[snaw]

You are getting wound up because of a percieved racial slight...let me rephrase... two ape-like creatures originated in Africa, one stayed and the ther left. Over a long long time the decendants of the ape that walked out prospered far greater than the one that stayed - why do you think that is?

BTW I wouldn't call that a percieved racial slight, I'd call that a full blown racial statement, one of the ones straight from the days of empire - white man's burden and all that, eh, what ho.

[Fungus]

S.E England was malarial until quite recently

That explains Norfolk then.

[lilelvis2000]

You just had to mention the War Criminal James Tiberius Kirk didn't you...

The saviour of earth! hardly - he made the UK a great place for cats!

BTW are cats part of your diet? My neighbour is really fat, how 'bout you eat here and I won't tip the government you're an illegal.

[TheMonkey]

Let's clear this up. I'm an amateur brain surgeon (well cognitive neuroscientist). It fascinates me and has done for years. I've always been interested in the cultural differences between races as well.

Average IQ's per racial group at the age of 6 (the time the brain's synaptic pattern is fully developed).

East Asian - 107
White - 103
Black/African - 89

Always cite your sources: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00158-1

There's some more references on the matter here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...8References%29

It's genetic. Don't take offense - races are different - it's a fact. Get rid of the politically correct stuff and face the facts.

[Fungus]

Let's clear this up. I'm an amateur brain surgeon (well cognitive neuroscientist). It fascinates me and has done for years. I've always been interested in the cultural differences between races as well.

Average IQ's per racial group at the age of 6 (the time the brain's synaptic pattern is fully developed).

East Asian - 107
White - 103
Black/African - 89

Always cite your sources: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00158-1

There's some more references on the matter here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...8References%29

It's genetic. Don't take offense - races are different - it's a fact. Get rid of the politically correct stuff and face the facts.

What about Brummies?

[vista]

Interesting

Let's clear this up. I'm an amateur brain surgeon (well cognitive neuroscientist). It fascinates me and has done for years. I've always been interested in the cultural differences between races as well.

Average IQ's per racial group at the age of 6 (the time the brain's synaptic pattern is fully developed).

East Asian - 107
White - 103
Black/African - 89

Always cite your sources: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00158-1

There's some more references on the matter here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_an...8References%29

It's genetic. Don't take offense - races are different - it's a fact. Get rid of the politically correct stuff and face the facts.

It does give you pause for thought that there could be cold hard genetic evidence of differences between the races. I can't completely accept a few references as conclusive proof and others here will refuse to accept anything that contradicts their prejudices, PC of course, infact an argument could ensue that PC isn't prejudice at all.

If it is true the big point won't be the intellectual differences but the generational scale of lies told and perpetuated by the PC brigade.