There’s been an incredible amount of IQ testing done in South Africa, with entire schools with thousands of kids being administered the Raven Progressive Matrices. The broad finding is that on a scale where white Americans average IQ 100 and SD = 15, whites South Africans average IQ 96, Indians average IQ 86, Coloureds average IQ 83, and blacks average IQ 69. The black mean probably sinks to the mid 60s by adulthood because paper-pencil tests (even those like the Raven) are sensitive to schooling and the racial education gap widens at older ages.
It’s clear that the black South Africans are being held back by horrific environments, since the black descendant of slaves reared in First World countries average a far more impressive IQ 85 (white admixture might have boosted their IQs slightly, but slave class ancestry lowered them, so it cancels out).
To a lesser degree, the Coloureds, Indians, and even Whites also have their IQs suppressed by South Africa’s lack of progress. We know for example that whites (by definition) average 100 in the First World, and early Indian immigrants to the UK (who were much less selected in those days) averaged IQ 93 by the second generation.
Since both Coloureds and Indians served as a buffer group to shield the white South African elite from the black masses, we can assume they enjoyed similar and roughly equal environments. So if Indians score 3 points higher than Coloureds in South Africa and if Indians have a genetic IQ of 93, then (assuming the Phenotype = Genotype + Environment model), Coloureds have a genetic IQ of 90.
Genetic IQ of Bushmen
Genetic research tells us that the ancestry of the Coloureds is 25% bushmen, 25% regular black, 25% white, and 25% Indian. Since the genetic IQs of the last three groups can be estimated to be 85, 100, and 93 respectively, simple math tells us the bushmen must have a genetic IQ of 82 for a genetic average of all four groups to equal IQ 90.
The IQ of Bushmen is important because they are sometimes thought to reflect the earliest stage of our species, having split off from other blacks about 250,000 years ago.
My guess is that the first modern humans who evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago had an average genetic and phenotypic IQ around 80 (as measured by truly culture reduced tests, not pseudo-culture reduced tests like the Raven).
Out of Africa
Then by 70,000 years or so, average IQ (for non-proto Bushmen) increased to 85 and modern humans were able to leave Africa and migrate to locations as difficult to reach as Australia, which at the time was equivalent to going to the moon. They were also for the first time smart enough to develop agriculture, as proven by the fact that it was independently developed in Papua New Guinea.
IQ 85 seems to be the cut-off needed to independently create agriculture which explain why Papuan New Guineans were able to invent it, and all black Africans with the exception of Bushmen were able to at least acquire it.
But while IQ 85 is high enough to invent agriculture, it was not high enough to create civilization. That would take a mean IQ of 93 and such high average IQs would only appear for those humans who took the Northern route out of Africa and thus had their wits sharpened by the last Wurm glaciation.
One question is why didn’t Neanderthals develop agriculture if the ice age so selected for IQ? The answer is Neanderthals were physically adapted to the cold, having mutated into existence in Eurasia. By contrast modern humans are an African primate that evolved in Africa where we lived exclusively for most of our history. The ice age thus required enormous behavioral adaptability since unlike Neanderthals, our tall slim black bodies were so maladapted for cold.
“But while IQ 85 is high enough to invent agriculture, it was not high enough to create civilization. That would take a mean IQ of 93 and such high average IQs would only appear for those humans who took the Northern route of Africa and thus had their wits sharpened by the last Wurm glaciation.”
But at what “racial scale” would be required? By that I mean does a macro race need that average to produce subraces with higher IQs or can a subrace with an IQ of 93 create it?
I’m talking at the level of races as defined by Lynn, not the macro-races used by Rushton.
You seem to be confused. I’m not talking about accurate taxonomy, I’m arguing the *scale*, as in what population, does the IQ of 93 achieves it’s purpose.
I make that clear here.
“By that I mean does a macro race need that average to produce subraces with higher IQs or can a subrace with an IQ of 93 create it?”
Yes, I understood you the first time even though you’re seldom clear. The scale is the level of specificity used by Lynn which I consider sub-races. A sub-race with an IQ of 93 can independently create civilization.
“Yes, I understood you the first time even though you’re seldom clear.”
Then why not say subrace the first time? Lynn does averages for both categories so saying “Lynn versus Rushton” didn’t tell me much.
In that case then it;s likely that, with a Macro Average of 80, some black tribes were capable under these terms to create civilization outside of the Horn.
Then why not say subrace the first time?
Because not everyone agrees that Lynn’s races are subdivisions within races instead of races in their own right. For example one of his races is Bushmen which you consider a separate race from Negroids, but which I consider a subrace within Negroids.
In that case then it;s likely that, with a Macro Average of 80, some black tribes were capable under these terms to create civilization outside of the Horn.
What non-horn black subrace has a mean IQ of 93+ (my cutoff for civilization)?
“Because not everyone agrees that Lynn’s races are subdivisions within races instead of races in their own right. For example one of his races is Bushmen which you consider a separate race from Negroids, but which I consider a subrace within Negroids.”
That’s basically an outlier in regards to classification. Aside from that, every other group he did was clearly a sub-race.
“What non-horn black subrace has a mean IQ of 93+ (my cutoff for civilization)?”
I’m not saying this out of confirmation, I’m saying this out of general probability with a mean of 80. African populations have high within group variability, the “group” being geographical and not ethnic ones.
This basically means that even with a small area, their breeding pools due to lacking larger nations compared to their landmass would leave room for alot of varying group selection within a place such as West Africa.
A good way to indicate this is the general dominance of the Igbo of Nigeria or the Bamileke of Cameroon.
If you look at Homo erectus who invented fire 2 million years ago it is a bit perplexing how they could evolve into modern anatomical humans. I believe mate selection played a huge role in the development of intelligence. And by that, I mean the social intelligence needed to notice other apes with the same level of social intelligence as you have. People, in general, wan’t to hang out with people like themselves. Self-selection allows groups to form because of noticeable differences. It is a self-domestication. As evolution proceeds, juvenile features would be a sign of high social intelligence. And also increased IQ as well. The intelligent apes would gather together and split off from the tribe forming a new tribe that was smarter. Because a tribe gets too large social intelligent apes would more than bundle into on grout when the split happened. This is exactly what has happened in the schooling system. Charles Murry says that the high IQ whites have split from lower IQ whites. They are two separate cultures.
(Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010)
The smartest people get hired for the most demanding cognitive tasks where they meet people like themselves. This reinforces the selection pressures to have kids that are culturally exposed to higher educational standards and intellectual demands.
Civilization requires social intelligence which is not separate from general intelligence. Cooperation to build civilization requires a drop in impulsivity and an increase in emotional control (intelligent management of emotions). People can then work together without fighting over what needs to be done. Effective communication allows productive dialog and less confusion.
The simple explanation is that people of high intelligence can work together better than low intelligent people. This is because of effective communications. If civilization cannot exist below IQ 93, then that means they have poor communication abilities and are more likely to fight with eachother than cooperate.
(Hive Mind: How Your Nation’s IQ Matters So Much More Than Your Own)
Humans evolved the level of intelligence they have today because of mate selection which leads to groups with higher social intelligence, cooperation, and communication skills. People aggregate to people like themselves.
illuminaticat,
Hey anime, hi again. I just posted a reply to one of your posts on kurzweil forum. Did you check it out. Looks like we unwittingly follow each other from that site to this forum and vice versa regularly 🙂
Coming back to the this comment of yours. i dont think ergaster invented fire. They may have discovered that fire can be manipulated for offence and defense purposes (by noticing the reactions of animals to it) and also used to ‘cook’ food. And i think they found that it can used to ‘cook’ food to make it more palatable/eatable….by accident. Some forest fire may have occurred once and one individual from the ergaster community must have tried to eat burnt flesh when he/she was starving and then found it more delicious. Then they could have figured out that ‘burning’ flesh is more desirable in order to make it tasty. And may have started doing it. This in turn (over hundreds of thousands of years) may have helped reduce the size of their jaws and teeth while also giving more energy to their brains from the ‘cooked’ meat. This may have evolved their brains by helping them grow bigger as result of freed up space caused by the decrease in jaw muscles and increased glucose supply to the brain.
wrongplanet?
I feel I do not relate to it.
to anime: wut???
If thats murrays actual idea that interesting as I would bet the ‘high IQ whites’ hes talking about are urbane liberals who have been brainwashed.
One of the most ironic things about the West right now is that lower IQ or very low IQ people are not as brainwashed as medium or upper level people. It is very interesting and kind of nullifies pumpkins theory that intelligence is adaptation. Maybe robert is right in that intelligence is adaptation to Master.
The funniest aspect is that if you dont read english college books and media, as Sailer says (i.e. have low IQ) it saves you from it. Haha. Imagine that. Not being able to read english actually means youre saved.
At individual levels post modernism appear to be better than pre modernism.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-40185359
robert never said intelligence is adaptation to master.
what robert did say is that the specialization of labor is something to which autistic personalities are well suited and non-autistic not well suited.
for example, that james damore fellow did not strike me as smart, but he did have a very specific ability at coding.
This combined with your theory that elites are selected to have an overall IQ > social IQ gap, might explain why clinical autism is more common in the higher classes (though some research disputes that)
and robert also said that the ant-colony-ization/formication of the economy over the last 250 years has selected for extroversion which is its own form of stupidity.
