Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

JLBB wrote:
6 months ago
"You do know there are more diseases such as malaria, and other infections there, correct."

You do know in the case of malaria and various others this is due to their inability to control the spread and existence of said diseases, while the white nation of the United States achieved this successfully?

"Oh but muh coincidence, oh but muh poor people, oh but muh rasism, oh but muh colonialism and mean white people"
Malaria is actually an overrated disease anyways.

I went to Sudan as a kid (my father used to work a job related to irrigation) and i got malaria there from a mosquito called "Anopheles Arabiensis", and then i was completely healed in the span of 2 weeks to a month and nothing changed in my life.

Added in 5 minutes 29 seconds:
Pat wrote:
6 months ago
Denying the link between IQ and race is denying evolution.
That's simply wrong. As "That Guy" chart showed, Asians and Jews have higher IQ than Whites on average, which means that they should be more evolved than Whites according to you.

On the other hand, women globally prefer White men the most, which means that "natural selection" prefers White men more than the other races despite the other races being more evolved.

Added in 32 minutes 22 seconds:
That Guy wrote:
6 months ago
the jews had the option of putting their ethnostate in like...uganda, madagascar or the the soviet far east. Instead, they put themselves in a sea of muslims. They are less of afraid of the muslims than of white europeans.
That's not because they're "less afraid" of us or anything, there's a reason behind this.

The Jews want Palestine, Jerusalem, because they think God promised them it. Well they're not wrong, God in fact did tell them to enter Palestine with Moses when The Canaanites were living there and some people called "Amalekites", which means giants in Arabic.

But they didn't want to fight them because they were afraid and told Moses (from the Quran) : They said "O Moses indeed within it is a people of tyrannical strength and indeed we will never enter it until they leave it; but if they leave it then we will enter".

And then God punished them by making them wonder around for 40 years in the deserts without having a home, but looks like they developed some sort of an inferiority complex toward "Amalekites" and a grudge because it's written : "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" 1 Samuel 15:3

And they also developed a deep obsession with Palestine from then. During the time of Babel and when it was destroyed by The Pharisees, the Talmud was released and is written within it that the Jews should rule over Goyim and rebuild Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem and wait for the Moshiach (Jewish Messiah) who is supposedly descendant of king David and he shall rule from his throne the whole world in Jerusalem and give the Jews their glory back, etc.

When Babel was completely destroyed after they were enslaved there, they went back to Palestine to build the temple and wait for the "Moshiach". God sent them Jesus, but they rejected him and called him a crazy bastard who practices magic and called his mother a whore until they were kicked again from Palestine, but they've always wanted to go back, and they succeeded in 1948 and they're now getting ready to build their Solomon's Temple and are waiting for the "Moshiach".



So them choosing Palestine is not a coincidence or anything, they feel entitled to it because their God "gave" it to them. And because of their future plans as well.

User avatar
Pat
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 243
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 770
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Dutasteride, minoxidil, ketokonazole, dermarolling.

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Pat » 2 months ago

Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
That's simply wrong. As "That Guy" chart showed, Asians and Jews have higher IQ than Whites on average, which means that they should be more evolved than Whites according to you.

On the other hand, women globally prefer White men the most, which means that "natural selection" prefers White men more than the other races despite the other races being more evolved.
More evolved doesn't necessarily mean higher IQ. It's only in recent years that high IQ predicts success as much as it does today. Having a large brain will consume more energy than a smaller one, so if high intelligence isn't necessary it's a waste of energy. One could extend this line of thought and hypothesize that the reason africans have lower IQ on average is simply because it's not needed in Africa. The reason it's not needed could be because the nature and climate isn't as challenging as in other places of the world. For instance Africans have never needed to save food for winter. That would be the link between IQ and evolution.

