Almost every position the left has, is actually just an attack on Christian beliefs?

ohnonotgmail

Ardent wrote: »

Folks need a moral compass in their lives. Religion has been replaced for the most part by radical social ideologies. And where we once had blasphemy we now have political correctness.

I don't know which is worse.

Maybe you feel you need to an external moral compass but my internal one works just fine.

Wibbs

xckjoo wrote: »

I heard years ago that it reduces the likelihood of inheriting undesirable genetic mutations but that could be wrong or outdated.

It could, but it could also introduce other undesirable mutations. EG Some African populations will have sickle cell anaemia in their genes, which if an East Asian had kids with someone with that tendency could introduce it to their kids lines. Other negatives like Haemophilia are spread out across all populations so it's a coin toss anyway. I'd personally reckon that it makes little enough difference negatively or positively.

On a micro level maybe? So for example if a pale skinned ginger Irish lad had kids with a dark skinned lass from Sudan and they settled in Australia, their kids might have a lower risk of melanoma. If they inherited their ma's skin tone of course. It's not a 50/50 thing. They could come out all pale and ginger.

I could see having kids with a "local" to an environment would make good sense. Going in the other direction to above, if an African lad rocked up in Lapland having kids with a local lass would increase the chances of their kids being paler and less likely to suffer from a vitamin D deficiency. Humans probably did this throughout our history. Well we shagged Neandertals and Denisovans so... They gave us immune system upgrades it seems and downgrades like faster clotting and addiction issues.

sk8erboii

tomofson wrote: »

A language group spoke by people with very similar genetic makeup.

right so asians, indians, pakistanis are alright cause theyre indo european too right?

Lux23

DS86DS wrote: »

Rubbish. Europeans have evolved over thousands of years in order to adopt to their environment. Hence, look at modern day Europe where non-European migrants are having problems adjusting to the environment, both physically and culturally.

Not to mention that there are clear IQ differences between European populations and non-European migrants, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa. In fact you are looking at a massive differential of 20 - 30 IQ points.

And it is for a very understandable reason, over thousands of years...... Europeans adopted physically and genetically to the challenging environment of Europe, most particularly during the Ice Ages. There are clear genetic differences at play here, the result of thousands of years of evolution and adaptation.

But then agsin, when did the Left ever accept science when it challenged their One World fairytale.

Absolute balderdash. Environmental and cultural factors have a far bigger bearing on Intelligence than genetics. Here's a good explanation.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-genetic-iq-differences-between-races-are-unlikely

tomofson

sk8erboii wrote: »

right so egyptians, indians, pakistanis are alright cause theyre indo european too right?

The original egyptians would have been alright, not modern day egyptians who have no relation to the ancient.

Indians and Pakistanis would depend on what tribe they are from, The vast majority are not of indo european blood, they are not original indo europeans.

tomofson

Lux23 wrote: »

Absolute balderdash. Environmental and cultural factors have a far bigger bearing on Intelligence than genetics. Here's a good explanation.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2018/may/02/why-genetic-iq-differences-between-races-are-unlikely

Environmental and cultural factors may play a part, but they certainly dont have a bigger bearing.

marieholmfan

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

What do you think the left's position on Batman would be if he was real?

Batman is a right wing vigilante. His superpower is money.

sk8erboii

tomofson wrote: »

The original egyptians would have been alright, not modern day egyptians who have no relation to the ancient.

Indians and Pakistanis would depend on what tribe they are from, The vast majority are not of indo european blood, they are not original indo europeans.

mate, ill answer it for you since you seem to get your knowledge from internet memes

youre not looking for language groups, you're looking for DNA haplogroups. Its what ties germans, celts, iberians and italians together.

tomofson

sk8erboii wrote: »

mate, ill answer it for you since you seem to get your knowledge from internet memes

youre not looking for language groups, you're looking for DNA haplogroups. Its what ties germans, celts, iberians and italians together.

That is what I have already said and you told me I was wrong.

I stated in no uncertain terms we are all part of a wider racial family, meaning haplogroups.

DS86DS

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you have any examples of non-europeans having problems adjusting physically to the environment here?

Adjust how? How do you propose somebody overcome thousands of years of genetic differences, including in IQ and environmental adaptability?

Evolution doesn't trigger a switch overnight just because Leftists are upset that it doesn't subscribe to their worldview.

Science is based in hard evidence and cold fact. It doesn't lend itself to emotional manipulation like Leftist politics does.

sk8erboii

tomofson wrote: »

That is what I have already said and you told me I was wrong.

