Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer

Originally posted by Golack
Moving your society to other regions of the world and enslaving peoples takes intelligence.

Yes, because there is no smarter group of people than slave owners

It doesn't take intelligence, it takes desperation and greed. It takes intelligence to maintain a society that doesn't have to resort to having to enslave another population to do the work their society couldn't perform in the first place.

They had to engineer the ships and organize the armies.

Right, so the Europeans were first to engineered ships and organize armies?

Im not saying its right but thats how it happened.

Sources?

Thanks for proving my point.

That Europeans piggybacked off the thousands of years of knowledge and culture of others? You're very welcome.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by DJMessiah]

reply to post by WestPoint23


Evolution occurs in a grander scale. Simply having different color skin, is not evolution. A baby learns to walk, talk, and express their feelings. They don't evolve, they adapt to their surroundings.

When I came to America, I had much darker skin, being from the Middle East. Since I've lived here, my skin tone has grown much lighter. Did I evolve? No, my skin adapted to my surroundings.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by DJMessiah]

This thread is going down an illogical and ideological route. This is a scientific matter not a political one, you can’t "prove" anything on the basis of modern civilization, too many factors to consider. The Egyptians also created engineering marvels… Again this is not about Africans being "dumb" or unable to be educated and or be intelligent. But rather about minute differences in the human species due to historical environmental factors which may grant one group a greater capacity for possibly attaining a higher degree of reason etc… This by itself, in my opinion, is neither insulting, shocking or new. But using it to generalize and attempt to label (insult) is indeed truly dumb.

reply to post by DJMessiah


The correct term for what you went through would be acclimatization. Sorry, had to make the distinction.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
reply to post by WestPoint23

 

Evolution occurs in a grander scale. Simply having different color skin, is not evolution. A baby learns to walk, talk, and express their feelings. They don't evolve, they adapt to their surroundings.

And in this post you prove your own ignorance. Skin color IS a product of evolution. A baby may learn to walk but it doesnt learn its skin pigment.

The evolution
of a naked, darkly pigmented integument occurred early in the
evolution of the genus Homo. A dark epidermis protected sweat
glands from UV-induced injury, thus insuring the integrity of somatic
thermoregulation. Of greater significance to individual reproductive
success was that highly melanized skin protected against UV-induced
photolysis of folate (Branda & Eaton, 1978, Science 201, 625–626;
Jablonski, 1992, Proc. Australas. Soc. Hum. Biol. 5, 455–462, 1999,
Med. Hypotheses 52, 581–582), a metabolite essential for normal
development of the embryonic neural tube (Bower & Stanley, 1989,
The Medical Journal of Australia 150, 613–619; Medical Research
Council Vitamin Research Group, 1991, The Lancet 338, 31–37) and
spermatogenesis (Cosentino et al., 1990, Proc. Natn. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 87, 1431–1435; Mathur et al., 1977, Fertility Sterility 28,
1356–1360).
As hominids migrated outside of the tropics, varying degrees of
depigmentation evolved in order to permit UVB-induced synthesis of
previtamin D3. The lighter color of female skin may be required to
permit synthesis of the relatively higher amounts of vitamin D3
necessary during pregnancy and lactation.

www.bgsu.edu...

Personally I think genetics play a minor role in intelligence. I believe culture has more to do with it. Does the culture foster learning and discovery or does it promote ignorance? That's the key, in my humble opinion.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Evolution occurs in a grander scale. Simply having different color skin, is not evolution.

Evolution eventually leads to a "grander scale" but you are wrong, in my oppinion, assuming that gradual adaptation is not evolution. It is a part of evolution which will overtime lead to noticeable differences.

Originally posted by DJMessiah
Did I evolve?

As in turn into a different species? No of course not, but that is not what I meant, evolution can mean many things other than a "grander scale", from minute to major differences. Europeans and Africans are both humans but they generally have differences, ones that go far beyond essentially having a tan or not. Since these differences were caused by environmental factors and since they are permanent, it is evolution. However as I said to before whether this leads to one group having a greater capacity for intelligence is open to debate.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by WestPoint23]

reply to post by Beachcoma


Thank you for that clarification.

Originally posted by Golack
And in this post you prove your own ignorance. Skin color IS a product of evolution.

Great. I'll remember to tell my friends that next time they go to the beach for a tan, they're evolving.

A baby may learn to walk but it doesnt learn its skin pigment.

Why would they? Learning to walk is a mental process, skin pigment is a physical, so can you clarify what you mean by a baby learning their skin pigment?

Originally posted by BlueRidge

Africans are less intelligent than Westerners, says DNA pioneer

This claim is ridiculous. How do you explain all of the black doctors, nurses, lawyers, politicians, scientists, etc. Every able minded human being has the same potential. This thread was just made to spread racism.

