Rushton Revisited

I'm sorry, I assumed you spoke Arabic. 

Can you provide an example of this?

Although there is no definite standard, the same measurments are still applied equally to the different people.  I can assure you the researchers are held to certain standards that ensures the soundness of their research. 

i do speak arabic!

i thought its an english word or something.

abeed means slaves.

I beleive any genetic difference is product of land, not people.  Land always shapes people, even as peopel shape the land.  And diseases have always been there in Africa...less virulent int he past because population density was lower.  Desnity was lower because of disease.  A low population density cuts down settled civilzation.  This is most obvious in comparing Mesoamerica with North America pre columbus.  Disease was higher in Africa than other tropics because of apes.  Any disease evolved in apes can quite easily make the jump to people. 

And using your logic of no civilizations developing in total isolation. I can think of many areas outside of Africa where this happened.  In fact the only places a civilization really developed all on its own is Mesopotamia, China, and Mesoamerica.  All other places had outside stimulus including Europe.  If Ghana and Ethiopia and Zimbabwe are not totally indeginous (and Zimbabwe certainly is anyway as is pre Islamic Ghana) than neither is Rome (getting things from greece who got things from near East) or Britian (celts, Angles, Romans etc).  So that argument effectively deprives most places int eh worls of having a completely "indigenous civilization"

I have already laid out my argument.  People are affected by land, different land affects differently.  People are evolved to best within their won environment.  Some environments are poor and this therefore shows.  But also taking a person out of their adapted environmetn and suddenly transplanting them somewhere else (a la slavery int he Americas) is certainly not going to prioduce good results for those people, especially is something is done by force.  Voluntary migration offers much differnt and preferable psychological attitudes towards new lands.  Disease is I think the singel most important thing in human history on any continent.  It wields more power and influence than any combination of humans ever could.  It does this in different ways based ont eh place of course.  People who left Africa had the advantage of not only moving towards richer lands, but leaving behind diseases that could not leave thier climate zone.

Of course I dont think I can convince you.  The fact that you swallowed my theoretical argument about why Asians take tests versus Whites whole because you viewed it as defending whites wheras you wont accept even a modicum of my scientifically viable African arguments because they seem to be defending Africans.  That just shows that your bias is ideological.  And those cannot be changed by outside forces or argument in most cases.

So you believe that environment is the determining factor for group differences without recognizing the effect their environments have on their evolution.  Therefore, given the African example you provided, and given todays social atmosphere, north American Blacks should be roughly equal to Whites in terms of academic and cultural achievement, which is clearely not the case.  I am curious as to how you would explain why sub-Saharan Blacks are almost universally considered to be inferiors by all the peoples they come into contact with with purely environmental or reasons having to do with disease.  Contrary to your belief, disease did in fact play a minor role in sub-Saharan Africa prior to European contact with the land, hence the Africans being fearful of the white man and the diseases he may bring. 

I didn't swallow anything, I merely agreed that a Confusion test taking tradition could influence IQ test scores.  I never advocated that environment isn't a factor, it is, along with genes.  These things go by percentages, as says in the Rushton article.  And I dont see how I would accept that as a means of "defending whites".  I don't think anyone of that idealogical mindset would give comparative White and east Asian IQ scores and brain sizes as an arguement in the first place.  Therefore I take considerable offense in being told I am idealogically biased.  On the contrary, I believe in freedom of enquiry and the honest and logical approach to science and history.

Their is a clear differences between African and American blacks, the latter are mulattos with the degree of white admixture varying.  When did I ever argue African evolution in America? 

And yes, how religious they are, especially with their reputation for following the ten commandments.  How anyone can construe them as being particularly religious is a matter of intentional ignorance. 

This is the usual excuse for non-achievement.  Could this possibly be because they do not exel in the field of academics?  No, this couldn't possibly be, blacks are fully capable of being on the same cultural and achievement level as that of the people who set up these opressing institutions.  They just simply choose not to. 

I am scientifically lacking?  Perhaps you can explain to me why sub-saharan Africans were considered primitives and inferior by the Egyptians and latter Arabs?  I don't recall them as being recorded to be particularly disease ridden, given the Nubians for example. 

Im sorry but your further showing the lack of scientific knowledge here.  Nubians dont live anywhere near the disease aflicted areas.  Basically the wastes of the Sahara which could not support a civilization and the Ethiopian highlands which did support a civilization.  Disease affects everything from northern Nigeria down pretty much, but these are where most peopel live.  Nubia was of course far north of this.  And Nubia was not a great civilization because that stretch of the Nile, frankly, is crap with tillable soil extending about 5 feet from the river.