I stated in no uncertain terms we are all part of a wider racial family, meaning haplogroups.

what have you been smoking my man?

indo european language group is not DNA haplogroup

I get that you dont want to admit that indus valley civilization (Indians, pakistanis) are the ones you dont wanna associate with, but just admit you made a mess up and you confused DNA with language groups

Skylinehead

Wibbs wrote: »

1) you forgot the Holocaust(and there have been a few others since the crusades.

Uh, Bosnia?

Lux23

tomofson wrote: »

Environmental and cultural factors may play a part, but they certainly dont have a bigger bearing.

If you never get to go to school, it doesn't matter how smart you are; you won't score highly in an IQ test.

tomofson

Lux23 wrote: »

If you never get to go to school, it doesn't matter how smart you are; you won't score highly in an IQ test.

I dont believe I ever proclaimed you would.

Lux23

DS86DS wrote: »

Adjust how? How do you propose somebody overcome thousands of years of genetic differences, including in IQ and environmental adaptability?

Evolution doesn't trigger a switch overnight just because Leftists are upset that it doesn't subscribe to their worldview.

Science is based in hard evidence and cold fact. It doesn't lend itself to emotional manipulation like Leftist politics does.

So where is your hard evidence that people from Africa can't cope in Europe? And vice versa.

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

The people on here don't even know the difference between a separate race and a sub ethnicity of the same race.

Celtic,Frankish,Spanish,Germanic, and Scandinavians are all sub ethnicities of indo european, we are very much so related.

tomofson wrote: »

The original egyptians would have been alright, not modern day egyptians who have no relation to the ancient.

Indians and Pakistanis would depend on what tribe they are from, The vast majority are not of indo european blood, they are not original indo europeans.

Sweet suffering jaysus. Indo european is not an ethnicity. It is a set of languages. that set includes hindi and other languages spoken by 2/3rds of modern india.

tomofson

Lux23 wrote: »

So where is your hard evidence that people from Africa can't cope in Europe? And vice versa.

Well europeans can definitely cope in africa, they turned zimbabwe/rhodesia and south africa from wastelands into the most productive acreage in the whole african continent.

ohnonotgmail

DS86DS wrote: »

Adjust how? How do you propose somebody overcome thousands of years of genetic differences, including in IQ and environmental adaptability?

Evolution doesn't trigger a switch overnight just because Leftists are upset that it doesn't subscribe to their worldview.

Science is based in hard evidence and cold fact. It doesn't lend itself to emotional manipulation like Leftist politics does.

You talk about hard facts yet cannot provide one single example. What genetic differences prevent non-europeans from living in europe?

DS86DS

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The genetic differences between any group of modern humans is minuscule at best.

If you want to argue cultural differences then fair enough, I might not agree but I can accept the logic. Trying to argue there's any significant genetic difference however is just flat out scientifically incorrect.

And where is your scientific data to back that up?

Because as far as I can see, science is quite clear on the subject. It's only Leftist idiots who want to fit a square peg into a round hole that are always looking for ways to thwart scientific fact.

Wibbs

DS86DS wrote: »

And it is for a very understandable reason, over thousands of years...... Europeans adopted physically and genetically to the challenging environment of Europe, most particularly during the Ice Ages. There are clear genetic differences at play here, the result of thousands of years of evolution and adaptation.

Slight problem with that D; precious little of Ice age genetics is in play in modern Europeans. Those Palaeolithic lines were later diluted down to feck all by an influx of farmers from the Middle East at the start of the agricultural revolution. Even Basques who are generally thought of as "ancient" have a genetic disconnect around 3000 years ago IIRC with ancient Basques. They basically look like Spaniards or French with some local flavour.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Do you have any examples of non-europeans having problems adjusting physically to the environment here?

There were instances of it in the UK in the past. Much higher rates of rickets among Caribbean and darker skinned Indian folks because of vitamin D deficiency. Many foods are fortified with D now so not nearly an issue anymore. The vitamin D thing seems to have some affect on African Americans. Black folks from the northern states are on average more wealthy, but have more illnesses and some have suggested vitamin D deficiency as a possible cause. It could also be they eat more crap and have more sedentary lives of course.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The genetic differences between any group of modern humans is minuscule at best.

