China warns of 'worst consequences' for any country that supports Taiwan militarily

lol
I will let others address the issue from a scientific perspective. But I always like my messages to broaden people's knowledge about Iran, so I will introduce you here to two 13th-14th century Persian figures who predated Darwin by centuries. One a poet Rumi whose verse rests on the scholarly foundations on evolution also reflected in the writing of Tusi. The latter a polygat and Persian shia theologian who also playing a critical role in the Copernican revolution in science because of what is referred to as the Tusi couple.
Rumi:

https://theunitycodex.wordpress.com...-of-the-spirit-how-rumi-can-change-your-life/

Tusi:
https://historyofyesterday.com/the-...ought-of-500-years-before-darwin-d64d633629bf
The Theory of Evolution Was Thought of 500 Years Before Darwin
Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī (1332–1406)

 

that is reincarnation and not evolution which has been imposed artificially on every one.

 

no, that is evolution. Explicitly.

As for evolution from apes:

https://historyofyesterday.com/the-...ought-of-500-years-before-darwin-d64d633629bf
The Theory of Evolution Was Thought of 500 Years Before Darwin
Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī (1332–1406)

Tusi and Rumi's uberman is differently conceived than Neitzche, but we still have a long ways to get there.

 

First laugh of the day.

It existed before you were born, and will remain long after your death.

I knew you were uninterested in learning. So I threw up a couple links, knowing you would never read anything that challenged your prejudice.

 

There are 5 parts to evolution. The first one is just descriptive, dinosaur bones, dna research, etc.

IOW, it's just facts...

Visit a museum of natural history, see for yourself.

 

I would disagree on many points in this post but before I respond to the material within the post let me postulate my theory. Now obviously there are environmental factors which impact these issues but there is NO environmental impact which explains the evidence sufficiently.

There is however a theory which explains all of the evidence. I am going to repost a tiny bit of what I’ve already said for context sake.

There are a multitude of differences between the races. Ranging from skull size and shape, musculoskeletal structure, eye color, hair type, nose shape, brow height and width, average height, susceptibility and immunity to certain diseases... I could go on and on.

Anthropologists can pick your bones up 1000 years from now and tell you with exact precision which of the races you were.

The argument is that if we were isolated populations long enough that those physical characteristics (which are far more immutable than mental ones) evolved differently between the races then it only stands to reason that mental faculties and our brains would have done the same.

Without going into a long diatribe here, the physical characteristic differences we see between the races mostly derived from the difference in environment and lifestyle. So too did the mental differences. Caucasoids and mongoloids invented and became proficient in agriculture for thousands of years prior to the negroid populations instituting it. Whereas the caucasoids and mongoloids were building massive cities and civilizations predicated upon agriculture, the negroid populations were still living as Hunter gatherers.

Again, for brevity, what are the differences in the type of people who succeed in an agriculture society when compared to a Hunter gatherer society? Well the Hunter gatherers must continuously strive and fight for their food. They have to defend not only their food but their tribe from predators. Whereas the agricultural communities usually have fences and grow their food.

This inevitably means that those who succeed, and as a byproduct reproduce, within the Hunter gatherer society are those who are athletic, strong, fast and very aggressive. You need high physical prowess, not as high intellect and the ability to become hyper-aggressive enough on a consistent basis to be able to defend what’s yours. This is not true in an agricultural society however where we would expect more intellectual attributes to be desirable and successful and therefore to be able to breed and pass along their genetic material.

The divergence in our evolutionary paths explains the average higher intellect, lesser athleticism and lower aggression rates of the caucasoid and mongoloid populations compared to the lower intellect, superior athleticism and the higher aggression rates within the negroid populations... along with a host of other attributes.

These issues were exacerbated heavily by the fact that Africans have engaged in slavery since the beginnings of recorded human history. And what do you want in a slave? You don’t want a smart slave, you want a giant brute who doesn’t ask questions and can work all day long. So you end up either killing off the smart slaves or not allowing them to reproduce while you allow the more physical gifted yet with lower intelligence to reproduce and pass along their genetic code.

 

Also the idea that the averages don’t matter is simply an absurd position which uses zero understanding of the nature of statistics. This man (Jordan Peterson) explains it much better than I can and it’s very short:

https://youtube.com/shorts/5KeF9EwC_qw?feature=share

 

Are you under the impression you’re the only one who has ever read Gould’s work? I’m not interested in Mr Gould’s opinion, I’m interested if he can back it up. I would ask him the same thing I asked you that you were incapable of answering.

That is, has there ever been a method of measuring intelligence humans have created in which negroids do better than mongoloids or caucasoids? If there is, present it.

 

And again, it's the science, not just Gould.

 

Still don’t want to answer the question huh? Don’t worry, neither would Gould lol

 

Again, there is no question, you're regurgitating debunked racism.

