White Men tend to succeed more because the have better morals, values, and principles

Africa had ancient civilizations. But even if they didn't create advanced societies who says that they couldn't do it? All human populations, including Europeans, lived tribal lifestyles for thousands of years so saying that cultural development has anything to do with IQ or the cultural achievements of Western societies has something to do with the racial biology of White people is completely unfounded. I have created several threads that refute this nonsense.

Examples:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-geographical-origins-of-modern-humans.374443/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...g-persistence-of-an-unscientific-idea.391430/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/article-reveals-racial-iq-gap-is-not-genetic.424151/

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-pseudoscience-of-j-philippe-rushton.373375/

 

Africa didn't have civilizations that rivaled the West. If it is your opinion that they did, why has very little, if anything, come from these civilizations? No great artists, scientists, mathematicians, philosophers? Those came from other groups, but not sub-Saharan Africans, and this was back when "oppression" couldn't be blamed for the absence of these things. Why is that?

 

African civilization predates European civilization by hundreds of years. But even if certain regions did not achieve as much as others that doesn't mean those groups are stupid or less intelligent. You are stuck in a racist mindset that isn't consistent with established facts of history nor current knowledge of ancient cultures derived from archeological and anthropological research. Why not read something respectable on the subject instead of racist trash on the internet?

Example:

https://mega.nz/#!fc0UVCBT!fbz5bDuFC_X39YfWYAlyQT84lXWMkf4qr3Z1djF0Q-Y

Read this article and provide feedback. It answers all of your questions and concerns on the subject. You and I could debate this subject at length and the conversation would be completely worthless if we don't at least have an understanding of established facts on the matter. I find your line of questioning patronizing and essentially useless as you don't have a proper understanding of human history and cultures.

 

Duh, Egypt had landing platforms for great space faring ships that just haven't returned.

 

"Don't read stuff you find on the internet because it reinforces your beliefs....Here, read this article on the internet that reinforces MY beliefs"

BAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Sure I do, I was merely asking why those specific things I inquired about were completely lacking in sub-Saharan African "advanced civilizations", while they were present in the civilizations of other groups. You want me to entertain a "what if" scenario that involves these groups being just as advanced and capable of these things, based on nothing, when there is no evidence for me to support this view.

 

And, wouldn't you know it? I have to download some mystery file off a sketchy website in order to read the "we wuz kangz!" propaganda he wants me to swallow.

 

This isn't just some article on the internet. It's an article published in a peer-reviewed journal not some trash written on a website somewhere. What are Brewskier's primary sources for his knowledge of history, archeology and anthropology?

I'm not asking you to entertain "What Ifs" but rather read something that addresses questions about history, cultural achievement and intelligence from a respectable scholar. If you disagree point out where you disagree. Your line of questioning assumes that I accept certain premises which are simply not consistent with historical facts or research from archeology and anthropology which refutes your assumptions.

This is the article I'm asking you to read:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/40023596?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Abstract

Over the last two decades, a number of psychometric researchers have claimed that very substantial differences in intelligence exist among modern human racial groups, as these groups are traditionally defined. According to these researchers, African populations suffer severe cognitive deficits when compared to other modern humans. Philippe Rushton, particularly, places these claimed mental deficits in an evolutionary context, advancing environmental explanations for such deficits and asserting that such cognitive differences existed prehistorically as well. Such substantial cognitive differences should be evident in human behavioural patterns, and thus in the archaeological record. Archaeological data can thus be used to test these claims about human evolutionary development and modern human cognitive difference. Examination of the archaeological record does not support the claims made by these researchers. This suggests that regional differences in IQ test score results should not be ascribed to variations in human evolutionary development.

You can research the credentials of the author through these links:

https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/pdf/scott-maceachern-cv.pdf

https://www.bowdoin.edu/faculty/s/smaceach/

"Scott MacEachern specializes in African archaeology and ethnoarchaeology; research involves the study of state formation and ethnicity in Iron Age Central Africa."

The Mega Download link is the easiest way I can get the file to you. You could download that in under a minute with good internet speed. If you're worried about viruses get some anti-virus protection but I can assure you that the article is legit, it's not sketchy or propaganda. Scott MacEachern is an expert on this subject. The only reason why you would not read this article at this point is because you are not interested in serious debate.