It's not that minuscule. Not to the degree we once thought anyway. Take some East Asian populations that can have up to 5% Neandertal and near 10% Denisovan genes, genes that Africans don't have and Europeans wouldn't have any Denisovan going on. That's quite a bit of diversity and that's before we look at more local adaptations like Nepalese and Tibetan and Peruvian folks with adaptations to living at higher altitudes. And this diversity and difference is a good thing. This idea that some day we'll all be tanned brown eyed people(it'll never happen) is a horror to me. And dangerous to our species survival. I also hate the notion of all one world culture. Won't happen either, thankfully. I like we're so different, so diverse, that you have 4 foot nothing dark pygmy folks and 6 feet plus pale Dutch folks.

marieholmfan

tomofson wrote: »

The original egyptians would have been alright, not modern day egyptians who have no relation to the ancient.

Indians and Pakistanis would depend on what tribe they are from, The vast majority are not of indo european blood, they are not original indo europeans.

That's false ancient Egyptians had no close relationship with Europe and modern Egyptians are closely related to them.

xckjoo

tomofson wrote: »

When europeans can definitely cope in africa, they turned zimbabwe/rhodesia and south africa from wastelands into the most productive acreage in the whole african continent.

With science and engineering, not genetic adaptations.

Did you see what they did to the Congo too? Great bunch of lads. Must have evolved above that pesky empathy feeling.

tomofson

marieholmfan wrote: »

That's false ancient Egyptians had no close relationship with Europe and modern Egyptians are closely related to them.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

marieholmfan

What East Asian group has 10% Denisovan genes? Mongolians? Is that 10% Denisovan AND a separate 5 % Neandertal cumulative giving 15% non recent African origin?

Wibbs wrote: »

Slight problem with that D; precious little of Ice age genetics is in play in modern Europeans. Those Palaeolithic lines were later diluted down to feck all by an influx of farmers from the Middle East at the start of the agricultural revolution. Even Basques who are generally thought of as "ancient" have a genetic disconnect around 3000 years ago IIRC with ancient Basques. They basically look like Spaniards or French with some local flavour.

There were instances of it in the UK in the past. Much higher rates of rickets among Caribbean and darker skinned Indian folks because of vitamin D deficiency. Many foods are fortified with D now so not nearly an issue anymore. The vitamin D thing seems to have some affect on African Americans. Black folks from the northern states are on average more wealthy, but have more illnesses and some have suggested vitamin D deficiency as a possible cause. It could also be they eat more crap and have more sedentary lives of course.

It's not that minuscule. Not to the degree we once thought anyway. Take some East Asian populations that can have up to 5% Neandertal and near 10% Denisovan genes, genes that Africans don't have and Europeans wouldn't have any Denisovan going on. That's quite a bit of diversity and that's before we look at more local adaptations like Nepalese and Tibetan and Peruvian folks with adaptations to living at higher altitudes. And this diversity and difference is a good thing. This idea that some day we'll all be tanned brown eyed people(it'll never happen) is a horror to me. And dangerous to our species survival. I also hate the notion of all one world culture. Won't happen either, thankfully. I like we're so different, so diverse, that you have 4 foot nothing dark pygmy folks and 6 feet plus pale Dutch folks.

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

that is the ruling class of ancient eqypt which were not very egyptian at all as your own article points out.

tomofson

xckjoo wrote: »

With science and engineering, not genetic adaptations.

Did you see what they did to the Congo too? Great bunch of lads. Must have evolved above that pesky empathy feeling.

Europeans evolving past empathy feelings, who invents all the cures for diseases? who is dedicated to getting rid of poverty? Who will bend over backwards to prove they are not racist and make immigrants feel at home?

And to your first point of course because they had the intelligence for engineering and scientific fields.

Very productive people turned a wasteland into very productive soil.

For those few sins white people have committed in the past I am sure with our technologies and medical procedures we have more than made up for it now.

Doctor Jimbob

DS86DS wrote: »

And where is your scientific data to back that up?

Because as far as I can see, science is quite clear on the subject. It's only Leftist idiots who want to fit a square peg into a round hole that are always looking for ways to thwart scientific fact.

You're the one making wild claims, you can back them up with data if you like.

Wibbs wrote: »

It's not that minuscule. Not to the degree we once thought anyway. Take some East Asian populations that can have up to 5% Neandertal and near 10% Denisovan genes, genes that Africans don't have and Europeans wouldn't have any Denisovan going on. That's quite a bit of diversity and that's before we look at more local adaptations like Nepalese and Tibetan and Peruvian folks with adaptations to living at higher altitudes. And this diversity and difference is a good thing. This idea that some day we'll all be tanned brown eyed people(it'll never happen) is a horror to me. And dangerous to our species survival. I also hate the notion of all one world culture. Won't happen either, thankfully. I like we're so different, so diverse, that you have 4 foot nothing dark pygmy folks and 6 feet plus pale Dutch folks.