250 years ago no one worked in a large organization unless he was in the military. the largest organization of production was the family.
extroversion in its original sense, not in its peepee made up sense, and amorality are the same. the extrovert merely assumes the values of the ant colony. he “just follows orders”.
marx plus darwin = the various means of production and technical development select for different sorts of people. norms of reaction.
peepee is incapable of understanding that gates, buffett, and oprah would have been losers as cavemen.
Buffett, maybe. Gates no.
But Jews would have been losers as cavemen too.
Well you always seem to make the argument that people that rise in academia and corporations have to be a special type of smart/stupid in order to adapt to Master’s orders and even believe and teach them.
Even if thats not your idea, lets take the example of medieval china. The smartest people in china took state exams to become civil serveants.
In the outward sense, this system rewarded high IQ people with resources, protection, land and social status.
In the objective sense, these people were sorted by IQ into being ram rodded to follow masters orders precisely and were taught a system of philosophy of obedience not only to follow but to elaborate and regurgitate to other high IQ people coming through the glorious wisdom of Master.
What happened in China is what is happening to the West. You are being selected for high IQ. And if you think laterally you will be executed. So the only way is to think within the confines of the box master drew in chalk around your pillow. In this sense, you become a eunuch. And eunuchs will disappear.
In the long run there I suppose they didn’t select for low IQ wife beater vest hillbillies but people with a special type of retardation, social retardation.
PP, why do you think Gates would survive as a caveman and Buffet only “maybe” ?
Gates reportedly has a much higher IQ and I believe high IQ people can adapt more environments to their advantage.
“What happened in China is what is happening to the West. You are being selected for high IQ. And if you think laterally you will be executed. So the only way is to think within the confines of the box master drew in chalk around your pillow. In this sense, you become a eunuch. And eunuchs will disappear.”
Then every advandced civilisation will disappear if we follow your reasoning ? Because to maintain an advandced civilisation you need these eunuchs
But too much introversion and or mental stability also result in conformity, if not by voluntarism at least by lack of confrontational personality. Look to far east?! 😳
But yes characteristic extroversion is clearly a sign of mental inferiority. Introverts are those who reflect more their actions (regardless if this reflections will be wise or not) while extroverted tend to be those little retards that act via impulse and tend to be instinctive/self confident. It’s not a cohencisence that most of the most dumbest of leftilts are extra verted.
yes pill. one’s score on an IQ test depends on how congenial the system is for him. if the system suits you you’ll do better than if it doesn’t. if there is something like innate ability and person A and person B have the same innate ability they will not score the same on a test. if person A loves the schools he attended and person B hated it person A will score higher, because school takes up so much time from age 6 to 18+. the characteristics of the individual depend on an interaction between his genes and his society.
that is, the system selects those it is best for, deselects those it is worst for. thus change rarely comes from the top.
To take the low IQ is adaptation theory further (by being less susceptible to mind control)- it calls into question whether man is adapting to other men or the environment. In my opinion, men adapt to other men more than the environment today.
This being so, on an objective plane – low IQ people are reproducing more and not causing the their tribe to destroy itself and I expect in the long run, those open to jewish moral suasion – high empathy/not high enough verbal iQ, will be selected out.
For 3 reasons:
(a) College grads will take on more pozzed and feminine ideas about how to be a man and therefore never get laid (and not fight either….which is the jewish reason for promoting feminism).
(b) College grads will welcome third world men into their wives and daughters bedrooms.
(c) College grads will fund causes to boost the reproduction rates of third world specimens and these will subsequently come to their nations and towns to demand resources or compete with them for them.
And Murray will then be right – a very high verbal IQ ‘rebel’ group will exist and most remaining whites will be more butch and ‘prole’. The college whites will breed themselves out. The remaining whites will be mean people. Warriors and people like ts eliot – very low empathy and tribal.
If you split the USA into a blue and red country – the blue nation, as a nation of liberal high emapthy whites would cease to exist within 3 generations because they would allow jews to rise much quicker to take control of it and demand the whites commit suicide using abstraction that their lower verbal ability can’t see through.
Of course the jews know all this and are using the lower ability and lower testosterone whites as a cantalever against those of us who aren’t susceptible to mind control.
low IQ ethnicities are reproducing more but within a given ethnicity both the stupid and the smart have few chillens, and the median have the most.
Low IQ ethnicities might be reproducing more, but high IQ ethnicities control the most land. Whites might be brain washed to allow in more immigrants, but they still control all of Europe, North America, and Australia, at the expense of lower IQ races like Native Americans and Australoids. Within the Middle East, Israel keeps expanding at the expense of their lower IQ cousins (the Arabs). In Africa, black agriculturalists keep expanding at the expense of lower IQ black races (bushmen and pygmies). The australoid natives of South Asia and Southeast Asia are being pushed into the Ocean by higher IQ dark Caucasoids and light Mongoloids.
Overall there’s still natural selection for IQ at the group level.
What if the group level is ‘human race’?
The “stupid” has been more children than the “smart–er”, it seems unquestionable.
if the group is all groups together then dumb people are having more children.
Correlation between IQ and social classes is significant if you compare class avg by avg. The correlation has been lower because people has analyzed how and where the highest IQ is distributed across social classes but seems unquestionable that middle class are cognitively brighter than working class and that upper class are cognitively brighter than middle class specially in IQ/technician meritocracy. It’s not just a correlation but also can be diagnosed as a causality, I mean, it’s perfectly probable to suggest that someone with higher psychometric g will be capable to work in white collar jobs than someone with comparatively lower psychometric g.
In my opinion, this shows that IQ is not an adaptation once another tribe which has higher IQ begins using it as a kind of sort mechanism to find people to brainwash quicker.
Its a bit like colourful feathers on a bird being an adaptation, up until human hunters find it easier to find birds with colourful feathers.
The fascinating thing about evolution in my opinion is that it makes no value judgement on attributes. No attribute is either objectively always better or always great within the context of the predation pool and organisms from completely different ecosystems
War of the Worlds makes this exact point. The aliens may have advanced technology, but lowly bacteria can kill them.
Well intelligence is the cognitive ability to adapt, but adapting at the personal level and adapting at the genetic level are two different things.
I would say that at the genetic level, in modern society IQ is adaptive at the group level but maladaptive at the individual level, as I explained here.
So you can see I do not believe in the great arc of evolution bending towards faster and brighter.
Now pumpkin might argue jews using their verbal intelligence and becoming the elite shows intelligence shows IQ is selected for. But there are 2 issues:
1. Jews will kill their host and leave themselves open to arab and black pogroms.
2. By selecting for aggression and masculinity in whites by leading liberal whites to the slaughterhouse, they are overall, lowering the IQ of the population as a whole.
In this way, we can show that IQ is not selected for today, beyond the more simpler mechanism satirically proposed in Idiocracy.
assange is a member of the alt-right. he’s also tweeted about cernovich approvingly.
he mentions “whites and jews”. his tweet on immigration to the eu.
Capitalism+atheism+feminism = sterility = migration. EU birthrate = 1.6. Replacement = 2.1. Merkel, May, Macron, Gentiloni all childless.
is this an endorsement? no. according to wikipedia assange has 4 chillens. what he’s said about the dems is another example.
Ive seen a screen capture of someone on facebook personal mesaging assange:
“Are you aware of (((them)))”
Assange: Yes. Of course.
Some people say its fake though.
I believe the human race will split. A sub-human underclass, and a super intelligent upper class actively practicing eugenics.
Anyone clever from the white population will convert to Judaism and marry a Jewish wife. Being a ‘Jew’ is passed down from the mother. It’s just eugenics at work. Anyone without the intelligence or will to marry into the upper class will be subjected to dysgenics and their offspring will be part of the low-iq slave class.
Natural selection.
Since the recent shutdown of the alt-right websites ‘The Daily Stormer’ and ‘Stormfront’, I believe the powers that be are cracking down on the internet as a source of media, including Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc. I believe once the internet is controlled, as it is controlled in China, it will spell the end for dissenting ideas and the plan the elite have for the west will go ahead as they intended.
Keep in mind: The speed at which a particular group of humans reproduce (ex; the stupid vs the smart) is meaningless.
The mass of cattle in the world is 1.3x more than the mass of all the people in the world. Fish are almost 20x.
Stupid people reproducing faster does not mean humanity is becoming stupid. It means humanity is separating into two distinct classes of human, as happened with Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens, as happened with Negroids and Caucasians.
Cattle are cattle.
Yes, but whats being selected for is the same as Latin America. A predatory psychopath upper class and a deluge of orcs.
There will be no real art, innovation or philosophy/science etc. It will be essentially an oil rig. The technical people’s sole role will be maintenance and better ways of drilling the orcs.
In many ways its a return to feudalism. The underlying tendency of human nature. ]
What is selected for more than IQ in this system is psychopathy, and in particular, as you say, jewish genetics.
“The technical people’s sole role will be maintenance and better ways of drilling the orcs.”
AHAHAHAHAHA
Notice the way Sailer is arguing point number 1 about pogroms above. He doesnt say it explicitly but hes basically like:
“Come on guys, you can’t keep telling everyone to hate whitey – were the only people that will tolerate you guys doing your schtick and not exile or kill you, back off – they think youre white, even uber-white”.
I think that argument might work with some of them. But as a survival strategy a bunch of farmers telling the stationary bandit warlord that there will be less farming if the warlord keeps beating them up is not a survival strategy. It would be much better for the farmers to learn how to fight and eventually kill the warlord and his thugs or the make an alliance with another plantation.