This leading dna researcher...
is he white and a westerner by any chance?
Hmmmm...following in that racist Darwin's footsteps I see.
I wonder what motivated his 'research'. Instead of tryind to find a cure for something or he embarked on 'research' to 'prove' this?/ Did he stumble upon this discovery by pure chance? Or was he "researching" something to validate what he already believed?

What if did research which showed that biracial people smell funny? Wouldn't you ask what on earth would possess me to research that? Was it on my mind, etc?
Soon ppl, soon. The stupidity will end very soon and everyone will get what they deserve. And none will receive my pity. Keep fooling around.

The article is worded badly and implies more than it should. Again, the issue, at least for me, is not that every African is unintelligent or that anyone of that ancestry cannot be intelligent or peruse highly advanced professions. Just that at the biological level other groups of humans may have a higher capacity for intellect due to the factors we have discussed in this thread. I really doubt this particular scientist or the thread author was trying to be racist or promote racism. Any discussion involving races should not be automatically clouded by emotional thinking based on historical events.

reply to post by LostInThought


I must have been absent when they handed out the "savant" pills in school like millions of others. We do not all have the same capacity or we would all be motzarts and davinchi's. Thats why people naturally gravitate twords things they personally excel in such as art,mathmatics,ect. Not to mention, brain defects and low potential capacity are a possibility as well. Are blacks different? I have no idea, they seem like everyone else.

I found the thread title to be inacurate as well, it states africans( ie, people who live in africa right now) vs westerners(white,black,south american,asian,ect). I know many black westerners. However this article is actually black vs white.

it depends on what their definition of 'intellgence' is.


what if its becuase some races may have different kinds of thinkers. left or right brained.

IMO 'most' black people are more right brained, and 'most' white people are more left brained.



if you forgot.
Right brain= creativity/imagination
Left brain= order/logic



the reason is say 'most' is becuase there are left and right brained thinkers for all races.

Originally posted by Elijio
…is he white and a westerner by any chance?

Ad Hominem (also known as irrelevant to the discussion). If he was a she and or an African it still would not matter.

Originally posted by Elijio
...following in that racist Darwin's footsteps I see.

This is not that place for that discussion nor should meaningless phrase be thrown around to create the illusion of argument via emotional tactics meant to persuade. Still, care to disprove Darwin's findings and conclusions?

Originally posted by Elijio
I wonder what motivated his 'research'.

Irrelevant, argue the findings not the source or motive, discrediting it not the same as disproving.

Originally posted by Elijio
…he embarked on 'research' to 'prove' this?

Research should not be hampered because of who it may offend or because of what may be uncovered.

Originally posted by Elijio
Did he stumble upon this discovery by pure chance? Or was he "researching" something to validate what he already believed?

Both circumstances, is the findings are scientifically accredited, are legitimate. I see no wrong in trying to scientifically prove what you believe in, no matter the subject as long as your methods and findings have not been compromised.

Originally posted by Elijio
Wouldn't you ask what on earth would possess me to research that? Was it on my mind, etc?

Only if I was interested in ignoring and discrediting your findings, purpose has no relation to result as long as the latter is legitimate.

[edit on 17-10-2007 by WestPoint23]

dont u rekon anyone could be smart if thay put there mind to it dont worry were thay are well less fortunate ppl like africa is abit hard and alot of countrys because thay are poor countrys but thay should be helped not said thay are stupid

Oh good grief.
THIS thread should be in SkunkWorks.

I knew I remembered reading an adoption study about this in psychology class, I think this is it:

en.wikipedia.org...

The results are still debatable.

[edit on 10/17/2007 by djohnsto77]

Perhaps everyone should just ignore or throw out why it matters whether one race produces more of a certain kind of people than another?

Perhaps people should just pretend race does not even exist, and that everyone is an INDIVIDUAL and NOT part of this or that group?

Because frankly, if thee lived thy daily life with the belief that there is no such thing as race, and treat all known and unknown individuals only by how thy will come to interact with that individual, none of this science will EVER apply to thou life, or have any impact on it or the people thou interact with.


Basically, this is a part of science that is irrelevant. Anyone choosing to support and justify it, probably has some conflicting thinking within their perception of the world, and the people within it. Flame me all thou wish, if thy find it necessary, but if this is important enough to argue FOR, really try and be honest with thyself about thine true feelings.

reply to post by DYepes



your a good man nicely said love the avater also very intresting PEACE

Originally posted by DYepes
Basically, this is a part of science that is irrelevant. Anyone choosing to support and justify it, probably has some conflicting thinking within their perception of the world, and the people within it. Flame me all thou wish, if thy find it necessary, but if this is important enough to argue FOR, really try and be honest with thyself about thine true feelings.

Well said. I can't for the life of me figure out how this sort of scientific research can benefit humanity as a whole. If anything, it only serves to divide the already fragmented population. What good can this sort of research bring? What solutions do the conclusions propose?

If intelligence is really completely in the DNA, then we should all intermarry until everyone is brown. No whites, no blacks. Just brown.