It's still pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm not denying there are small differences between subpopulations, but I don't think there's any credible scientific evidence whatsoever to back up posts like the one I was responding to that reference genetic differences in intelligence.

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

Europeans evolving past empathy feelings, who invents all the cures for diseases? who is dedicated to getting rid of poverty? Who will bend over backwards to prove they are not racist and make immigrants feel at home?

And to your first point of course because they had the intelligence for engineering and scientific fields.

Very productive people turned a wasteland into very productive soil.

For those few sins white people have committed in the past I am sure with our technologies and medical procedures we have more than made up for it now.

and what does ANY of this have to do with genetics or inherent traits?

marieholmfan

tomofson wrote: »

https://uk.reuters.com/article/oukoe-uk-britain-tutankhamun-dna/half-of-european-men-share-king-tuts-dna-idUKTRE7704OR20110801

Junk science or not even science. A screengrab from a Discovery channel documentary published by an ancestry testing company.

tomofson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and what does ANY of this have to do with genetics or inherent traits?

If you had the intelligence you would figure out it has everything to do with genetics and inherent traits.

nthclare

I'm a right Pagan myself....

Christmas has enough room for everyone, Christians Pagans and others.

I find the pagan aspect of it more warming and fits in better than the Christian side of it.

After all the Pagans celebrated the time of year way before the Christians did before.

One of my best friends is a man of the cloth,we slag each other off about our theological beliefs frequently enough

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

That's false ancient Egyptians had no close relationship with Europe and modern Egyptians are closely related to them.

Well... Analysis has shown that the genetics of ancient Egyptians showed more connections with some European lines along with more middle eastern lines than modern Egyptians possess. It's not too surprising that such differences might come up as Egypt and the Middle East in general was about the most traveled meeting place for genetics on the planet and influences ebbed and flowed, going back tens of thousands of years. Even a cursory look at the ruling classes and Pharaohs over time showed a bit of change. You had some that were more "Black" African and some that were far more pale. Mostly they represented themselves as red/tanned skinned folks.

By the time of Tutankamun we have his sandals where with each step he trots on Egypt's enemies, represented by a Black African and a paler, but not red middle easterner.

SusieBlue

tomofson wrote: »

Europeans evolving past empathy feelings, who invents all the cures for diseases? who is dedicated to getting rid of poverty? Who will bend over backwards to prove they are not racist and make immigrants feel at home?

And to your first point of course because they had the intelligence for engineering and scientific fields.

Very productive people turned a wasteland into very productive soil.

For those few sins white people have committed in the past I am sure with our technologies and medical procedures we have more than made up for it now.

Well yes, because most white people in the developed world will have better opportunities, better education, less exposure to warfare and violence, and lead more stable lives than say, a person living in Syria.
Or maybe a person living through a tribe war in Uganda. Or a person starving to death in Sudan.

Meaning they will have more opportunity to tackle poverty, advance in medical procedures, and develop new technologies, than say, a person who is living hour by hour trying not to get killed, or maybe a person who can't even feed their children, let alone themselves.

Of course white people look superior when compared in such a manner. But its like comparing apples to oranges.
How can you expect any nation to prosper when they are living through famines, wars, disease, government corruption, and all the rest?

You should just be grateful you were blessed enough to be born in a country and era that afford you this standard of living.

I'm not sure as a white person you would adapt too well to starving to death over in Africa.

tomofson

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well yes, because most white people in the developed world will have better opportunities, better education, less exposure to warfare and violence, and lead more stable lives than say, a person living in Syria.
Or maybe a person living through a tribe war in Uganda. Or a person starving to death in Sudan.

Meaning they will have more opportunity to tackle poverty, advance in medical procedures, and develop new technologies, than say, a person who is living hour by hour trying not to get killed, or maybe a person who can't even feed their children, let alone themselves.

Of course white people look superior when compared in such a manner. But its like comparing apples to oranges.
How can you expect any nation to prosper when they are living through famines, wars, disease, government corruption, and all the rest?

You should just be grateful you were blessed enough to be born in a country and era that afford you this standard of living.

I'm not sure as a white person you would adapt too well to starving to death over in Africa.