 

You're right, I'm not genuinely interested in debating the issue with you, due to your lazy debate tactics, which are evident all over this board. You essentially find one or two researchers who agree with your point of view (anti-racist), and you spend your time regurgitating the information, bordering on plagiarism, and then appealing to their authority whenever someone challenges the information that you provide. I think all that needs to be known about you is your comment (unfortunately deleted by an admin) that racist white women "need some black dick", which is probably what many black rapists thought when they encountered a white woman who wasn't attracted to them, right before before they raped them. Oh, and you think OJ was innocent of a double murder. No amount of copy+pasting would be able to overcome that obvious sign of mental limitedness.

 

So why isn't your IQ higher than Condi Rice's? Why weren't you more successful than Colin Powell? Why aren't you CEO of major US Corporation? Why aren't you a billionaire? Non-white Americans are/and have been all of these things. Are you a defective white person? We can only conclude that is the case if you argue for the superiority of white people but are not as successful, rich and intelligent as numerous non-white people.

So what is it? Are you a defect or is your argument flawed?

 

It's funny how you constantly cling to this silly little ad-hom. Obviously there are very smart people in every group. The argument is whether or not some groups are more likely to have very smart people compared with other groups. We can see that this is true with some groups, and not so much with others, which could indicate a combination of genetics or cultural effects at work. There has been plenty of research done by both those who subscribe to this idea, and those who try to explain it away. Which one you decide to believe is up to you, and as a progressive, your choice would be obvious.

 

So basically instead of engaging me in a serious debate you resort to ad hominem attacks, lying and excuses to avoid legitimate discussion. I have never committed plagiarism on this board. I have presented arguments and supported my arguments with credible sources. Where are your sources? Your racist distortions of history will not suffice as an argument. Show me a respectable qualified scholar who agrees with you. I have plenty but Scott MacEachern will do for now as he wrote a good article that addresses this very topic in detail. You should focus on that instead of irrelevant garbage about some joke I made about racist White women or my opinion on the OJ Simpson trial (which is inaccurate but irrelevant). You're being childish and deliberately distracting from the discussion because you don't have a real argument and can't defend your position which isn't supported by anything other than racist nonsense.

 

No - I'm serious. What is wrong with YOU? You are white. Why aren't you more successful? Why are you letting non-whites pass you by? You cling to the success of other white people like it's some baby's comfort toy, but you are nothing like them. You share a skin tone but nothing else, and yet, you think this gives you some special power. You are not special.

 

I'll take this discussion in another direction by asking Brewskier a simple question. What makes him think that the achievements of Western civilization have anything to do with the innate ability of White people as a collective? I won't speculate on Brewskier's deficiencies as a person as I don't know him. I very much doubt he is as successful as any of the Black people you mentioned or any others but the racist argument is based on averages not absolutes. So they can acknowledge the individual success of Blacks but believe that Blacks can't succeed as a group. Now why do they think that? It has to do with their racist perceptions of the world, history and the only thing they have to support their claims is pseudoscientific nonsense. There's no scientific reason to believe that a society succeeds based on the quantity of intelligent people within it. The wealthiest and most intelligent people in the world make up a tiny fraction of the general population. Everyone else is fairly average in intelligence and not wealthy because of the way society is structured. Also clearly you don't have to be highly intelligent to make money. No one in their right mind would claim that Mike Tyson is smarter than Neil Degrasse Tyson even though he has made much more money in his lifetime and despite squandering a 300 million dollar fortune still has a slighter greater net worth to this day. So the idea that being rich means you are highly intelligent is simply based on a false premise.

The idea that variation in cultural development in humans is determined by the average intelligence of populations is also false and I presented a credible article on the subject that proves this with scientific evidence. But instead of reading that and providing feedback Brewskier would rather make an irrelevant emotional argument about me making a joke about racist White women needing some Black dick. This exemplifies his intellectual dishonesty and laziness as a debater. Maybe he should think about that before accusing others of being mentally limited.

 

There are plenty of sources I can give:

http://en.rightpedia.info/w/Race_realism#List_of_race_realists

But, for someone like you, these sources would have likely been attacked at one point or another, because they push a view that you simply can't accept or tolerate. Most of Academia feels the exact same way. Academia is filled with left-wing Marxists, many of whom are anti-white, Jewish "egalitarians" (in the West, at least), so no matter how many sources I give would be automatically outnumbered, and their work would be under a level of scrutiny and examination that your leftist sources would not be under. So you got me there. You would most likely win in a game of "well my source says your source is wrong". Congratulations.