The jews most fear americans, russians, arabs and persians agreeing to live peacefully in my opinion. There is nothing in this world that scares them most than all of the civilised races of man realising that the real enemy is a nomadic parasite that plays off all the main empires against each other.
This is why I have deep sympathy for arabs, berbers and persians. We are being mind controlled to attack these people for evil reasons. In reality, the muslim world is not our enemy.
Negroids and Joos are the real enemy of the civilised world. Negroids are the final weapon of Joos against the civilised races of Man.
https://mobile.twitter.com/CarolynEmerick/status/904776754262401024?p=v
Only the subconscious madmen who are the real enemy regardless their faith, sexual orientation or race.
And their master the conscious mad/evilmen
Philosopher, then why is Islam having problems with every place it is invading. Take russia, they have Chechnya problem, while there is not pathological hatred of Muslims in Russia yet most of the orthodox wish they didn’t have Islam in their country. Muslims have had problems with other religions through out history and Muslim majority nations except the Arabs where other races are a minority and mostly involved in slave labour, they have problems. Look at places like Saudi , Dubai there is still slave trade. It’s the low wage south Asian labourers that built their modern day cities. If not for them., Arabs would still be warring with each others. And also so called golden age of Islam has got nothing to do with. Islam, most of the achievements and scientific innovations that came from Arabs were from non religious arabs. Christianity was instrumental in creating the west, Islam is like Judaism, parasitic and invading in nature except it’s a slightly improved form of Judaism. Explain why Muslims have problem with every other religions in the world.. Christians have had historic enemity with islamites, Hindus and Muslims never get along, Buddhists and Islam are having problems that can be seen in places like Burma, srilanka. The reason east asia is improving because they shunned Islam and Judaism from invading it. I get alt right white nationalists dont like Jews which is true to some extent, but to see them holding jock for Islam is disgusting. Islam is antithesis to the western values. Read the link https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/how-isalm-creates-psychopaths-by-nicolai-sennels/#comments
There are three forms of Islam, but only two are relevant.
Sunni Islam and Shia Islam. Sunni Islam is like brain rot and is the result a second book being created by Jews like Abū Hurayrah al-Dawsiyy al-Zahrāniyy after Mohammad’s death. Sunni Muslims promptly killed Muhammad’s grandsons and eliminated his dynasty.
Shia Muslims still follow the first book, the Quran. The Quran might as well be the orthodox bible written in Arabic.
A Sunni Zionist Muslim, Osama Bin Laden was part of the twin towers hoax, used as casus belli to attack Iraq, a secular Shia state. Understand what’s going on?
Shia Islam went from 100% of all Muslims to 10% today. While Shia Muslims fight Jewish supremacy, even today (Iraq, Lebanon, Iran) Sunni Muslims are very much a tool of Jews. The second book of Hadith is like the Talmud but results in utter brain rot where any chance of intelligent thought is eliminated from birth.
Abū Iṣḥaq Ka‘b ibn Mati‘ al-Humyari al-Aḥbār was a rabbi from Yemen who was one of the earliest Jewish converts to Islam. Jewish converts such as Kab corrupted Muhammads scripture from within. Abu Hurairah was one of the close disciples of Ka’ab al-Ahbar. Ka’ab’s influence is deprecated within the Shia tradition of Islam.
While Shia Islam and Orthodox Christianity are almost identical, Sunni Islam is like the Leftism of today, complete Jewish brain rot through subversion.
The golden age of Islam is real. Like Christianity, Islam keeps the stupid people in the population immune to Jews. Berbers are a very clever people and have produced multiple Pharoahs, Emperors, Caliphs and prominent Scientists. So have the Persians. Both Berbers and Persians were part of the Muslim world and were majority Shia. The Persians are still Shia today, stopped only by America’s threats from becoming a nuclear power.
Berbers are a tiny minority in their own countries, around 30% with the other 70% being Arabs. Berbers are often Maraboutists, which is a type of pagan mysticism mixed with Sufism, the 3rd type of Islam. It not considered Islam at all by the other forms of Islam and I would agree. Berbers are barely Muslim and are often at odds with the Muslim population because of this.
Despite being such a tiny minority in our own country (10%) we produce an incredible amount of scientists and intellectuals, nearly all of whom flee the country. A vast proportion of Islam’s scientists in the golden age were Berber or Persian with Arab names. Berbers are a Mediterranean race like the Spanish, Greeks or Italians, completely unrelated to Arabs. It’s often impossible to distinguish Berbers like Zinedine Zidane from French people. Persians, too, are completely unrelated to Arabs.
“Well its ok if jews brainwash whites because as at least life is better now for immigrants and sexual deviants”
#Pumpkin Person Greatest Hits
What I said was that Jews have made life better for blacks and gays. I was merely pointing out that your anti-Semitism is not objective, but reflects your ethnic genetic interests. I didn’t say that made it okay for them to brainwash whites, you made that part up.
When is anti-semitism objective pumpkin. Give me an example of someone who is objectively anti semetic.
Jews don’t care for blacks or gays at all. Being gay is criminal under halakha (Jewish sharia law) and punishable by death.
Appearing to ‘make life better’ for blacks and gays without actually doing so, is just a part of a subversion process that will result in the destruction of nationalistic values.
The reason your government is filled with pedophiles, is not for any stupid ‘satanic’ reasons, but rather for a very logical one. People who have been filmed participating in these activities are very easy to control. In fact, you could say they have no choice but to obey the power that be.
Agree 100%. I’ve said it before that blacks and gays are trojan horses.
That picture is very disturbing. People that say they are being ‘ironic’….Podesta is not a hipster. None of these people are hipsters. They are 40 year political operatives/media propogandists/politicians. Theres nothing ironic about that demented womans art being hung on the walls of that ‘pizza joint’.
Anyone with an IQ above 120 and not used to Western media, looking at Pizzagate would objectively cotton on a paedophile ring was being operated there.
What im trying to explain with Nixon and Helms and Angleton and Dulles below, is that bad as they were, the jews outwitted the wasp elite not by being smarter but being more psychopathic and evil.
When I said jews are the most [redacted by pp, sept 4, 2017] race of man in human history, i meant it not in terms of violence, high disgust thresholds or tribalness, but their intentions and ways of securing their plans.
In my opinion there is no doubt in my mind, that jews are by far the most psychopathic race of man and millions of arabs/persians dead over the last 10 years can attest to it.
I can attest to it as Westerner.
Slavs can attest to it.
Its so obvious and the most frustrating thing is you need to be clued in to see it.
Neocon wars don’t prove Jews are the most psychopathic race, they only prove that the Jews who are psychopathic are smart enough to advance their EGI. Millions of Jews opposed those wars don’t forget.
Perhaps the most scientific way to prove which race is most psychopathic is to do a brain scan:
As Kevin McDonald writes in his book – you have to ask how jews can consistently lie and not care about science so much as soon as they get into academia. Its kind of fascinating that their very first acts of academic research were lies about anthropology, genetics denial in humans and contorting history to make whites feel guilty about supremacy.
Ethnic genetic interests can be objective too.
Gay and bkacks are being used as useful idiots.
They deny for blacks their rights to their collective self knowledge. Importing millions of Muslims who hate homossexuaks don’t seems a way to make their lives better. 40% of homossexual Frenchmen voted for Le Pen in the last election.
Yes a good way to analyze how evil a group can be is via neuroscience and with honest neuroscientists. But also the actions d this group also can show something. In the same way “moderate Muslims” seems very rare, I mean, real moderate ones, similar situation may be analyzed among Jews. Only two explanations
Most Jews are so embarrassingly stupid and subconsciously dishonest as many white liberals and there is a minority of high functioning beasts OR most Jews are evil because instead don’t know what’s happening they are full-blown knowledgeable and simply don’t care about consequences and injustices against ordinary people especially white ordinary people but also all groups they are USING.
Most blacks jump into the anti racism boat exclusively because ethnic genetic interests or collective instinctive defense. But most blacks are not well knowledgeable of the consequences of their current beliefs because a combination of avg lower intelligence and lower meta-cognition/self awareness skills or higher collective/individual instincts/hyper tribalism. Same situation happen with Jews?? I doubt.
Every human is born a tribal sociopath (caring only for their tribe) so I don’t agree that Jews are the only people that are born sociopaths. Germanic people were just as sociopathic in their tribal phase, regularly slaughtering ‘innocent’ villagers and rival tribes. White ‘morals’ today are a social construct, almost like a religion. The Jewish religion is sociopathic and preserves the original, tribal sociopathy of early humans and ensures it will never be removed or subverted by moral ideology or something like the leftism of today.
I believe every human must act in this way, because not to do so means the extinction of your genetics. It’s natures way. . Care only for your next of kin, work with others when it benefits you, but always put your genetics first.
I believe sociopathy is perfectly rational, while active psychopathy and cruelty for pleasure (ex; John Podesta) is just a sign of a sick mind that can be easily controlled.
Altruistic individuals would be crushed by a sociopath and bred out instantly.
Though I guess I ultimately agree, they may not have been any smarter than whites, but their ideology (tribalism, self-serving religion) was certainly more evolutionary fit.
”Every human is born a tribal sociopath (caring only for their tribe) so I don’t agree that Jews are the only people that are born sociopaths.”
So, i’m not human, piriod.
Only a excuse to justify the evilness in natura of your tribe.