I don't think anyone would adapt well at starving to death, blame the corrupt african governments and the international banking cliques for why people are starving to death in africa. Not just evil whitey.

marieholmfan

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is the ruling class of ancient eqypt which were not very egyptian at all as your own article points out.

Actually the 18th dynasty were certainly perceived as Egyptian though I think they descend from the 16th dynasty (also Egyptian) who are claimed by some to have a levantine ancestor (not some lunatics or whatever but some Archaeologists).

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

If you had the intelligence you would figure out it has everything to do with genetics and inherent traits.

Explain how. Use simple words if you feel that is necessary. You somehow think that corruption and incompetence at farm management is a genetic trait.

xckjoo

tomofson wrote: »

Europeans evolving past empathy feelings, who invents all the cures for diseases? who is dedicated to getting rid of poverty? Who will bend over backwards to prove they are not racist and make immigrants feel at home?

And to your first point of course because they had the intelligence for engineering and scientific fields.

Very productive people turned a wasteland into very productive soil.

For those few sins white people have committed in the past I am sure with our technologies and medical procedures we have more than made up for it now.

The people who can profit from the cure are the ones that developed them. It's not some altruistic calling they're following.

Science and engineering are based on small incremental building on existing knowledge. We didn't just suddenly evolve the gene to figure it out. Plenty of non-white scientists out there. In fact I'd say we're being left behind in terms of our contributions.

So mass genocide, enslavement, torture, rape, etc are "a few sins" in your eyes. Very Christian of you.



Any sign of those links yet? Even one to kick me off. I'd we will disagree on the moral side of things but if there's science to back up what you're saying I'll take it on board.

SusieBlue

tomofson wrote: »

I don't think anyone would adapt well at starving to death, blame the corrupt african governments and the international banking cliques for why people are starving to death in africa. Not just evil whitey.

You can't bemoan those from less privileged countries for not tackling poverty, making medical advances and not developing new technology when most of them live in war torn, corrupt countries where their basic human needs for food & shelter aren't even being met.
That's the point I'm making.

tomofson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Explain how. Use simple words if you feel that is necessary. You somehow think that corruption and incompetence at farm management is a genetic trait.

Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources.

dr.fuzzenstein

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I do not want to copy and paste entire articles so I will post a link to one I like when I put in the Google search why the left hate the Bible.
When I was younger I was very leftwing myself but as I grew older I grew out of it.


https://wsau.com/blogs/ben-armstrong-blog/20344/rebelling-against-god-is-actually-whats-behind-almost-all-left-wing-beliefs/

And who made this "God" dude the boss anyway? Why should I be in any way obliged to follow or obey anything this "God", whoever he/she is, says?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "God" has never made any actual proclamation himself, it was always "God told me, no really, seriously, he did and you guys should totally listen to me, because I am totally not making this up".

OK, we'll try this the other way round.
"God spoke unto me and verily, he said, thou shalt not behave like arseholes unto one another. Seriously, knock off the crap, be nice to one another and share what you have. Don't make me come down there!"
OK, there you have it, the Words Of God Himself! A source every bit as reliable as some stoned shepherd from 3000 years ago.
Go out there my children, yay, and spread the good word and tell them he's sick and tired of your crap, so behave!

Wibbs

marieholmfan wrote: »

What East Asian group has 10% Denisovan genes? Mongolians? Is that 10% Denisovan AND a separate 5 % Neandertal cumulative giving 15% non recent African origin?

As far as I recall Papuans have the highest admixture M. And yeah it looks to be a separate mixing event(s). Interestingly all Asians and Europeans show some Neandertal admixture, up to 4-5%, but the Asian and European genes are different. There seems to have been a few different mixing events going on. So far anyway there's no evidence of our genes in those other folks. No modern human in Neandertals or Denisovans. It looks to be one way so far, or at least that's what has survived. To be fair we have billions of humans to test, but a dozen tops of Neandertals and Denisovans are only known from a finger bone and a tooth. I suspect sooner or later we'll find one of them with bits of us in them.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It's still pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things. I'm not denying there are small differences between subpopulations, but I don't think there's any credible scientific evidence whatsoever to back up posts like the one I was responding to that reference genetic differences in intelligence.