I choose not to play that game. We have a long history of human civilization to analyze, and we have seen which ones produce the best scientists, mathematicians, inventors, businesses, etc. We see which ones have produced the best cultures and societies (which you concede, probably without even realizing, are Western in nature). You have a ready-made excuse for why blacks have not produced these things, but hold out that, if circumstances had been different, blacks would have been beyond the level of whites (because you're a black supremacist who refuses to acknowledge that to the board).

But, ultimately, it doesn't matter. I'm not even a big fan of the West at this point. I think civilization is what the mixed, mongrel people of the world needed in order to survive. Whites in Europe, descended from Neanderthals, were not really part of any big civilization. They were tribal. The same goes for Africans. Each group was adapted to their particular environments, and didn't need the support system of "civilization" in order to survive. The mixed peoples of the word, who were comprised of people who wouldn't be adapted to either environment of their parents, were the ones who developed civilization.

 

Whether or not I am special or not doesn't negate my argument that I believe European peoples are special, which doesn't require superiority.

 

I never said blacks can't succeed in a group. They were succeeding for hundreds of thousands of years in their African homelands, while Neanderthals and early whites were doing the same in Europe. Pointing to the success of Western civilization and mentioning that blacks have never produced an equally successful equivalent is really just an observation. Why have we seen such huge gains in human advancement in that culture, but not the other?

My main point of contention is mainly focused on this idea that blacks are somehow able to succeed just as equally as whites in white civilizations. Why is this the default assumption? I wouldn't think for a second that whites would be able to succeed equally to blacks in black civilizations, so why must I accept the opposite situation? Blaming "oppression" is simply a cop-out. Blacks have only been living in white civilizations for a short period of time compared to their historical civilizations. The violence and dysfunction that we see in high levels in the black community is evidence of them rejecting the civilization they are forced to be a part of. I think it's natural.

 

Asians commit a lot of crime in America. They just don't commit crimes that our justice system cares about. There is really very little revenue to be gained by going after crimes asians traditionally are involved in. For example Asians are pretty pervasive in trafficking, but it isn't a priority for law enforcement. I can go to NYC and point out a ton of illegal Asian bath houses, and it goes on right under law enforcement's nose. But since there are no drugs involved, don't expect them to care.

And on top of that none of these asians are actually legal either, another crime that law enforcement are well aware of, but choose to not actually enforce. Asians do get involved in drugs, but it's mostly meth and heroin. But it's not crack or cocaine, which the government seems to view as a higher priority for some reason. They care about crack and coke even more than PCP in a lot of cases. So Asians do commit crime, they just fly under the radar since they're not comitting crimes that LEOs care about.

 

So basically you are making excuses for why you can't provide any credible sources. It's all a Leftist, Jewish, Egalitarian conspiracy right?

You've also indirectly admitted that your opinion isn't based on real science but on your racist perceptions of the world. Rather than address my argument and source you choose to dismiss it and lie about me being a Black Supremacist (good luck proving that).

Seriously, if this is all you are capable of in debate then why do you even bother?

I have provided several threads where I presented evidence showing that there is no scientific reason to believe that genes related to intelligence are unevenly differentiated across geographic populations. A trait like intelligence which is beneficial in all populations would be favored by natural selection so there is no scientific basis for your claim that human races differ in average intelligence and this position is supported by experts on evolutionary biology, anthropology and archeology. The archeological record shows that humans became anatomically and behaviorally modern in Africa and that human survival strategies were virtually identical during the Pleistocene Epoch. Humans descend from one evolutionary lineage with some slight interbreeding with archaic humans so we share an evolutionary history which resulted in a general cognitive capacity for all human populations. Variation in cultural development has nothing to do with variation in intelligence but rather geography and circumstances. So your arguments are simply based on racist perceptions of the world and ignorance that are not supported by science. A list of so-called race-realists from Wikipedia is worthless. Most of them are just arguing that race is real or indeed have been thoroughly refuted, discredited and exposed as racists by respectable scientists.

