Christians — have you been deceived?

its not a theory, bro.

Europe is teeny-weeny.

the rest of Asia is, well, massive

 

Europe and Asia are 100% part of the same tectonic plate.

Geologically speaking, they are the same continent.

 

You can see why one might suspect that your harbor a "different species" mentality here.

You're right, small differences in DNA can make large differences. There are certainly impactful genetic differences between northern Europeans and peoples of African descent. I'm not afraid to say things that might be construed as politically incorrect or racially insensitive.

I'm even willing to say that there might be genetic differences in thought and behavior patterns, even levels of general intelligence. The caveat is that there are too many other moving variables to pinpoint such differences, and my suspicion is that if such differences exist they're miniscule to the point of irrelevancy.

There is absolutely no reason to believe, with a shred of intellectual honesty, that peoples of African descent have lower general intelligence or significantly different behavior patterns. The science is nowhere near being able to make that claim, much less establish it.

That's why I concern myself with individuals and their behavior. Through words and actions I can pinpoint bad actors and tell you, person by person, which people are harmful. For example, I'm about 80% sure that you're a racist, which I find troublesome.

 

Eye color is genetic. Recessive colors like blue require two recessive genes. If blue eyes were a mutation in only one person in the beginning, it would have been lost in the next generation, as the partners dominant genes would have won.

 

and again, blue/green eyes are not some magical "adaptation" that humans suddenly developed to better deal with low levels of sunlight.

it was a random mutation, pure and simple. Nothing more.

but it was a lovely mutation, so it spread and grew.

that's sexual selection, which can choose elements that are useful to survival, or useless to survival.

humans have little body hair compared to chimps, because it shows off are muscle tone and breasts

less body hair has ZERO survival benefit, it anything it hurts us.

 

Long after the period we are taking about with respect to Jesus and whether he had white features.

 

So? That doesn't make it a "subcontinent". Europe has been classified as its own continent for a very long time.

 

we stopped talkign about Jesus many pages ago.

the Goths invaded south and brought their genes with them.

 

Again, so what?

 

If there's no reason to believe that then why do all DNA tests show a gap in intelligence levels between races ?

and why do you find it troubling ? Humans were not evolve to have the modern-day egalitarian viewpoint

 

shows that logically and geologically speaking, Eurasia is an appropriate term.

too bad the Ural Mountians never fully split Europe from Asia, huh?

 

There's no documented history that shows that there was any kind of coordinated effort to only breed with people who had blue eyes. Early generations of humans didn't work like that they reproduced with pretty much anybody they found attractive. And for your theory of it being a mutation to be correct, there would've had to be other people who already had that mutation for them to breed with . Otherwise the recessive genes would've been lost. The same scientist you are quoting here for this theory believes that this mutation came from a single individual

 

Europe and Asia are categorized as two separate continents. It's been that way for a long time.

 

There is no DNA test for intelligence, brotha.

If you mean to ask about general intelligence disparity seen between the races there are too many unquantified (and probably unquantifiable) variables at play. I'd say that it's largely a cultural problem. There's no doubt that the kind of culture created (mostly) by (mostly) peoples of European descent over the last five centuries or so is the greatest civilization mankind has yet to yield. Maybe someday this culture might envelop the whole world. That's certainly my desire.

Ashkenazi Jews, for example, have made contributions to our culture well above what would be expected on the basis of numbers. I doubt you'd argue that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically more intelligent. Far more likely that there are cultural differences that can account for this.

I don't find myself concerned with what humans "evolved" to do. I believe in the universal brotherhood that individualism promises to establish. The kind of identitarianism peddled by folks like you on the "right" and those on the left are, I believe, existential threats to our civilization. Europe, I suspect, might fall prey to collectivist squabbling once again. I'm more optimistic about this side of the pond.

 

whatever

"Europe is a continent that comprises the westernmost part of Eurasia."

The eastern boundary with Asia is a historical and cultural construct, as there is no clear physical and geographical separation between them; Europe is generally considered as separated from Asia by the watershed divides of the Ural and Caucasus Mountains, the Ural River, the Caspian and Black Seas, and the waterways of the Turkish Straits.[4]Yet the non-oceanic borders of Europe—a concept dating back to classical antiquity—are arbitrary.

 

Did you know that part of Scotland used to be part of North America?

 

sometimes appropriate, obviously; and while I understand this, PF staff does not, which is why I'm treating you with a semblance of respect that you clearly don't deserve.

Alas for you, not nearly enough to make you look intelligent by comparison.

 

sorry bro, but blue and green eyes are nothing but a random mutation that got passed on due to sexual selection.

they provide no more survival advantage than having little body hair.

 

You called it "the Eurasian subcontinent". If you want to look at Europe and Asia as one, you wouldn't call it a "subcontinent". It would just be a large "continent". And, as already pointed out, the two have been categorized as separate continents going back a long time. So you're wrong no matter how you slice it.

 

Oops, meant IQ test. Had a separate point about DNA but deleted it and left the wrong word. What I get for trying to post from my phone.

But how do cultural issues affect IQ tests? IQ tests are developed to analyze someone's thinking capacity based on numbers and patterns, primarily. Very little, if any of it has to do with learned information like language, vocabulary, grammar, history, etc.

That doesn't appear to be happening. The culture of European peoples is being blotted out by making those European peoples minorities in every country where they hold a majority percentage of the population. This is being done intentionally.

Assuming it is true (keeping in mind the communication channels that disseminate this information are owned and controlled largely by Jews), there are a lot of possible explanations for it, both genetic and cultural.

Evolution is an important part of our biology. We are born with innate qualities like instincts. Infants are born with a preference for people who look like their parents, and have an aversion towards those who look significantly different. That's human nature. We are social creatures and long to be a part of a group or family. Radical individualism is not, and has never been, part of the human experience.[/quote]

 

Doesn't make sense. The guy whose research you are borrowing from believes that blue eyes were a random mutation in a single individual. If that was true, he would have reproduced with a dark eyed person and the recessive trait would have been overtaken in the next generation. Besides, there is no way that it would have been that much of a preference to completely dominate Europe resulting in everyone having blue eyes. Having blue eyes is still preferred in a mate nowadays based on statistics but there is no shortage of brown eyed people reproducing. Quite the opposite.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Professor Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. "But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a "switch," which literally "turned off" the ability to produce brown eyes." The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The "switch," which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris -- effectively "diluting" brown eyes to blue. The switch's effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour -- a condition known as albinism.

 

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/origin-blue-eyes

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/all-blue-eyed-people-have-common-ancestor-0/

 

"Eiberg", eh? I wonder what his ethnicity is? Probably the same as David Reich's.

Really fits in with the deceptive theme this thread explores.

Blue eyes are recessive, brown eyes are not. If blue eyes are a mutation that can somehow turn off a brown eyed individuals ability to produce melanin, then blue eyes would be prevalent in the offspring of blue eyed and brown eyed mating partners, and it is not.

 

Go back to Stormfront. This kind of crap isn't needed here.