Oh I agree, though I'd not rule the possibility out. Some traits get selected for over others depending on the cultural and physical environment. I don't see why such selection stops at being skin deep. If an environment strongly selects for forward planning, those with the "gene" for forward planning will tend to have more kids. And it could happen quickly enough. I mean the ability to digest lactose and gluten(even alcohol) sprung up and spread pretty rapidly. Could some populations be more "intelligent"* on average? I don't see why not, though I would strongly suspect culture is far more at play than genes.






*there are different types of intelligence so its not that easy to pin down.

tomofson

SusieBlue wrote: »

You can't bemoan those from less privileged countries for not tackling poverty, making medical advances and not developing new technology when most of them live in war torn, corrupt countries where their basic human needs for food & shelter aren't even being met.
That's the point I'm making.

You can when its their fault.

White people bend over backwards to help everyone else on earth and I am still supposed to feel guilty and consider myself a "white devil"?

riffmongous

Well I hope you're happy OP

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

Africa is the richest continent in terms of resources.

it certainly is. And the white colonists did a damn good job of extracting all they could even if that involved massacring the local population. Of course none of that wealth was used to bring the local population into the 20th century. And when they left they left behind chaos.



Let us be honest here, your posts are nothing but flat out racism that would go down a treat on stormfront.

tomofson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it certainly is. And the white colonists did a damn good job of extracting all they could even if that involved massacring the local population. Of course none of that wealth was used to bring the local population into the 20th century. And when they left they left behind chaos.



Let us be honest here, your posts are nothing but flat out racism that would go down a treat on stormfront.

Some of the wealth should have been used to help the local population I agree with you there.

But the reality is those native peoples sat on all those resources for thousands of years and didn't even know what to do with them, they didn't know how to mine, how to farm on a large scale, not even how to build a wheel.

Since they were letting it all go to waste I believe europeans had a right to make the most of it.

marieholmfan

So there is no group with 15% non recent out of Africa DNA?
Papuan is between 4 % and 6 %.

Europeans do NOT have 4% Neandertal DNA it is 2% at most.

Wibbs wrote: »

As far as I recall Papuans have the highest admixture M. And yeah it looks to be a separate mixing event(s). Interestingly all Asians and Europeans show some Neandertal admixture, up to 4-5%, but the Asian and European genes are different. There seems to have been a few different mixing events going on. So far anyway there's no evidence of our genes in those other folks. No modern human in Neandertals or Denisovans. It looks to be one way so far, or at least that's what has survived. To be fair we have billions of humans to test, but a dozen tops of Neandertals and Denisovans are only known from a finger bone and a tooth. I suspect sooner or later we'll find one of them with bits of us in them.

Oh I agree, though I'd not rule the possibility out. Some traits get selected for over others depending on the cultural and physical environment. I don't see why such selection stops at being skin deep. If an environment strongly selects for forward planning, those with the "gene" for forward planning will tend to have more kids. And it could happen quickly enough. I mean the ability to digest lactose and gluten(even alcohol) sprung up and spread pretty rapidly. Could some populations be more "intelligent"* on average? I don't see why not, though I would strongly suspect culture is far more at play than genes.






*there are different types of intelligence so its not that easy to pin down.

ohnonotgmail

tomofson wrote: »

Some of the wealth should have been used to help the local population I agree with you there.

But the reality is those native peoples sat on all those resources for thousands of years and didn't even know what they do with them, they didn't know how to mine, how to farm, not even how to build a wheel.

Since they were letting it all go to waste I believe europeans had a right to make the most of it.

So what? they didnt need any of those things.

SusieBlue

tomofson wrote: »

You can when its their fault.

White people bend over backwards to help everyone else on earth and I am still supposed to feel guilty and consider myself a "white devil"?

Instead of judging maybe you could try having a bit of compassion.
No one called you a white devil, bar yourself. You seem to have a bizarre persecution complex.
You don't have to feel guilty but you don't even judge them either.

You mock & judge their level of intelligence when they simply do not have the same educational opportunities as we do. Its shameful.

tomofson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So what? they didnt need any of those things.

No, it wasn't part of their inherent "cultural" now was it?

Timberrrrrrrr

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I do not want to copy and paste entire articles so I will post a link to one I like when I put in the Google search why the left hate the Bible.
When I was younger I was very leftwing myself but as I grew older I grew out of it.






https://wsau.com/blogs/ben-armstrong-blog/20344/rebelling-against-god-is-actually-whats-behind-almost-all-left-wing-beliefs/

Deuteronomy 32:8 "

So we should take everything in this book literally? Amazing how the bible crowd tell us to ignore this particular book when you point out the horrific things in it. It would but the koran to shame.