 

Intelligence would be beneficial in all populations however there are certain areas of the world where intelligence was more of a requirement for survival. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, intelligence was not as important as speed and physical strength, which is why blacks tend to have an athletic edge against other groups in running and jumping sports and other athletic activities. In the frozen North, as the ice age subsided, those who lived in that environment didn't have millions of land animals grazing across the desert floor in plain sight, they had figure out complex ways to find what they needed to survive, including developing tools (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...ls-and-may-even-have-taught-humans-how-11927/).

If "natural selection" was truly at work, African bushmen would have IQ's far beyond the mid 50's, which is a level categorized as severe mental retardation in any European or Western civilization. The truth is intelligence has been less of a requirement for survival in Africa, which is why Africans have a lower IQ.

Being a supremacist, you need to believe that whites have absolutely no advantage over your people. You would freely admit to the advantages blacks have over whites, and celebrate them, but the instant a white advantage is suggested, you protest.

 

Oh, and this isn't just my opinion:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...1/cold-winters-and-the-evolution-intelligence

I have no doubt you have already found some left- wing "scholar" who has attempted to refute this theory. This is your one hobby horse issue on this message board, which you dedicate 100% of your posting attention to, and you've got an inferiority complex with race as long as your arm.

 

First of all, don't ascribe your ideological views to me. I am an Egalitarian not a racial supremacist. There is no scientific reason to believe that intelligence is not important in Africa nor that athleticism matters more. This is an evolutionary just-so story with no scientific support.

IV. RACE

18. Jensen argues, in effect, that cognitive 'races' exist because genes related to human cognitive systems will have been subjected to diversifying selection in the same way as some superficial physical or physiological characters. He suggests that northern migrants would have faced particularly difficult conditions. As a result, groups of African descent will have lower frequencies of genes for superior cognitive abilities, compared with those of Caucasian or Mongoloid ancestry.

19. This completely misses the point. Our African hominid ancestors themselves evolved as a social-cooperative species in order to deal with conditions of extreme environmental uncertainty, as the climate dried, forests thinned, and former forest dwellers were 'flung out' onto the open savannah or forest margins. It is crucial to point out that when even as few as two individuals cooperate they create a new, social environment that is vastly more complex than anything experienced in the physical world. It is that complexity on the social plane which rapidly impelled the tripling of brain size and furnished the unique cognitive capacity for dealing with complexity in general - in the physical world as well as the social.

20. The uniquely adaptable, highly selected, socio-cognitive system that resulted was a prerequisite, not a consequence, of human migration patterns. Although inhabiting every possible niche, humans have only a quarter of the genetic variation of highly niche-specific chimpanzees (Kaessmann et al 1999). The system operates on a completely different plane from blind genetic selection - one which can 'model' the world conceptually, and anticipate and change it. If our heads get cold we invent hats, rather than wait for natural selection to reshape our skulls and increase the size of our brains (which is what Jensen suggests in one particularly questionable y line of argument). As Owens & King (1999) point out, what minor genetic differences exist are 'quite literally superficial... the possibility that human history has been characterised by genetically homogeneous groups ("races") distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence'.

21. Owens & King also point out that 'Of course prejudice does not require a rational basis, let alone an evolutionary one, but the myth of major genetic differences across "races" is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence' (453). This culmination of Jensen's thesis, then, is as hollow as the conceptual foundations on which it based. It really is time this negative and fatalistic model of humanity was put behind us once and for all.

Source: Demystifying G - Book Review of Jensen on Intelligence-g-Factor by Ken Richardson

Did you even read that article before you posted it?

From the link:

The reasons why there are persisting inter-ethnic differences in mean IQ scores remain unclear (Neisser et al., 1996). Environmental differences between ethnic groups, such as nutrition, education, and economic development need to be taken into account. Richard Lynn believes that these IQ differences are due to evolved genetic differences between distinct racial groups but this view is not widely accepted in academia, contrary to Lynn’s claims. His theory of cold winters as an explanation for this phenomenon does not seem at all plausible and is based on little more than speculation.

Indeed I have provided evidence that refutes the "Cold Winter Theory" point by point. Rushton's work relied heavily on it and I have discussed this in numerous threads.



Rushton and these other racist crackpots don't know anything about human evolution.

I have spoken to evolutionary biologists about this who have refuted these arguments.