”Germanic people were just as sociopathic in their tribal phase, regularly slaughtering ‘innocent’ villagers and rival tribes. White ‘morals’ today are a social construct, almost like a religion.”
Everything about human behavior is a social construct. So, if other primates are our ancestors, why many them don’t behave like a sociopath**
Germanic PEOPLE…
all of them***
Of course NOT.
But when you generalize other tribes, you’re doing the same about your tribe, period.
Most nonhuman animals REALLY don’t know what they are doing because their instincts.
”The Jewish religion is sociopathic and preserves the original, tribal sociopathy of early humans and ensures it will never be removed or subverted by moral ideology or something like the leftism of today.”
It’s a confession…
Correcting: nonhuman animals don’t know as humans can do.
”Support the same values as mine” and not ”than me”
Again, I disagree with you SantoCulto.
Any non-Sociopath tribe will be utterly wiped out and enslaved by a sociopath one of equal intelligence, every single time without exception. Your ancestors were just as sociopathic as mine. You treated [redacted because pp doesnt like offensive words as they might hurt peoples feelings] black people* like animals, we treat you like animals. It’s natural selection, and the only thing that matters is the instinct for self-preservation and intelligence. Being equally intelligent without the instinct for self-preservation of your tribe is meaningless as it means your tribe will be wiped out and your genes and culture erased.
Or maybe you’ve forgotten slavery and Jim Crow and your tribe/people are altruistic angels who never did a soul wrong?
You are intellectually dishonest. Jews are not intellectually dishonest, they are just flat out lying.
WHY U DON’T ACCEPT MY OTHER COMMENTS PIPI RETARDS!!!
MACACA!!!
Fenupi,
u ar retard
i will not waste my time with u
FIRSTLY
grasp CORRECTLY the MEANING OF WORDS u are sayin
SecondLY
yup,
start to comment with some BASIS
Fenupi is
retarded
and
evil
just that…
BECAUSE EVERYONE is dumb, it’s doesn’t mean i will be, got it**
And yes,
fenupi is that SPECIALLY retarded pershon, kind of ”MORALLY IDIOT” who love to ”think”
”morality FOR ME, not for you”
It’s very simple,
if everyone is sociopath,
if REAL MEANING of morality is a illusion what prevent me to kill you tomorrow**
again again and again
BECAUSE humanity is morally stupid, don’t mean benignity is intrinsically bad nor intellectually stupid,
this JUST mean that humanity is morally stupid.
This kind of retarded pershon talk this absurd ONLY when they are not being hunted, period.
Read Nixons CIA director wiki entry. The mans name is Richard Helms.
The sections on the Israeli 6 day war with Arabs where Helms remembers the “visceral reaction” to the soviets threatening to intervene v israel, and of course the Watergate section are interesting.
If you read The Devils Chessboard, which is the definitive book on the Deep State – Jim Angleton was fingered as Dulles right hand man. He led the assassination team of Kennedy on the ground in Dallas.
Now what I didn’t know was he was also the official special liaison with Mossad since 1953 according to Wiki sources. So Dulles right hand man dealt with Israel directly. I would find that very odd, if I didn’t know anything about jews and I was a normie living in the 1960s or 70s
Notice the way the 6 day war section is heavily doctored on wikipedia with square quotes used a lot around the USS liberty disaster.
In the other section on Watergate it mentions helms refused to designate the watergate investigation a ‘national security matter’ to freeze out the FBI as Nixon requested. In my opinion, when the deep state refuses to cover for a president, it means they want him out. There are any number of secrets or scandals the Deep State covers for presidents e.g Iran Contra, Valerie Plame, etc. So to not do Nixon a solid meant they didn’t want him.
Nixon was handpicked as a congressman by Dulles for higher office. The Devils Chessboard mentions Dulles first met Nixon in the 50s and groomed him.
I just can’t understand why they wanted him out. It is the missing piece for me.
It is the most important event in world history in the 20th century. More than JFK, because Nixons demise concides exactly with the rise of the neocons and the jewish secret government of the United States. I have suspected Nixons coup was actually a foreign takeover of America because you can see foreign and domestic policy becomes much more recognisably zionist from then – open borders, wars for Israel’s lebensraum, funding for Israel etc.
Nixon was not a big fan of jews. Maybe he just didn’t have all the pieces of the puzzle to know there was a cabal of jews working to get rid of him. For all we know, Helms was blackmailed or bribed himself.
The more I read about history, the more I realise the jews are always going to take over – just like Soviet Russia, 1930s Germany, the UK etc. Because they are psychopathic, obsessed, paranoid and organised. Whereas host nations are sectarian and have different factions squabbling. The jews thrive on divided hosts.
Theres a theory in the alt right, that the internet will remove the jews as the printing press killed the Catholic Church.
But as I said before – the printing press took 300 years to kill the church.
In my opinion, it wont take as long as the neocon jews are objectively a threat to so many different people, including themselves I suppose. That being said, it wont be the internet per se, but specific gifted individuals who have wealth, fame or power that use it to cause certain events to proceed in motion. People like assange.
Rememeber – the jews at the end of their bell curve have unmitigated geniuses working secretly to keep the shadow government in control. It will not be easy.
But in my lifetime the defining conflict in human history will be a fight to the death between Zionism and its racial supremacist agenda and the remaining wilting flowers of the West. Its very important that the good guys win. In the same the turks were stopped at Vienna and the berbers at Tours.
If Zion succeeds, there will be no more altruism in this world. And the last great remaining civilisation will be the distinctly mundane China/Japan combo.
There was never altruism. Stop looking for a ‘hero’. If there were any ‘altruistic’ humans, they would be selected against and removed from the gene pool instantly, just like ‘born gay’ humans.
Speaking of Jews and Bushmen and all that jive, it seems that a controversy is brewing in the anthropological/behavioral genetic-wing of the HBD-sphere! Apparently, blogger and researcher Peter Frost has recently published a paper on the Hajnal line that rips off HBD Chick’s ideas and gives her no credit! And this even though his comments can be found all over her blog, and elsewhere he explicitly admits to borrowing her ideas!
This is crazy! This would be like if someone stole your ideas Pumpkin! How do anonymous bloggers protect themselves???
How does anyone protect their ideas from being stolen? Blogger or non-blogger. Are you sure this is true? Has HBD chick commented?
Peter Frost has some very good ideas of his own. I read his blog a lot back in the days. The Hajnal line theory of empathy is a great contribution by HBD Chick.
The blogger that introduced me to that concept was Jayman however. I normally dont bother reading the ant crawl genetics stuff. Jayman was smart to just look at all the NGOs and do some basic research as to why whites dominated them, adjusting for wealth.
Its more intuitive than saying gene XBRL has been known to correlate with Y and L, within study X, but study X hasnt been replicated so now well never know whether when my wife came back hot and sweaty on friday night at 5am in the morning whether she was with another man.
I know thats not ‘scholarly’ pumpkin. But academia hasnt produced all these ideas for a reason. Because academia isnt about epistemology – getting knowledge. Its about finding out contrived ways to sandbag knowledge that people had 120 years ago.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hbdchick/status/904650331455414272?p=v
Huahuahuahuahuahuahua
First is … Joo?
Frost
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78813&utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=chenling
It seems Peter Frost plagiarized directly from HBD Chick!
I’ve reached out to HBD Chick.
She is too naive to believe that it’s never could happen among the type of people she’s dealing.
It’s kinda ironic that Peter Frost writes about trust and empathy as they relate to human societies…then plagiarizes from a colleague…
The other nation that was involved in slave trading was India. Or should I say, the mughal empire which was more of an antecedent to Pakistan maybe than, India? I don’t know.
Kind of interesting to note that Arab gulf countries engage in indentured labour with indians/Sri Lankans/Bangladeshis today and nobody says anything because jews don’t promote it in the media like famines in Mobutu Kwanga land.
(This is why blll gates doesn’t know bangladesh exists).
In my experience, Indians are not 90 odd IQ genetically. Its kind of bizarre,[redacted by pp, sept 4, 2017]nutrition was what kept africans dumb…..In my opinion, that really is the case with South Asians! As british indians of even working class background are smart. And there are too many examples of indians doing better than east asians in tech, business, finance not to notice potential.
My last manager was indian and made sense when he talked.
But much less so pakistanis or pashtuns and that.
[redacted by pp, sept 4, 2017] I should visit India to find out.
My sense is that india could be much wealthier than it is if it had a 1 child policy. I think the british saw it as well and thats why they referred to it as the jewel in the crown. India has no natural resources as such, but its people are useful.
Gandhi is quoted numerous times as saying ‘we are not kuffars’ i.e blacks, why does the white man put us in that category. Gandhi said that. Look it up.
If you look at the hotspots of ancient civilisation – the Indus valley, pearl delta, euphrates, eygptian nile youll notice with the exception of China, all of these former powers are pale shadows of what they were.
It just goes to prove beyond doubt, that civilisation and the selection of IQ is not a linear ‘sure thing’, and can break down easily.
My theory is that after a certain period, humans betray Master and select for social intelligence and jerkboys one living standards are safe. This ‘R’ selection sows the seeds of decline but makes the people more able to take resources from others.
Think of R selection as competitive resource aquisition and K as farming or creating resources.
But in China I think Master did well. Too well.
If Im right, the West is in terminal long term decline as resources are abundant.