It's interesting that you think women would choose more evolved men (men with higher intelligence according to you) when in reality higher IQ equals higher probability of virginity. https://www.geniusawakening.com/genius- ... q-and-sex/
So even today when high IQ is the largest predicator of financial success it doesn't necessarily mean a larger probability of continuation of the bloodline. In turn making it go against natural selection.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

Pat wrote:
2 months ago
More evolved doesn't necessarily mean higher IQ. It's only in recent years that high IQ predicts success as much as it does today. Having a large brain will consume more energy than a smaller one, so if high intelligence isn't necessary it's a waste of energy. One could extend this line of thought and hypothesize that the reason africans have lower IQ on average is simply because it's not needed in Africa. The reason it's not needed could be because the nature and climate isn't as challenging as in other places of the world. For instance Africans have never needed to save food for winter. That would be the link between IQ and evolution.

It's interesting that you think women would choose more evolved men (men with higher intelligence according to you) when in reality higher IQ equals higher probability of virginity. https://www.geniusawakening.com/genius- ... q-and-sex/
So even today when high IQ is the largest predicator of financial success it doesn't necessarily mean a larger probability of continuation of the bloodline. In turn making it go against natural selection.
if more evolved doesn't mean higher IQ, then there's no relation between evolution and IQ (it's impossible for an inverse relationship to exist because that wouldn't be even evolution at all), and there's no reason to assume that Whites are more evolved over Blacks because they have better IQ since you don't want to admit the same with Asians or Jews. But anyways i will prove to you that actually having high IQ should equal evolution and should be favored by natural selection more than having a square jaw or being 6'5.

Yeah, maybe there's a waste of energy on the brain, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives. I mean everything has a risk or a bad side, what makes something good or bad is how much of good it has compared to the bad. A guy with a better brain might have less energy, but he could invent a weapon and kill a gorilla with it's enormous energy, despite it being stronger, which means that having higher intelligence means you're superior, thus more evolved.

That actually proves that natural selection theory is kinda flawed. When you look at humans and the difference between them and animals, the first thing you'd notice is that we're far more intelligent than them. Some animals could erase us out of existence is mere seconds, yet we're on the top of the food chain thanks to our intelligence. That proves again that intelligence is far superior to strength, speed, agility, durability or any survival advantage in nature. Yet, women are never attracted to intelligence, why is that ?

You could argue that it's because women have primitive selection of mates and the time for them to become attracted to intelligence hasn't come yet, but that's simply wrong. Natural selection means that the females of the species will almost instantly choose the fittest males to reproduce with. For an example, if we have a bunch of giraffes who have short necks and the trees are too tall and a giraffe with a mutation happened to have been born with a long neck, it should be favored by natural selection and be more attractive to women since it's fitter than the rest, which means that it's supposed to be extremely adaptable at a retardely fast rate. Given that humans have "evolved" intelligence for thousands of years means that women should have been pretty much attracted to intelligence by now, but that really never happened.

And that arises another question. In the giraffe example or similar examples to it, how could the females attraction change rapidly like that. According to evolution humans used to be pretty much like apes, which means that women used to be attracted to hairy ape-looking dudes who were pretty much retarded, but now they're attracted to that handsome Chad who looks like a Greek God. How did that happen ? What's the mechanism that changes females attraction that quickly since it should be rooted in their genetics and genetics rarely change unless mutation happens. This is another plot hole in the theory that i could never find an answer to.

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 858
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1879
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by That Guy » 2 months ago

There are different kinds of intelligence, and IQ tests generally favor certain types more than others.

Spatial intelligence is the ability to visualize and relate with space. Whites undeniably have this more than anyone else, which is why most of the greatest composers, sculptors, navigators, etc. are European.

East Asians and Jews definitely have high numeric intelligence. Which is that they are very good with numbers. There are theories that the reason ashkenazi jews have such high numeric intelligence is because usury wasn't a sin for them in the middle ages which lead to so many of them becoming bankers ("omg goy that's so anti-semetic, why would you say that!" etc.) and stuff. After many generations of being in such a numeric-intensive task every day, the theory goes that jews developed high numeric IQ as a result that is now largely hereditary.