Example:

Dear EgalitarianJay,

I have attached a copy of the 2004 paper with some comments. That 2005 paper is far too long for me to take on now but I may take on one or two of the ten arguments sometime to see how good the data are. As you say, the 2004 paper is not clear about what the underlying data are so it is hard to evaluate. I can at least say that Rushton does not know his biology and says numerous things that are untrue and silly. Some of the basics are his characterizations of vertebrate classes as ranging along an r-K continuum. Fish are not necessarily r, for example. Many of the longest lived vertebrates are fish. In fact, I wrote a well received paper about this for a senescence journal once and could send you a copy. r and K selection are no longer accepted as general explanations for life history evolution. I mentioned before that organisms often do array along a continuum that is similar to r and K selection at the extremes, but the factors that shape life histories are often a function of age or stage specific mortality risk. Very different mortality risks can generate the evolution of very similar life histories.

Rushton's treatment of progress in evolution is wrong by many measures. It turns out that Darwin addressed this issue explicitly, along with addressing whether evolution caused increasing complexity, in the Origin of Species. He was quite emphatic, and quite correct, in arguing that there are no such trends evident in evolution. I have no doubt that E. O. Wilson criticized S. J. Gould's treatment of progress in evolution, but those arguments were based on finer distinctions than whether progress was present or absent.

Rushton's statistical analysis of the mammals is probably correct, in that there is a positive correlation between brain size, body size and some life history attributes. There has been long standing interest in the evolution of brain size. One strong association is that predators have larger brains than herbivores. This is accompanied by their having larger territories and, we think, facing the requirement for greater cognitive abilities. I suspect they will tend to be more "k-selected" than herbivores by the criteria Rushton has chosen, so his arguments to tangentially capture some aspects of biology that are real. But, it does not follow that we have seen the progressive evolution of predators at the expense of herbivores, since predators cannot survive without an abundance of potential prey. What this tells us instead is that brain size can evolve in concert with the evolution of other aspects of the biology of organisms. However, the entirety of Rushton's statistics are correlations, which mean they cannot define causation. I offer some more specific comments on the correlation-causation issue in comments I inserted on the attached PDF.

What Rushton never does is apply this same statistical rigor to human races nor does he show the know how to apply them properly. Any attempt by him to apply the above results to humans is not matched with real data on brain size, for example, or real results that show an association between IQ and brain size. Other critical aspects of his argument are simply assertions that do not seem to have any concrete support. For example, he argues that environmental variation is declining which means that heritability must be increasing, yet we see the differences among races becoming larger not smaller. This is his key argument for genetic differences among races in intelligence. What is lacking is any support at all for the argument that environmental variation is declining, particularly environmental variation that might effect performance on IQ tests.

Reznick notes on Rushton - Placing intelligence into an evolutionary framework or how g fits into the r–K matrix of life-history traits including longevity Intelligence 32 (2004) 321–328

Combating racism does not mean I have an inferiority complex. You are simply obsessed with believing that certain groups are your lesser because you are a racist. I am not threatened by you and your views I simply despise racist ideology because it is socially harmful. You make your own enemies. If people like you weren't so fixated on trying to argue that people you hate are mentally inferior people like me wouldn't have a problem with you. Honestly you don't deserve any attention but since you want to make the argument expect opposition and stop whining when I shut you down with credible scientific research.

 

Like I said, you have no problem acknowledging and celebrating the alleged advantages that blacks have over whites (which is where your "black dick joke" (wasn't a joke) came from, despite there being studies that show virtually no difference in penis size... I'm sure you have a study that proves that alleged difference correct though, since it benefits you and your people). Your stated "Egalitarian" position is not in accordance with your actions.

This doesn't disprove the cold winter theory. It is simply saying that Africans in Africa experienced their own evolution based on their environment. It says nothing about the comparison between the two groups in the two environments, or whether or not one evolved more than the other.

Translation: "racism is wrong, stop being a racist". Studies have shown that Neanderthals were different enough from homo sapiens to be categorized as their own species, and they interbred with humans everywhere except for those who remained in Africa. This is why white and Asian people today have a percentage of their DNA linked to Neanderthals (and Denisovans in the case of Asians), whereas Africans do not. When some races of people have the DNA of completely separate species in them, and other races do not, I don't see how anyone could say that we are a "genetically homogenous group" of people.