Those places are in decline since Islam was subverted by Jews to create Sunni Islam (the sect of Islam that killed and replaced Muhammad’s dynasty) and introduced a second ‘book’ of the ‘sunnah’ after the Quran, produced by crypto-Jews, as the Arab world had plenty of Jews at the time. Infact, all the Jews in Medina ‘converted’ to Islam.
The second book is like the Jewish Talmud, and is considered ‘Sahih’ aka unquestionable like the Quran, despite the Quran’s absolute specification that there can other book after it. The Quran was created after the corruption of Christianity, and is borderline identical to the Bible. It keeps the population immune to Judaism.
Shia Islam (the sect of Islam that follows Mohammad’s family/dynasty and the Banu Hashim tribe) is still vehemently fighting the Jewish power to its last breath, as we see in Iran, slated as next to go after North Korea, and previously Iraq.
Regardless, the golden age of Islam is long over. The west is next to go.
At least, that’s how it appears. I’m not sure if Iran has been subverted and is playing war theater or not. Iranian Jews run PressTV, that much is obvious. As to if they control the government, I don’t think so. Just the media, and the satellite for PressTV is hired from Israel, so to fight Israel means to lose PressTV.
Honestly, leftism today will resemble something like Jewish Islam in the future. Complete and utter brainwashing where no matter your race or intelligence, if they brain wash you from the moment you are born and you will be indoctrinated into a cult from which there is simply no return.
You will then be controlled by ‘religious’ clerics like the Zionist Saudi, who fuck as many hookers and little boys/girls as they like whilst having the religious & moral authority.
You are an interesting perspective from the mid east fenoopy.
The gandhi sleeping with girls think gman was about testing his celibacy apparently. But what I dont get it why hed pick girls to test his celibacy.
Hahahahah.
He was a freaky-deaky pervert. I think thats all there was to it. No different than a lot of powerful men (MLK/Kennedy/LBJ/Clinton/Epstein/Muhammad).
I always thought it was interesting that high IQ perverts tend to prefer children/child-like (physically) women.
Elvis was a paedophile. Not sure about the others you mentioned.
Oh yeah that’s true. And I wasn’t necessarily saying the guys in my first comment were paedos. I’m pretty sure MLK wasn’t a paedo. Just a pervert.
PP,
>”But while IQ 85 is high enough to invent agriculture, it was not high enough to create civilization. That would take a mean IQ of 93 and such high average IQs would only appear for those humans who took the Northern route out of Africa and thus had their wits sharpened by the last Wurm glaciation.”<
Then how did egyptians, sumerians and indusians create civilizations? Those countries today have an mean IQ far below 93.
The developing World currently scores below their genetic potential because of a combination of post-agriculture malnutrition and culturally biased IQ tests. For examples blacks score in the 60s in Africa but the descendants of black slaves reared in the U.S. for centuries score in the 80s.
Those civilizations were agricultural. I think it could be because of increased inbreeding as time passed and also increase in more parasitic disease load as population grew and people stayed in more closer quarters to each other, along with ofcourse the culturally biased IQ scores.
Even though they were malnourished by agriculture by the time they created civilization, malnutrition mostly just impairs performance IQ leaving verbal IQ relatively preserved.
As for disease, Richard Lynn noted that that’s a type of malnutrition in that the body can’t use nutrients
My best estimate for the genetic IQ of dark causaoids TODAY is 93. It’s possible they had a higher genetic IQ before massive inbreeding but they wouldn’t have needed it because Amerindians created a civilization with a genetic IQ around 93 (judging by their estimated genetic IQ today)
Also the inbreeding explanation seems strained given the high IQs of Ashkenazi Jews
“Also the inbreeding explanation seems strained given the high IQs of Ashkenazi Jews”
No, the effect of inbreeding on IQ is evident. They are High in IQ despite of this by being theorized to select for IQ.
Of course my estimate for the genetic IQ of dark caucasoids is based on Indians so it may not apply well to Arabs
Also, studies show that they are not outbred.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2012/07/ashkenazi-jews-are-not-inbred/#.WbBFkxmGO3A
*inbred
Then how do you explain this?
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/184252/study-says-all-ashkenazi-jews-are-30th-cousins
It has nothing at all to do with inbreeding or malnutrition.
You cannot measure the IQ of the middle east as a ‘block’ as there are so many peoples in it. Many of these peoples are sub-Saharan bred, like the Yemeni, who are borderline retarded.
If you measure the IQ of individual tribes/peoples, you will quickly see massive variation. Syrian Arabs can be very, very clever. Just look at Assad. The Yazidi are also quite clever. Remember that the Middle East produced Jews, whom rule the modern world. Ashkenazim are European mixed, but are certainly still Semitic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_on_Jews)
Assyrian, Kurds, Yazidi, Yemeni, Maltese, Circassians, Armenians and Jews all live in this tiny space and trying to measure all these different ethnicities as one ‘block’ is just stupid to me. It’s like trying to measure Berbers all as one people (and coming up with that ridiculous number 83) when Berbers are composed from so many tribes (some of them sub-Saharan Negro).
It’s similar to the way American IQ is diluted by the quantity of African-Americans. It’s just not fair to judge Anglo-Americans by the net IQ of the entire country.
That study was tracing their founding middle eastern component, not their ancestry as a whole like my study did.
“The team analyzed the genomes of *128 Ashkenazi Jews*, comparing them with a reference group of *26 Flemish people* from Belgium. From that the researchers were able to work out which *genetic markers in the genome are unique to Ashkenazi*. The number of similarities within the genomes allowed the scientists to compute a rough estimate of the founding population and put upper and lower limits on the amount of time that had passed since that group originated. In this case it is 30 to 32 generations, or at most 800 years. “[Among Ashkenazi Jews] everyone is a 30th cousin,” Pe’er said. “They have a stretch of the genome that is identical.”
As in, post mixing with Italians and some Eastern Europeans, they didn’t really continue inbreeding.
That study was tracing their founding middle eastern component, not their ancestry as a whole like my study did.
It was tracing their founding middle eastern and founding european component:
Based on their research, the geneticists think it is likely that the 350 people from whom Ashkenazi Jews are descended were both Middle Easterners and Europeans.
https://www.bustle.com/articles/39587-ashkenazi-jews-are-all-related-geneticists-say-and-you-thought-your-family-was-big
To PP, And at the same time though that only reflect a small founding population, that’s different from a long trend of inbreeding.
Either way, their genetic diversity CAUSED by mixing with European to begin with basically makes them outbred compared to standard europeans.
This prevents typical trends of genetic load through inbreeding.
High IQ low income guy here. Great blog
IQs of racial groups in the US:
Average US IQ 97
That doesnt follow the pattern of blacks being smarter (proportionally to whites) when yougner.
really sleepy, fucked up and put that comment in the wrong comment block, oh well, off to bed
in order to properly measure the IQ of north africa and middle east, it is necessary that you seperate the peoples/ethnicities in them
or else it will be like murica where the IQs are massively diluted by the sheer quantities of negro
Fenoopy likes Africans a lot less than Bill Gates.
First, I have not read the comments, so I may be only repeating what others wrote. The Out of Africa theory, if false, leaves the mind in the grip of permanent error. First, there are two Africa’s. Sub-Saharan Africa is distinct from North Africa, and may as well be another continent, climatically and otherwise, And, in ice-age maximums the Mediterranean Sea did not separate South Europe from North Africa because it did not exist. Neanderthal, it should be obvious, did not develop from Sub-Saharan Africans. Bantus evolved from Sub-Saharan Africans quite on their own, trapped in that environment.All Homo-Sapien likely evolved from Home-Erectus, who ranged from Africa to Asia one million years ago, and then evolved locally. No doubt there were at least two ice-age migrations (possibly driven by the extreme ice-age drought) out of Sub-Saharan Africa, one a dead end to Australia and the other touching India. Bantus or their cousins did not populate the Stepps and beyond, lands for which they were entirely unsuited, and still are.
Actually the Out of Africa theory is correct. All modern humans are descended from blacks or at least from people who looked like blacks.
To Jamzw,
While you have a correct view in terms of separating ancient africans versus modern Sub Saharans, fossil evidence leaves little evidence of races appearing from Homo Erectus.
As a matter of fact, that wasn’t even the actual model of Multi-regional Theory that was proposed years back, what that model was was that Homo Sapiens was originally morphologically archaic going back 2 million years ago in Africa and from then different population shared geneflow and evolved along aside each other in changes except for particular traits that show continuity within their geographic world.
So in short, they weren’t isolated even in the most realistic take of such a divergence.
The current idea, based on recent Moroccan finds and Bushmen DNA, is that you had three African populations, Bushmen ancestors without Eurasian/East African DNA, OOA populations, and Basal Africans.
What likely happened, based on the study, was that OOA populations migrated into Eurasia in different waves as well as absorbing some Archaic specimens, while Ancient ancestors of West Africans from the same OOA cluster mixed with Basal Africans somewhere along the West portion making up about 30% of their ancestry (at least in the Yoruba sample of the study) while bushmen, until recently in the early AD period, received 9%-22% of their ancestry from a mixture of East Africans and Eurasians from the Levant.
See here for sources and details.
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2017/07/27/origins-and-the-relationship-between-west-africans-and-hg-populations/
To PP,
They were likely neither, seeing how representatives of OOA clusters (Hofmeyr skull) resembled Paleolithic Eurasians and Modern Eurasians more than they do Modern Bantu and similar populations as well as whatever traits they share likely being the result of some sort of parallel/convergent evolution with no real phylogenic significance.