For the kind of "evolution" we're talking about, it's obvious that high spacial intelligence, and a decent numeric intelligence are required to build the kinds of things whites did, while other civilizations lacked it in equal measure.

Africans seems to just be good at fighting and fucking.

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

That Guy wrote:
2 months ago
For the kind of "evolution" we're talking about, it's obvious that high spacial intelligence, and a decent numeric intelligence are required to build the kinds of things whites did, while other civilizations lacked it in equal measure.
Look, i like how you defend your race and have pride of who you're, but you're going too far with your white supremacy now.

Western civilization took A LOT from other civilizations, like the Egyptians for example and Babel (Iraq) and Persians, etc. At no point the western civilization ever measured to the greatness of the Egyptian or the Persian one. Still till today no one even discovered many mysterious secrets of ancient Egypt which shows the brilliancy of the ancient Egyptian civilization.


Still you don't see me going on every thread talking about "how we wuz kangs and shiet" and looking down on other races for no reason at all. Yeah i know my country is shit now, but the time it has been shit is nothing relatively to the time it had been the greatest country in the world. Also lots of conspirators doing shitty stuff here (including traitor Gulf Arabs, not only the Jews).

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 858
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1879
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by That Guy » 2 months ago

Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
At no point the western civilization ever measured to the greatness of the Egyptian or the Persian one.
They absolutely did.

Like, I'm not saying the Egyptians and Persians weren't a great civilization who didn't create and do impressive things, but to argue the greco-romans and later the ethnic groups didn't match, and eventually surpass this on their own is just not accurate.

Especially when you start counting in ideas and philosophy on top of architecture and art.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1187
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1582

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by blackg » 2 months ago

That Guy wrote:
2 months ago
They absolutely did.

Like, I'm not saying the Egyptians and Persians weren't a great civilization who didn't create and do impressive things, but to argue the greco-romans and later the ethnic groups didn't match, and eventually surpass this on their own is just not accurate.

Especially when you start counting in ideas and philosophy on top of architecture and art.
The achievements of the United States is the greatest example of Western technology, I believe.
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
That Guy
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 858
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1879
Norwood: NW2.5

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by That Guy » 2 months ago

blackg wrote:
2 months ago
The achievements of the United States is the greatest example of Western technology, I believe.
and most of that tech was made by Germans

The largest ethnic group in America.

Well, until the demorepublicans unleash the hispanic hordes in the near future.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1187
Joined: 11 months ago
Reputation: 1582

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by blackg » 2 months ago

That Guy wrote:
2 months ago
and most of that tech was made by Germans

The largest ethnic group in America.

Well, until the demorepublicans unleash the hispanic hordes in the near future.
Yep, it's unfortunate that a simple case of white guilt will be the fulcrum for a major demographic shift in the United States.
No planning, no thought for the consequence of bringing large numbers of socially conservative, narrow minded misogynist homophobes from Latin America into a progressive first world country.

Keep America socially progressive! The third world is socially regressive!
marry me, Kaitlin

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

That Guy wrote:
2 months ago
They absolutely did.

Like, I'm not saying the Egyptians and Persians weren't a great civilization who didn't create and do impressive things, but to argue the greco-romans and later the ethnic groups didn't match, and eventually surpass this on their own is just not accurate.

Especially when you start counting in ideas and philosophy on top of architecture and art.
I have to disagree with you here.

Because even something as simple as the pyramids, which was only a small part of the Egyptian civilization, can never be built at any point during western civilization even with the technology they have.

Egyptians were far ahead of their time in fields like Engineering, Medicine, Astronomy, etc.

You seem to think that a great civilization is a civilization that has advanced technology, but that's actually opposite to what makes the Egyptian Civilization so great. Ancient Egyptians, without even having advanced technology, were capable of performing miracles. Which clearly shows how superior and intelligent they were back then.

And no offence, but without what Whites took from other civilizations, they would pretty much be stuck in the age of Vikings forever. Whites learned Engineering, Medicine, Chemistry, Astronomy, Religion, Math, architecture from eastern civilizations. Yeah they developed it much more better than most other races, but the fact remain that they mostly depended on others to achieve what they did.