Regardless of the author of the author's skepticism, the article provides real information by Lynn and Kanazawa on the subject.

Not sure how a critique on Rushton applies to what I posted from Lynn and Kanazawa. I suspect it's simply more copy+pasting from that creepy text file you keep on your desktop, to make your post longer. Your style of debate is to simply spam info, relevant or not, in the hopes of tiring out your opponent. That way, when you get the last word in, you call yourself the winner. Very tired strategy, used by many here over the years.

Although I think it's hilarious that you actually reach out to people you already agree with in order to confirm your confirmation bias.

You're not shutting down anything. You're posting information from sources that you agree with, and I'm doing the same. I already have acknowledged that you will have an edge on the sheer amount of sources to pull from, due to left-wing bias present in Academia.

And the belief that blacks and whites are not equally intelligent isn't the only "socially harmful" difference between whites and blacks. We are simply evolved from different parts of the world and very different.

 

It was a joke and if a dick is Black does that mean that all Blacks have bigger dicks than Whites? I never said that. You just invented that as a personal attack.

The argument is that humans have a general cognitive capacity due to our shared evolutionary history which completely undercuts the argument you are making.

Neanderthal ancestry doesn't mean anything. It was so small as to not have any evolutionary significance. There were archaic human species in Africa that interbred with modern humans there as well.

The author doesn't agree with their conclusions and is clearly arguing that they are wrong.

So why did you present it?

Rushton adopted Lynn's Cold Winter theory and expanded it to make a more scientific sounding argument for humans evolving greater intelligence after they left Africa. The work of both scholars is based on the same flawed assumptions.

I'm just presenting you with proper sources that refute your argument. If you can't address them that is your fault.

I have contacted scholars for clarification on certain points which strengthens my arguments. I emailed Reznick originally because another racist poster argued that he wrote an article that supports Rushton's r/K selection theory which was used as a counter to Graves' critique of Rushton research. Reznick not only rejected this claim he hadn't even heard of Rushton (he's not a credible source on human evolution and neither is Lynn) but he looked at Graves' paper, stated that it was based on good science and looked at Rushton's paper and pointed out the numerous errors in his reasoning.

That's not confirmation bias. What I did is called fact-checking. I went directly to a source for clarification on a claim.

How big is your tin foil hat?

There is no left-wing conspiracy against your racist views they simply aren't accepted by the scientific community because they are racist trash masquerading as science (pseudoscience). The difference between my approach to this debate and yours is I can actually respond to the argument of your sources. You have failed to do the same for mine.

You don't know anything about human evolution. Why don't you go read a book on the subject?

 

You've supported that position in the past. There would be no other reason for you to use that "joke" if that wasn't what you actually believed.

There isn't a shared evolutionary history How can there be when one group of humans adapted to negative temperatures, forests, and snow, while others adapted to 120 degrees in the hot desert? Two completely different environments, and even another species involved.

How can it mean nothing? Some whites and Asians have 4% of their DNA mapped to Neanderthals. Neanderthals were intelligent and even taught homo sapiens how to make tools. Those "archaic human species in Africa" included Neanderthals in Northern Africa, and yes, they did breed with Africans there.

I don't care about the author's opinion. I posted it to show that there are Academic sources that support my view.

Except the critique you posted mentions nothing about Lynn or the Cold War Theory. It's a non-sequitur to use this article to try and contradict anything else besides Rushton's work.

Except this wasn't a "proper source". It was merely padding for your post character length.

He's never even heard of Rushton? Sounds like a lie. You would think somebody involved in that field of study would be aware of a heretic like Rushton. It's not a very crowded field, after all.

Sure I have. I addressed your last post and gave sources of information that contradict the premise of your argument. And yes, there is a very well-known left-wing bias present in Academia.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-e...conservatives-hiring-20160520-snap-story.html

https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welco...-prof/&usg=AFQjCNHmOYUaU52oRHckfpdo_dgLw00vHA

Why? It's obvious that an environment like Scandinavia is nothing like the environment in sub-Saharan Africa. It would make sense that one group would adapt differently to one environment compared to the other. And, as already mentioned, we have another species involved in the case of Scandinavia, one that sub-Saharan Africans do not stem from at all.