I direct you to major points of our previous discussion on this simplification.
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/04/05/even-more-evidence-that-the-black-race-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-56049
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/06/18/more-evidence-that-the-african-phenotype-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-63055
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/04/05/even-more-evidence-that-the-black-race-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-56085
https://pumpkinperson.com/2017/04/05/even-more-evidence-that-the-black-race-is-extremely-old/comment-page-1/#comment-56001
And to complement the Hanihara study I demonstrated before, notes on possible areas likely representing the links with Africans that reflect natural selection and not taxonomy.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23134336_Which_Cranial_Regions_Reflect_Molecular_Distances_Reliably_in_Humans_Evidence_from_Three-Dimensional_Morphology
They were likely neither, seeing how representatives of OOA clusters (Hofmeyr skull) resembled Paleolithic Eurasians and Modern Eurasians more than they do Modern Bantu and similar populations as well as whatever traits they share likely being the result of some sort of parallel/convergent evolution with no real phylogenic significance.
It’s hard to tell from this tree which extant race the hofmeyr skull most resembles, but their soft tissue likely most resembled Africans
“It’s hard to tell from this tree which extant race the Hofmeyr skull most resembles, but their soft tissue likely most resembled Africans”
Wow, that’s sad even for you. Look, we both know how, at least, remotely familiar you are at reading trees to make points, and we both now that this tree and the study concludes them being closer to Upper Paleolithic Europeans/eurasians.
And as for soft tissue, I’ve said it tenfold before and I’ll say it again.
“….as well as whatever traits they share likely being the result of some sort of parallel/convergent evolution with *no real phylogenic significance*.”
Wow, that’s sad even for you. Look, we both know how, at least, remotely familiar you are at reading trees to make points, and we both now that this tree and the study concludes them being closer to Upper Paleolithic Europeans/eurasians.
I’m not disputing its proximity to Paleolithic Europeans, but you claimed it was also closer to modern Europeans than to modern Africans, hence my use of the word “extant”. The latter claim is hard to tell from the tree.
….as well as whatever traits they share likely being the result of some sort of parallel/convergent evolution with *no real phylogenic significance*
Shared traits between modern and ancient Africans are more likely to have been genetically preserved than independently evolved.
Quotes from phil78 in italics (my replies below):
Not with cranial discontinuity, and as I said before that even if by some possibility that they are “preserved”, that tells little of their overall genetic association due to lack of phylogenic signficance of these traits generally.
Which race a population clusters in is just a function of the measurements they take. If ancient Africans resemble modern Africans in soft tissue, and a bunch of soft tissue measurements are taken, ancient Africans will cluster with modern Africans.
The closest proxies to “selected dna” that I covered in the past support my view over yours in which you rely solely on crude phenotypes by themselves.
You’re referring to a study that claimed Andaman islander similarity to black Africans was caused by convergent evolution, but you took them too literally. They merely meant the evolutionary path of both groups had converged, so both independently preserved the phenotype of their common African ancestor. They didn’t mean said phenotype EMERGED independently in both Africa and the Andaman Islands.
Phil78 wrote:
I forgot to add that it NOT Hard because you can tell my the abbreviations that of all modern populations, SSA populations were the FURTHEST.
The lines on the tree fork so much that you can’t tell just from eyeballing, precisely how far the skull is from each of the modern populations, but it’s only one skull and if soft-tissue were included, results might have been very different. Also, the fact that East Asians and Australoids cluster so closely is a red flag given the huge morphological differences between these groups.
Just to be clear, the skull phenotype distance between any 2 groups equals the total length of line separating them
“Which race a population clusters in is just a function of the measurements they take. If ancient Africans resemble modern Africans in soft tissue, and a bunch of soft tissue measurements are taken, ancient Africans will cluster with modern Africans.”
Again, Phylogenic signficance varies by trait. Not sure why you can;t grasp that.
“You’re referring to a study that claimed Andaman islander similarity to black Africans was caused by convergent evolution, but you took them too literally. They merely meant the evolutionary path of both groups had converged, so both independently preserved the phenotype of their common African ancestor. They didn’t mean said phenotype EMERGED independently in both Africa and the Andaman Islands.”
Yeah…no it doesn’t. I’ve elaborated that the study found that, consistent with protein and other phenotypic examinations, they may’ve represented, on a coding level, OOA people but they don;t show genetic continuity in that regard to modern sub saharans.
I read the study and I know what they meant. The point is that the phenotypes are likely NOT of the same DNA sequences.
“The lines on the tree fork so much that you can’t tell just from eyeballing,”
Then let me help you, you see “HOF”, “EUP”, and “AFR”? Now you got it. It’s hardly anymore complicated that any of the plots you shown me on different races by CS.
” precisely how far the skull is from each of the modern populations, but it’s only one skull and if soft-tissue were included, results might have been very different.”
Then you clearly don’t understand how craniometrics work.
“Also, the fact that East Asians and Australoids cluster so closely is a red flag given the huge morphological differences between these groups.”
Not when you know the Molecular data of these groups, how this particular measurement aggregate forms distance, and how certain cranial features do correlate with molecular DNA.
“Just to be clear, the skull phenotype distance between any 2 groups equals the total length of line separating them.”
You’re the one, due to self-explained confusion, that needs any sort of clarification.
Again, Phylogenic signficance varies by trait. Not sure why you can;t grasp that.
What I can’t grasp is why you’re making an irrelevant point. Do you even know what phylogenic significance means? It means relevance to ANCESTRAL history. I’m not claiming ancient Africans are a more recent ancestor of modern Africans than they are of Europeans, I’m claiming modern Africans PRESERVED more of the phenotype from the equally recent African ancestor of both modern Europeans and modern Africans, and to answer that question you need to consider both internal and external phenotype.
I read the study and I know what they meant. The point is that the phenotypes are likely NOT of the same DNA sequences.
You misunderstood the study. It was not trying to answer the question I’m asking, it was merely trying to determine whether Andaman islanders are descended from a recent migration out of Africa (last few centuries) or whether they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago like all other non-africans. Their use of protein coding DNA was incidental. If scientists truly wanted to know whether their African looking phenotype was preserved from African ancestors tens of thousands of years ago, they would have looked at genes for skin color, nose shape, hair texture etc, and seen if the same genes that caused the African phenotype in Africans also caused it in Andaman islanders.
Then let me help you, you see “HOF”, “EUP”, and “AFR”? Now you got it. It’s hardly anymore complicated that any of the plots you shown me on different races by CS.
EUP doesn’t stand for European Phil 78, it stands for European Upper Paleolithic. It clearly shows the skull better resembles ancient Europeans than it does modern Africans, but what’s less clear is whether it resembles MODERN Europeans or MODERN Africans more because the length of line leading from both of those groups to HOFF is harder to compare.
Then you clearly don’t understand how craniometrics work.
What don’t I understand phil78? They take a bunch of skull measurements and then see which skulls most resemble each other on the totality of measurements.
Not when you know the Molecular data of these groups, how this particular measurement aggregate forms distance, and how certain cranial features do correlate with molecular DNA.
Molecular DNA similarity != phenotypic similarity. It’s the latter variable I’m interested in.
“Mitochondrial sequences were retrieved from museum specimens of the enigmatic Andaman Islanders to analyze their evolutionary history. D-loop and protein-coding data reveal that phenotypic similarities with African pygmoid groups are convergent”
Both Autosomal and Mitochrondrial.
“In addition, two protein-coding region SNPs that are specific to the Asian mtDNA M haplogroup were sequenced with primers L10353F (5′-GCCCTAAGTCTGGCCTATGAG-3′) and H10442R (5′-TGAGTCGAAATCATTCGTTTTG-3′). All numbering refers to the Cambridge reference sequence (CRS) of Anderson et al. (1981). Sequences were cloned to detect contaminants and artifacts associated with postmortem template modification (Gilbert et al. 2003b [in this issue], 2003a [in this issue]). Several samples were treated with the Escherichia coli uracil-N-glycosylase prior to amplification, to cleave deaminated nucleotides and confirm the presence of ancient damaged templates (Gilbert et al. 2003b [in this issue]). For full details on regions amplified, see table 1.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC378623/
And the Other study suggesting shared environment explain similarities, not ancestry. Point out that, with the closest proxies of “selected DNA”, they resembled surrounding populations rather than africans. Even if somehow their phenotype is the result of “preservation” among their different selected DNA profiles, the additional phylogenic cranial and protein difference that are far more numerous and observable would label that similarity Paraphyletic and not important for taxonomy.
“The Andamanese and other Asian “Negrito” peoples share physical features, including short stature, dark skin, peppercorn hair, scant body hair, and sometimes steatopygia, with African pygmies. But, whereas the Asian pygmoid people from Southeast Asia to New Guinea resemble Melanesians in their cranial morphology, Andamanese crania resemble more closely those of Africans [4]. However, a 1950s study on blood groups and proteins suggested that the Andamanese were more closely related to Oceanic peoples than to Africans [5]. Genetic studies on Philippine Negritos, based on polymorphic blood enzymes and antigens, showed that they were similar to surrounding Asian populations and rejected the notion that they belonged to an ancient stratum of Homo sapiens in Asia [6]. The most favored current explanation of the origin of the Andamanese and other Negritos is that they are short-statured representatives of the early Australo-Melanesian settlers of Southeast Asia and Oceania, and not closely related to the African pygmoid peoples [7]. It has been suggested that the small stature of some nomadic hunting and gathering peoples in Asia and Africa might be a local adaptation to a tropical rainforest environment, rather than the result of a shared ancestry [8].”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982202013362
D-loop and protein-coding data reveal that phenotypic similarities with African pygmoid groups are convergent
You’re making the wrong assumption that protein DNA is what dictates phenotype. The difference between humans and chimps is caused by junk DNA.