Anyways, some research and claim actually shows that ancient Egyptians might have actually been White themselves, but it's still not proven.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 63866.html

https://ymlp.com/zbyrbd


What annoys me the most is when Black People claim that they were the real ancient Egyptians and that the current Egyptians are imposters and that Whites hide this fact because they don't want to give Blacks any credit lmao. This actually triggers me so so much. It's like Black people have no true history or civilization nor can they make one, so they have no choice but to steal from others (they like to steal everything instead of working hard to achieve anything). It's really pathetic.

These videos absolutely destroy Black people delusion and cope.




User avatar
EvilLocks
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 247
Joined: 5 months ago
Reputation: 750
Norwood: NW5
Regimen: Nada

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by EvilLocks » 2 months ago

Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
I have to disagree with you here.

Because even something as simple as the pyramids, which was only a small part of the Egyptian civilization, can never be built at any point during western civilization even with the technology they have.

Egyptians were far ahead of their time in fields like Engineering, Medicine, Astronomy, etc.

You seem to think that a great civilization is a civilization that has advanced technology, but that's actually opposite to what makes the Egyptian Civilization so great. Ancient Egyptians, without even having advanced technology, were capable of performing miracles. Which clearly shows how superior and intelligent they were back then.

And no offence, but without what Whites took from other civilizations, they would pretty much be stuck in the age of Vikings forever. Whites learned Engineering, Medicine, Chemistry, Astronomy, Religion, Math, architecture from eastern civilizations. Yeah they developed it much more better than most other races, but the fact remain that they mostly depended on others to achieve what they did.

Anyways, some research and claim actually shows that ancient Egyptians might have actually been White themselves, but it's still not proven.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/scie ... 63866.html

https://ymlp.com/zbyrbd


What annoys me the most is when Black People claim that they were the real ancient Egyptians and that the current Egyptians are imposters and that Whites hide this fact because they don't want to give Blacks any credit lmao. This actually triggers me so so much. It's like Black people have no true history or civilization nor can they make one, so they have no choice but to steal from others (they like to steal everything instead of working hard to achieve anything). It's really pathetic.

These videos absolutely destroy Black people delusion and cope.



Totally off topic here but I have noticed how you have matured a lot since you were on hair loss talk. The way you talk and give detailed posts have surely matured a lot over the last couple of years, in a good way :)
En får væra som en er når'n itte vart som en sku :thumbup:

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

EvilLocks wrote:
2 months ago
Totally off topic here but I have noticed how you have matured a lot since you were on hair loss talk. The way you talk and give detailed posts have surely matured a lot over the last couple of years, in a good way :)
Well thanks for the compliment m'lady
Image

lol jokes asides, but i think it's because that throughout my life i've always been a curious person. I wanted to know more about everything, especially this world we live in. I take great pride in the fact that i'm a human being and i believe that i'm superior to almost every other creature on this planet. I honestly don't see myself as an animal and the life of eating, shitting and then planting your seed inside a vagina doesn't satisfy me at all. It honestly saddens me when other humans see themselves as worthless animals who are not worth more than a cockroach without being able to see the true magnificence of mankind.

So the most thing i desire and persuade is the objective truth of everything, while that might be hard to achieve, but it's not impossible.

Another reason is that the people i usually debate with are 30 years old on average and i'm 19, which puts me at a great disadvantage. It's an undeniable fact that the amount of knowledge and experience they posses far surpasses mine, thus i always feel like i need to work much harder and rely mostly on my intelligence to be able to have a fair and decent debate.

User avatar
Pat
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 243
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 770
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Dutasteride, minoxidil, ketokonazole, dermarolling.