 

There is a question. Is there ANY method of measuring intelligence that humans have EVER created where negroids perform better than caucasoids or mongoloids?

That’s not debunked racism. It’s a legitimate question.

If not it stands to reason either one of three things.
A) Humans are incapable of measuring intelligence. B) Intelligence cannot be measured or
C) It can be measured and those tests are more accurate than not.

 

In your dreams.

 

Lol your behavior shows everyone that you’re wrong. The truth is not afraid to answer questions. But your pitiful social justice warrior ideology is.

 

Here’s another question your pitiful social justice warrior ideology can’t answer.

If the problem is environmental factors and poverty, why is it that we have spent well over a TRILLION dollars since the 1960’s funneled into inner city and minority communities and schools and yet we’ve seen little to no improvement in the issues which you claim to be the problem?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

You may have a compulsive need to flog racism, but my interest and patience are limited.

 

Again you are failing to follow my argument. Averages matter where "averages" are properly the issue. I just don't see them being the issue in many of the contexts they are used and abused by ideologically motivated racists.

 

Your theory doesn't really address or refute what I said. It is more or less a boiler-plate response to those who have gone much farther than I have in the "preconceptions" I outlined. My view, in general, is that even if (I don't either dispute nor confirm your narrative generally) that is where evolution took us up the point we are, the story of evolution and our journey to developing our uberman, has a long ways to go still. None of the specimens we have are either remotely so meritorious all around, nor certainly pure (opposite of how evolution works), for any of your racial animus to be justified. On the individual level, I prefer to deal with individuals individually not based on averages and generalizations. On the societal and policy level, different averages pegged to different criteria might matter, but a society isn't rendered healthier or better preaching hatred and alienating a substantial part of it unnecessarily. For most tasks, most positions, and in most contexts, the average differences that may or may not be biological have little import compared to environmental ones.

 

I don't agree with 98.9% of your posts, but, this one is 'spot on'.

 

No I follow. I just disagree. Mohammad Ali had a great take on this.

 

You do that. What you’re essentially saying is that the benefit you receive from associating with those people who statistically are more likely to do you harm is worth the risk. I disagree and if we wrote down the positives of doing so against the negatives I’m highly confident that the risks would far outweigh the rewards.

Let’s do this. Let’s list the benefits the black population has brought to society and list the detrimental consequences that the black population has brought to society and let’s take an objective view of whether or not the reward is worth the risk.

Because I am, again, HIGHLY confident none of you actually want to do that. You just want to assert that this diversity is beneficial as opposed to detrimental.

See you want to make this about individuals. But it’s not because it is an IMPOSSIBILITY to get to know every individual. So we cannot make our judgments on how society should function predicated upon the individual. That’s absurd because what you’re essentially arguing is that the individual may be the exception to the rule. But we cannot live our lives based upon the exception to the rule. Otherwise our lives will be COMPLETELY ****ed up.

 

Now to be clear on an individual level I wouldn’t take this position. I’m not just going to assert any black person I see is a violent criminal. Not only is it factually incorrect and not possible for all of them to be criminals but it’s counterproductive.

HOWEVER, if I’m in an uncomfortable and unfamiliar situation that has a high risk potential (ie walking down a street from a bar late at night alone in a city I don’t know) and I see a group of black guys and a group of white guys, I’m probably going to be more wary of the black guys because statistically they’re more likely to rob me.

And anyone who says they wouldn’t is either a liar or is being excessively naive.

 

When I lived in America, as a smoker, I used to find myself sometimes having to go to a nearby 7-11 to buy a pack of cigarettes late at night. I didn't rely on "racial" statistics to know when I needed my guards up and when not. If I saw some middle-class middle aged African American going into the store I wouldn't be worried. If I saw some young gang like punks of whatever race, I might be. If I saw someone looking like a drug addict, I would be worried too. The fact that in my experience. most of the time, these might have been African-Americans wasn't of huge relevance. I didn't feel intimidated by their race per se, statistical averages, or skin color. I had a sense when my guards should be up and when not.

On the evolution issue, briefly: the things that in your narrative favored certain traits in hunting as opposed to agricultural societies doesn't make those traits lead to crime. And as societies evolve, so will natural selection overtime to favor the different traits that help the human species to evolve. This part of my views are complicated, but one thing I know is that a limited gene pool isn't the best recipe for natural selection to do its thing. And that even if your narrative on evolution of races has some merit, we can't freeze time and human evolution to have people who on average were best endowed for yesterday's society and challenges.

 

But dude you can’t just ignore th fact that black men make up 6% of the total population and yet they’re responsible for:

50% of the total murder
30% of the total forcible rape
40% of the total robberies
40% of the total assaults and
35% of the total violent arson

That’s a problem and it is UNIQUE to the black population.

 

There are other things of far greater influence than biology, skin color, and race that are "unique" to the "Black" population in America, starting with slavery and then Jim Crow....