It has been suggested that the small stature of some nomadic hunting and gathering peoples in Asia and Africa might be a local adaptation to a tropical rainforest environment, rather than the result of a shared ancestry
The short stature is just a local adaptation caused by convergent evolution, but the Negroid appearance was something they inherited from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and never lost because they were never exposed to the ice age. The fact that they have genetic markers showing they are direct descendants of the original out of Africa migration COMBINED with the fact that they look African, should tell you they most likely got their African appearance directly from Africa.
“What I can’t grasp is why you’re making an irrelevant point. Do you even know what phylogenic significance means? It means relevance to ANCESTRAL history. I’m not claiming ancient Africans are a more recent ancestor of modern Africans than they are of Europeans, I’m claiming modern Africans PRESERVED more of the phenotype from the equally recent African ancestor of both modern Europeans and modern Africans,”
And perhaps they do, my problem is your use of negroid as a taxonomical term rather than a paraphyletic term.
What also doesn’t help is that this idea of a “preserved phenotype” is inconsistent with Proxies as I have shown as well as a misunderstanding or Jensen’s point on “selected dna” and taxonomy.
“and to answer that question you need to consider both internal and external phenotype”
Not when the later is more prone to natural selection.
“You misunderstood the study. It was not trying to answer the question I’m asking, it was merely trying to determine whether Andaman islanders are descended from a recent migration out of Africa (last few centuries) or whether they left Africa tens of thousands of years ago like all other non-africans.”
See my other comment, the studies were clearly addressing convergent evolution to explain similarities and nowhere did they claim what you conceive as “converged”.
” Their use of protein coding DNA was incidental. If scientists truly wanted to know whether their African looking phenotype was preserved from African ancestors tens of thousands of years ago, they would have looked at genes for skin color, nose shape, hair texture etc, and seen if the same genes that caused the African phenotype in Africans also caused it in Andaman islanders.”
Protiens-coding. Coding DNA, the significant portion that determines phenotype both externally and internally and would be subject to selection as well.
I’ve already explained crania to you and where that stands.
“What don’t I understand phil78? They take a bunch of skull measurements and then see which skulls most resemble each other on the totality of measurements.”
Then you shouldn’t have said “soft tissue would make a difference”. It would not for the very reason I’ve stated before.
“Molecular DNA similarity != phenotypic similarity. It’s the latter variable I’m interested in.”
I’ve linked it in my first comment. That latter variable would actually account for why “Molecular DNA similarity” could translate to cranial similarity.
.
Reptiles are a taxonomic group that is paraphyletic
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly
Yes, but lets compare and contrast.
Reptiles- a Paraphyletic Class excluding their descendants of birds and mammals, bound basically by scales or scale like external structures along with cold blood.
Despite excluding birds and mammals, their relation is generally understood as being subgroups under that term backed up with genetic evidence.
The problem with “Negroid” is that the taxon, along with Genetic research, shows Andaman Islanders to be closer to a different establish group of australoids, a category well established by then.
For instance, it would be like if Birds were actually closer to turtles (anapsids) than to Diapsids like lizards and crocodilians yet were still kept under the Diapsid label.
Reptiles- a Paraphyletic Class excluding their descendants of birds and mammals, bound basically by scales or scale like external structures along with cold blood.
Negroids- a Paraphyletic Race excluding their descendants of Caucasoids and Mongoloids, bound basically by dark skin, flat broad nose, prognathism along with kinky hair.
The problem with “Negroid” is that the taxon, along with Genetic research, shows Andaman Islanders to be closer to a different establish group of australoids, a category well established by then.
Traditionally Australoids were considered Negroid and even today they’re called “black” and short Australoid groups are called Negritos. Most Australoid groups have most of the traits associated with Negroids, Andaman islanders have all of them.
For instance, it would be like if Birds were actually closer to turtles (anapsids) than to Diapsids like lizards and crocodilians yet were still kept under the Diapsid label.
Hornets are much closer to ants than they are to solitary wasps, yet hornets are considered wasps
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraphyly#/media/File:Wasps_are_Paraphyletic.svg
I’m not sure if that’s a good analogy or not, but my point is that a taxon can be either monophyletic or paraphyletic, but it can NOT be polyphyleltic
“Traditionally Australoids were considered Negroid and even today they’re called “black” and short Australoid groups are called Negritos. Most Australoid groups have most of the traits associated with Negroids, Andaman islanders have all of them.”
Not in the most recent model prior to modern genomics, we went over this.
“Hornets are much closer to ants than they are to solitary wasps, yet hornets are considered wasps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp
I’m not sure if that’s a good analogy or not, but my point is that taxa can be either monophyletic or paraphyletic, but they can NOT be polyphyleltic.”
Except that their qualifications for a “wasps” morphology isn’t specific, it’s mainly based on exclusion.
“A wasp is any insect of the order Hymenoptera and suborder Apocrita that is neither a bee nor an ant. The Apocrita have a common evolutionary ancestor and form a clade; wasps as a group do not form a clade, but are paraphyletic with respect to bees and ants.”
Despite that, their relatives indicate that certain features like their “waist” are ancestral due to the nature of the clade they form with bees and ants.
In regard to “negroids”, going of the Hofmeyr skull being representative of the OOA people not linking up with modern Negroids, the features we see in anadman are like of unimportant phylogenic contection to modern negroids as well as indicated by their coding dna likley reflective of their selective dna.
“You’re making the wrong assumption that protein DNA is what dictates phenotype. The difference between humans and chimps is caused by junk DNA.”
If you knew the role of sequences in DNA and Proteins, you would think otherwise.
Gene expression due to non-coding DNA in chimps and humans explain why DESPITE similar coding areas they have different phenotypes.
In other words, sequences in the junk DNA creates enzymes that in turn regulate gene expression, the state of proteins at that point does change in its role with phenotype.
“The short stature is just a local adaptation caused by convergent evolution, but the Negroid appearance was something they inherited from Africa tens of thousands of years ago and never lost because they were never exposed to the ice age.”
Coding dna and cranial analysis argues otherwise, or at least makes it miniscule in their overall phenotype.
See my response to Santoculto on how other factors would place them under australoid.
“The fact that they have genetic markers showing they are direct descendants of the original out of Africa migration COMBINED with the fact that they look African, should tell you they most likely got their African appearance directly from Africa.”
And the vast different in DNA and cranial continuity should tell you that even if that was the case, their in depth continuity with modern africans from phenotypical standards is weaker than it is overall with neighboring populations.
Gene expression due to non-coding DNA in chimps and humans explain why DESPITE similar coding areas they have different phenotypes.
So it might also explain why despite similar coding areas, Andaman Islanders and other non-Africans have different phenotype.
And the vast different in DNA and cranial continuity should tell you that even if that was the case, their in depth continuity with modern africans from phenotypical standards is weaker than it is overall with neighboring populations.
Then why has every major scientist who looked at them commented on their incredible resemblance to Africans? Obviously your cranial measures lack face validity if they don’t correlate with subjective judgments of who resembles who.
“So it might also explain why despite similar coding areas, Andaman Islanders and other non-Africans have different phenotype.”
That is assuming their gene expression is thus the same as Africans. Unlikely seeing this type of Junk DNA is likely the Selective non-coding DNA Jensen observe, which he said produced the SAME PATTERN of biological promixity as other analyses did.
Also, to demonstrate this with african apes and brain expression.
“Phylogenetic results obtained from gene expression profiles contradict the traditional expectation that the non-human African apes (i.e., chimpanzee and gorilla) should be more like each other than either should be like humans. Instead, the chimpanzee ACC profiles are more like the human than like the gorilla; these profiles demonstrate that chimpanzees are the sister group of humans. ”
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/9/2957.full
And, despite, compared with ALL great apes, the human specific expression difference between humans and chimps lie in the brain.
This means that expression difference in other tissues is are proportionately less than neural tissue due to overlap with other apes that aren’t chimps.
https://books.google.com/books?id=qX4KAQAAQBAJ&pg=RA3-PA598&lpg=RA3-PA598&dq=gene+expression+in+humans,+Chimps,+and+gorillas&source=bl&ots=4R9O1-Ruuk&sig=BTuGrNDHIfcnEcAtJhjVKC76HOI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwju88r1zbvWAhUCySYKHUFyBYQQ6AEIcjAK#v=onepage&q=gene%20expression%20in%20humans%2C%20Chimps%2C%20and%20gorillas&f=false
“Then why has every major scientist who looked at them commented on their incredible resemblance to Africans? Obviously your cranial measures lack face validity if they don’t correlate with subjective judgments of who resembles who.”
Wow, this is desperate. Commenting on their superficial resemblance to Africans is different from actual CONCLUSIVE or near conclusive analyses of phenotypes.
You are comparing an Observation to proceeding experimental conclusions
Phil78, Jensen’s only point was that some so-called neutral DNA was not actually neutral since it correlated with climate (a clear selection pressure).
If gene expression says chimps are more like humans than like apes, then gene expression is a poor measure of phenotype
It’s not desperate to rely on human judgements. Humans are far smarter than computers and can pick up on subtleties that craniometric algorithms miss. In many fields of science, where phenotypes are too subtle to be measured, the rankings by a panel of judges serves as the scientific measurement, and the objectivity of these rankings are proven by their intercorrelations
The panel of judges say Andaman islanders look african
“Phil78, Jensen’s only point was that some so-called neutral DNA was not actually neutral since it correlated with climate (a clear selection pressure).”
No, se said a specific PORTION of it was under selected pressure and that even it correlated with other patterns.
“If gene expression says chimps are more like humans than like apes, then gene expression is a poor measure of phenotype.”
Seems you went back on your crutch, shows how much you don;t understand about biology. The understanding of the findings itself isn’t even that complex or abstract.
My Alternative Hypothesis would be, due to your noted ignorance on the subject and lack of convincing resources, you don;t understand that what these findings indicate is that certain tissue phenotypes with apes in general, most of the human specific expression that diverges us from chimps is based on neural expression. In the context of Human to Chimp differences, regardless of other Ape gene expressions, the body tissues are more different than neural.
With that said, this expands on more variety of traits that just your narrow field of “visual” phenotypes, which visability doesn’t equate to higher prioirity over others without close examination.
“It’s not desperate to rely on human judgements. Humans are far smarter than computers and can pick up on subtleties that craniometric algorithms miss.”
1. Proof?
2. If Humans are capable of this, then why even rely on computers and their preceding tools?
“In many fields of science, where phenotypes are too subtle to be measured, the rankings by a panel of judges serves as the scientific measurement, and the objectivity of these rankings are proven by their intercorrelations
The panel of judges say Andaman islanders look africa”
1. Source on this applying to phenotypes and the actual “panel” in the case of Andaman Islanders.
Because as far as I’ve learned from you there is no panel of “judges” ever discuss in this imaginary council of yours, only different experts weighing in on their phenotype’s nature, and multiple studies shows that, while like sharing roots with ancient migrants towards Asia from Africa, they should physical and phenotype relevant genetic discontinuity with Modern Africans.
2. “Looking African” is different from “being of the same genetic sequence to provide the same phenotypes”.
My Alternative Hypothesis would be, due to your noted ignorance on the subject and lack of convincing resources, you don;t understand that what these findings indicate is that certain tissue phenotypes with apes in general, most of the human specific expression that diverges us from chimps is based on neural expression. In the context of Human to Chimp differences, regardless of other Ape gene expressions, the body tissues are more different than neural.
With that said, this expands on more variety of traits that just your narrow field of “visual” phenotypes, which visability doesn’t equate to higher prioirity over others without close examination.
Can someone translate Phil78’s ramblings into coherent English?
“Can someone translate Phil78’s ramblings into coherent English?”
Ramblings? I guess you mean actual science. I’ll break it down for you.
“My Alternative Hypothesis would be, due to your noted ignorance on the subject and lack of convincing resources, you don;t understand that what these findings indicate is that certain tissue phenotypes with apes in general, most of the human-specific expression that diverges us from chimps is based on neural expression.”
In the context of general ape-human differences in expression, Neural sets human and chimps apart specifically, not body tissue.
“In the context of Human to Chimp differences, regardless of other Ape gene expressions, the body tissues are more different than neural.”
On just a chimp Human analysis, their body tissue is more different than Neural .
These two findings mean that the body differences in expression humans have are mainly found in the expression variation of other apes.
“With that said, this expands on more variety of traits that just your narrow field of “visual” phenotypes, which visability doesn’t equate to higher prioirity over others without close examination.”
Being able to “see obvious phenotypes” doesn’t make them more biological sound than those we cannot see. Something you seem to substitute for the significance of Rushton’s simplifications and arrogant comments of Taxonomy on your part.
I think while the human race started in Africa, modern humans started in India.
Doubtful seeing how the oldest anatomically modern humans outside of Africa are in China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peopling_of_India#Early_hominins_of_Acheulean_period
In comparison, the peopling of sapiens in India is little older than 60k-70k
I think all Asians including Indians started in China but all other mongoloids were pushed out by the immense success of the yellows. Red Asians to the Americas, Brown Asians to India.
The first Asians were australoid types or as i like to call them non-african negroids. These were brutally replaced by caucasoids in India and mongoloids in east Asia and the americas
In my opinion races are as follows:
Aboriginal Africans (san, pygmies, pre-bantu aboriginals etc) -> Bantu
Aboriginal Asians -> East Africans -> Indians
Indians -> Mongoloids
Indians -> Indo-Aryans (Aryan Persians)
Indo-Aryans -> Semitic, comprised from East, Central, and South Semitic peoples
Indo-Aryans -> Hamitic, comprised of the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family
Mongoloids -> Turkic (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d1/8f/8e/d18f8ea8ad2e0b79b863e649e53edd38–turkish-people-hazel-eyes.jpg)
Mongoloids -> East Asian, South Asian, Nordics
Asians become Noridcs in the north and mix with Neanderthal. Many Nordics still have Neanderthal DNA today.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0b44fe71318d5f6427e68136e41e477d

I believe today’s southern Europeans are a mixture of Nordic Caucasian and Hamitic, proven by DNA. The Spanish especially are incredibly influenced by Berber DNA, less to the North. Guanches and Southern Italians are nearly full blooded Hamitic in many cases.
So, in my opinion, Caucasians start from Indo-Aryans, Asians start from Mongoloids, but all modern races capable of advanced intellect aside from the Negro begin in Asia. In my opinion, all Indo-Aryan races are very similar in intellect but vary greatly in temperament.
Asians are not as clever as Indo-Aryan Caucasians, ever.
That’s only Orientals, who outclassed and conquered every other type of Asian.
However Jews are Indo-Aryan Caucasians and outclass Orientals.
I believe that Jews being genetically smarter than other types of Indo-Aryan Caucasian is fraud however, and that they thrive on a culture of nepotism and glorification of knowledge.
I think any Indo-Aryan Caucasian can be just as clever or smarter than Jews, who are our peers. In fact, I see many examples of Caucasians just as clever or smarter than Jews right here on this site.
A 112 average IQ isn’t very high. Any Caucasian can achieve that with a little knowledge and in my opinion that’s what the average Jew has. Are Orientals in Hong Kong smarter than mainland Orientals by genetics? No, they are not. It’s all culture, I promise. Every Caucasian culture has had their golden age, I am sure during each one each respective race claimed the other Caucasian to be inferior in intellect, but the reality is it is poisonous or beneficial ideas and education that decide the difference.
also, i believe developing intellect by braving hard terrain is fucking nonsense.
negros travel over the sahara and thus get smart? garbage.
negro aboriginals travel to australia and the perilous journey makes them smart? retarded garbage
negros travel north to europe and the ice age cold makes them smart? dumb shit i ever heard. garbage
the intense pressures of natural selection lead to heightened intelligence. pressures from other humans. orientals are the smartest race today, because with the abundance of food that asia had, they developed the highest intelligence and crushed every other mongoloid race. natural selection.
infact, nordics lost intelligence by moving into the freezing ice age shithole that is europe and fucking neanderthals and getting that 7% neanderthal dna they have today, their asian ancestors outclass them
“In my opinion races are as follows:
Aboriginal Africans (san, pygmies, pre-bantu aboriginals etc) -> Bantu
Aboriginal Asians -> East Africans -> Indians
Indians -> Mongoloids
Indians -> Indo-Aryans (Aryan Persians)
Indo-Aryans -> Semitic, comprised from East, Central, and South Semitic peoples
Indo-Aryans -> Hamitic, comprised of the Berber, Cushitic and Egyptian branches of the Afroasiatic family”
That’s not very clear in regards of an assoication, but actually East Africans are in between Africans and Middle Easterners, Indians (roughly) inbetween Aryans and Australoids.
Other than that not too off.
“Mongoloids -> Turkic (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d1/8f/8e/d18f8ea8ad2e0b79b863e649e53edd38–turkish-people-hazel-eyes.jpg)
Mongoloids -> East Asian, South Asian, Nordics
Asians become Noridcs in the north and mix with Neanderthal. Many Nordics still have Neanderthal DNA today.
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-0b44fe71318d5f6427e68136e41e477d”
I believe today’s southern Europeans are a mixture of Nordic Caucasian and Hamitic, proven by DNA. The Spanish especially are incredibly influenced by Berber DNA, less to the North. Guanches and Southern Italians are nearly full blooded Hamitic in many cases.”
Not “Hamitic”. Neolithic farmers from Anatolia is more accurate. Hamitic people likely have closer ties to Caspian Farmer in North Africa. They are all linked however, which is why they share ancestry. They also do have affinity with Nordics but due to common ancestry with Aryans traveling into Europe, not Nordic directly.
This was all pre-Berber.
“So, in my opinion, Caucasians start from Indo-Aryans, Asians start from Mongoloids, but all modern races capable of advanced intellect aside from the Negro begin in Asia. In my opinion, all Indo-Aryan races are very similar in intellect but vary greatly in temperament.”
Caucasians start fro Cromagnons along with asians and they continue to split from their, Neolithic people then emerged and then later Indo Aryans which eventually became Nordics by mixing with local Neolithic and Hunter Gatherers in Europe.