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Pat » 2 months ago

Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
if more evolved doesn't mean higher IQ, then there's no relation between evolution and IQ (it's impossible for an inverse relationship to exist because that wouldn't be even evolution at all), and there's no reason to assume that Whites are more evolved over Blacks because they have better IQ since you don't want to admit the same with Asians or Jews. But anyways i will prove to you that actually having high IQ should equal evolution and should be favored by natural selection more than having a square jaw or being 6'5.
No, there's still a relation between IQ and evolution. As I explained if there's no reason for a big brain then it's a waste of energy. I don't understand what you mean about me not wanting to admit that jews and asians have higher IQ than whites on average. I've literally posted that they do. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
Yeah, maybe there's a waste of energy on the brain, but the positives FAR outweigh the negatives. I mean everything has a risk or a bad side, what makes something good or bad is how much of good it has compared to the bad. A guy with a better brain might have less energy, but he could invent a weapon and kill a gorilla with it's enormous energy, despite it being stronger, which means that having higher intelligence means you're superior, thus more evolved.
The positives of having a large brain doesn't outweigh the benefits in every single scenario especially thousands of years ago. And having higher IQ doesn't equal more evolved once again. You're not superior in an environment where IQ isn't important.
Just invent a weapon, bro! xD xD xD
Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
That actually proves that natural selection theory is kinda flawed. When you look at humans and the difference between them and animals, the first thing you'd notice is that we're far more intelligent than them. Some animals could erase us out of existence is mere seconds, yet we're on the top of the food chain thanks to our intelligence. That proves again that intelligence is far superior to strength, speed, agility, durability or any survival advantage in nature. Yet, women are never attracted to intelligence, why is that ?

You could argue that it's because women have primitive selection of mates and the time for them to become attracted to intelligence hasn't come yet, but that's simply wrong. Natural selection means that the females of the species will almost instantly choose the fittest males to reproduce with. For an example, if we have a bunch of giraffes who have short necks and the trees are too tall and a giraffe with a mutation happened to have been born with a long neck, it should be favored by natural selection and be more attractive to women since it's fitter than the rest, which means that it's supposed to be extremely adaptable at a retardely fast rate. Given that humans have "evolved" intelligence for thousands of years means that women should have been pretty much attracted to intelligence by now, but that really never happened.

And that arises another question. In the giraffe example or similar examples to it, how could the females attraction change rapidly like that. According to evolution humans used to be pretty much like apes, which means that women used to be attracted to hairy ape-looking dudes who were pretty much retarded, but now they're attracted to that handsome Chad who looks like a Greek God. How did that happen ? What's the mechanism that changes females attraction that quickly since it should be rooted in their genetics and genetics rarely change unless mutation happens. This is another plot hole in the theory that i could never find an answer to.
In the giraffe example the short necked giraffes would have died off, whereas the giraffes who reached the food higher up would continue their bloodline. Eventually resulting in evolution, because in their environment having a long neck is beneficial. Would a short necked smart giraffe live? No. Thus proving my point again. In before a very smart giraffe could start giraffes agricultural revolution xD xD xD xD xD

User avatar
Xexos
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 334
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 505
Norwood: NW1.5
Regimen: Finasteride 1.25 MG ED .. Tea Tree Shampoo 3x a week
Age: 19

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Xexos » 2 months ago

Pat wrote:
2 months ago
No, there's still a relation between IQ and evolution. As I explained if there's no reason for a big brain then it's a waste of energy. I don't understand what you mean about me not wanting to admit that jews and asians have higher IQ than whites on average. I've literally posted that they do. Are you confusing me with someone else?


The positives of having a large brain doesn't outweigh the benefits in every single scenario especially thousands of years ago. And having higher IQ doesn't equal more evolved once again. You're not superior in an environment where IQ isn't important.
Just invent a weapon, bro! xD xD xD


In the giraffe example the short necked giraffes would have died off, whereas the giraffes who reached the food higher up would continue their bloodline. Eventually resulting in evolution, because in their environment having a long neck is beneficial. Would a short necked smart giraffe live? No. Thus proving my point again. In before a very smart giraffe could start giraffes agricultural revolution xD xD xD xD xD
How there's still a relation between IQ and evolution when you said that higher IQ doesn't mean more evolved ? As i said it's impossible for an inverse relationship to exist because that wouldn't be evolution in this case. Can i tell you that something have evolved and it's intelligence decreased ? That wouldn't be evolution in this case, it would be DEVOLUTION.

And i said you don't want to admit that Asians and Jews supposedly more evolved than whites. You guys always talk about how Blacks are inferior and less evolved than Whites because they have lower IQ than Whites, yet ironically don't want to admit that you're also less evolved than Asians and Jews because you have lower IQ than them as well.

And the positives of having a big brain far outweigh the benefits or else we wouldn't be the top of the food chain and nearly controlling the whole planet. Humans aren't special in nature except for their intelligence. We're neither as strong nor as fast nor as durable nor as agile as most creatures out there. Without our intelligence we would pretty much be worthless and would have probably died out already. Yeah but i'm sure the negatives still surely outweigh the positives because the brain just takes more energy than most other creatures.

And also there's no environment on this planet or anywhere that i could think of where IQ isn't important, that's just an illogical statement.

And the short-necked giraffes don't necessary die off, they can still live because they COULD reach the trees, though they would be at a huge disadvantage compared to the taller-necked giraffe as it has more chances to survive than the rest because it could reach the trees easily. Still you didn't answer how the mechanism of attraction changed rapidly when it's rooted in genetics. You're basically saying that natural selection is not about attraction, but rather about who lives and who dies, and that the living is the winner who gets to reproduce, and that's actually complete bullshit because not all living males get to reproduce just because they're able to live.

User avatar
Pat
Hair Loss Rookie
Hair Loss Rookie
Posts: 243
Joined: 10 months ago
Reputation: 770
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Dutasteride, minoxidil, ketokonazole, dermarolling.

Re: Africans have never built a major enduring city in 3000 years

Post by Pat » 2 months ago

Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
How there's still a relation between IQ and evolution when you said that higher IQ doesn't mean more evolved ? As i said it's impossible for an inverse relationship to exist because that wouldn't be evolution in this case. Can i tell you that something have evolved and it's intelligence decreased ? That wouldn't be evolution in this case, it would be DEVOLUTION.
More evolved for their environment isn't devolution.
Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
And i said you don't want to admit that Asians and Jews supposedly more evolved than whites. You guys always talk about how Blacks are inferior and less evolved than Whites because they have lower IQ than Whites, yet ironically don't want to admit that you're also less evolved than Asians and Jews because you have lower IQ than them as well.
Blacks are more evolved for their environment. Low IQ since intelligence isn't needed, and high melanin for the sun to give you another example.
Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
And the positives of having a big brain far outweigh the benefits or else we wouldn't be the top of the food chain and nearly controlling the whole planet. Humans aren't special in nature except for their intelligence. We're neither as strong nor as fast nor as durable nor as agile as most creatures out there. Without our intelligence we would pretty much be worthless and would have probably died out already. Yeah but i'm sure the negatives still surely outweigh the positives because the brain just takes more energy than most other creatures.

And also there's no environment on this planet or anywhere that i could think of where IQ isn't important, that's just an illogical statement.
Whether or not having a big brain would be advantageous depends on the environment. A big brain would be counter productive for a jungle tribe living off the jungles natural resources. As some humans still are, and many have done before.
Stan22 wrote:
2 months ago
And the short-necked giraffes don't necessary die off, they can still live because they COULD reach the trees, though they would be at a huge disadvantage compared to the taller-necked giraffe as it has more chances to survive than the rest because it could reach the trees easily. Still you didn't answer how the mechanism of attraction changed rapidly when it's rooted in genetics. You're basically saying that natural selection is not about attraction, but rather about who lives and who dies, and that the living is the winner who gets to reproduce, and that's actually complete bullshit because not all living males get to reproduce just because they're able to live.
What could happen isn't important and if 1 short necked giraffe was able to survive on scraps on the ground is irrelevant, trends are what's important. Natural selection is about surviving and the animal that's the fittest survivor in the current environment will be the one with the highest probability of continuing his bloodline. That's evolution.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests