Neanderthal theory and race

Post Reply New Topic

The science community, except for people like rdos who still throw words like "aryan" around, agrees that environmental factors are vastly superior to genetics as a predictor of human behavior, creativity and intelligence (which is very multifaceted and can't be reduced to technological skill development btw). Differences in cultural and technological progress are best explained by different environmental challenges, such as seasonal changes in flora and fauna and harsh winter climates.

Behavioral experiments with animals show that rats bred for low genetic intelligence exhibit the same learning capacity as other rats when placed in a challenging, enriched environment. They even surpassed rats that were bred for high intelligence and raised in a non-challenging environment. So for all I know, indigenous African populations might be more intelligent than I and my equally pale neighbors with our glorified Neanderthal genes. It is the environment and access to educational resources that makes all the difference.

Read again before you make comments. I never said anybody was inferior, as inferior individuals cannot exist due to natural selection. The argument is about the presence and absence of neurodiversity, not about superior or inferior NTs.

What people agree on is not interesting. The truth is interesting. Proofs are interesting. Nobody that argues for the importance of environment as a cause for human behavior or creativity has any evidence for their positions outside of the political correctness domain. They only refer to complexity, which is not a proof, just wishful thinking.



Rats are not humans, and human IQ tests mostly measure favorable neurodiversity-traits present in a minority group. They are thus worthless, just like your rat experiments.

Oh, I have read your posts very closely and I perfectly understood where you are coming from. You might want to re-read them yourself, especially in the light of racism and apartheid in South Africa and the open discrimination against people of Middle Eastern and African descent in many European countries (bold emphasis by me):

It doesn't matter that you call it neurodiversity and not genetic superiority or superior intelligence. It is quite obvious that you mean exactly the same thing.

The evidence is conclusive that widely accepted neurodiverse conditions exist in indigenous Africans and those of arabic descent, so this theory is not going to be valid evidence that there is an inherent danger to civilization, from the migration of endigenous africans or those of Arabic descent into european countries.

While your theory might not be promoting Racism, you are promoting discrimination against those of a different national origin, on an hypothesis that they lack neurodiverse conditions, that is clearly evidenced as false.

While it might be a scary thing for some, the caucasian skin tone is slowly disappearing from heterogenous cultures, simply because pigmentation is a dominant human trait over non-pigmentation. We are no longer slaves to the adaptation to harsh environments with our climate controlled structures.

If you are concerned that the indigenous Africans want to migrate to northern European countries along with those of Arabic descent, you have advanced civilization, and adaptations from advanced civilization, in part, to thank for that.

They have physically adapted to a hot arid way of life. It get's really cold in Sweden; it wouldn't be nearly as appealing if climate controlled structures weren't available.

No real worries though, even with climate controlled structures, heavy clothing, this still plays a part for those that have a decision, in life, of where to live.

Subcutaneous fat makes people more resistant to the cold, and it is as not an adaptation that is as common in indigenous Africans, and those of Arabic descent.

There are some cultural adaptations that are more valuable just because of the existence or non-existence of subcutaneous fat. No relevance as to whether or not someone has neurodiverse traits or not.

But, if one analyzed a general population, with a fair representation of indigenous Africans, one could suggest that neanderthal heritage causes people to have higher BMI's because of that loose correlation.

So, from this result one could as easily suggest a loose correlation that higher BMI's are necessary for advanced civilizations, because indigenous Africans have lower BMI's and happen to live in developing countries.

Neanderthals were likely better accommodated to a cold environment than their visitors out of Africa. That is evident in the fossil record. If there was any significant advantage in breeding with neanderthals for survival it could have been something as simple as surviving in the cold. Just the necessity of sharing body warmth, could have been a factor that resulted in conditions necessary for interbreeding.

You suggest that neanderthal ancestory is a necessary component for the development of civilization.

It doesn't matter if the civilization was today or a thousand years ago, in indigenous africans; those same indigenous peoples that are measured today as lacking significant Neanderthal DNA, that you suggest are incapable of developing civilization, developed civilizations on par with those in Europe; that is an historical fact, it is not conjecture.

I provided the evidence, if you have actual evidence to refute it, other than your opinion, I invite you to, but it is already in the history books.

The archaelogical record is the evidence for a common ancestor in Rhodesia for Neanderthals and Homosapiens. There is no other scientific accepted evidence, at this point in time, for a common ancestor. I provided the evidence from Wiki, if you can provide actual definitive evidence that suggests otherwise, other than your opinion, please do.

There is currently more definitive evidence for an African origin of homosapiens, the research I provided makes that clear. If you can provide actual research, other than your opinion, that refutes it, I welcome you to.

There aren't just case reports, for Autism in the indigenous people's of Africa, there is a centre for Autism in Uganda for indigenous Africans with Autism, and the DRD4 7R gene associated with ADHD is evidenced at high levels in the indigenous ariaal Nomads whom live in Kenya, both groups whom have been evidenced as not possessing significant levels of Neanderthal DNA.

For whatever environmental/genetic reason, the prevalance of Autism in Somali immigrant children, from indigeneous African parents, has been measured at four times the reported level in Stockholm as compared to non-somalian children.

It provides evidence for the effect of environment on the expression of autism, well beyond genetics.

There is incontrovertible proof of Autism among the indigenous peoples in Africa, it may exist at low rates in some areas, and it is evidenced to exist at very high rates in other areas.

Diagnostic opportunities are rare in some areas of Africa, however they are not rare in Sweden, and the results, whether influenced greater by environment or genetics, proves without a shadow of a doubt that neurodiverse traits exist among the indigenous people's of Africa, understood at this time by science, as having little to no neanderthal DNA.

http://sfari.org/resources/sfari-wiki/prevalence#fnref-d802525c693cfce213b3b40cab1b8bea3ce1e37b

Yes it is. Depending on which historian you ask there are actually more than one point of contention as to what makes a civilisation. But all references I've seen refer to the African civilisations dating back to 2000BC describe them as so. They were civilisations. Sorry.



So you're a Eurocentric fighting against racism that doesn't think Africa had civilisations. Egyptians were... Egytpians! >gasp!< what a shock! The amount of time it would have taken Egyptians to enter the middle east, travel through the fertile crescent, settle in Egypt and begin the foundations of the Egyptian empire would have, by that time, conditioned them to be decidedly "Mid eastern" or "North African". Only with today's travel technology of sailing ships etc can a group leave their continental homeland and immediately set up a colony. Whoever the Egyptians were before they got to Egypt is irrelevant. Calling them Caucasians in an attempt to equate them to whiteness is embarrassingly ignorant and shows what type of person you are.



We agree on that at least. Your views are obviously not in the interest of fighting racism. To deny the reality of that would be very unproductive of me.



Really? Are we going to do this? You haven't read about Arab traders selling horses to Africans for gold? You haven't read about how the horse population was restricted then killed off by the tsetse virus? Today's African farm animals are all descendants of those traded with people from North Africa/Middle East. What makes you think the horse wasn't tried out but the rest of the animals were? This is making me very embarrassed for wrongplanet and people on the spectrum. I thought we were generally above these views and prized logic and a thorough absorption of a field of interest.




This goes to show your ineptitude on the subject. Lamas weren't tamed they were domesticated. The Zebra can't be domesticated. Whites tried it (assuming as you have that the blacks couldn't because they were too stupid) but the black and white blighters are actually generally quite savage. They're big biters when humans get too close. Show me an African animal that non Africans have domesticated that Africans didn't.
Pro-tip; taming an animal is not the same as domesticating. I would have liked not to have to tell you that but unfortunately I think it would have evaded you had I not.
The fact is that probably near 100% all of animals that could be domesticated were domesticated by the local inhabitants who lived with them. The distribution of plants and animals plus climate plus landscape ecology determined who settled down into agriculture and civilisation not innate intelligence.
Where did civilisation begin? The Fertile Crescent.
What plants did they have? Most of the world's great western cereal crops that we still eat today.
What animals did they have? Those we still associate with western farming today. Sheep, cattle, pigs, goats etc.
What ecology did they have? The alluvial flows of the Euphrates and Tigris.
These examples hold true almost exactly in the other centres of independent civilisation. It is only you who is denying reality to a mind numbing extent. You are so transparent and petty and you should be ashamed of yourself. If you went to private school get a refund.

The real reason, just in case any body's interested, is because only one species has ever been capably of creating civilisation. Homo sapiens sapiens. Our common ancestor Homo heidelbergensis experienced some sort of environmental pressure in Africa that their cousins in Europe didn't experience. One became us, the most intelligent, resilient, adaptive animal to ever live, the other became the doomed Neanderthal who was intelligent but essentially a short lived (late 20's/early 30's) brutish survivor who could take immense punishment and who tackled prey almost literally with bare hands. When we showed up they were heavily outmatched and didn't last much longer. There would have been no real advantage for us in admixture. 400,000 years in Europe and Neanderthal was still just a rugged battler struggling to survive. Look what we've done in just 10,000 years.



Neanderthal contributed nothing to the state or condition of modern man that we wouldn't have achieved otherwise. That includes the civilisations of sub Saharan Africa.

There are older examples of artistic expression in South African sea caves than this.

There's a study I love to use to explain to people just how much environment can impact on us. First off two questions;

1. Is it fair to say African Americans commit more crimes and go to jail more per capita than white Americans?

Sure. It may not be comfortable to think about but not many people would deny it.

2. Is it fair to say that even more overwhelmingly it is men throughout all races, throughout all history in every society, economic system and environment who commit most crimes compared to women?

Definitely. I think the actual number is literally over 95% in favour of men committing crime over women.

The reason this is interesting is because a Florida State University study followed 96,000 released probationers and found that those who were labelled a 'felon' on the day of their sentencing ended up back in jail more often than those whose records remained clean. The impact of this would have been prospective employers and landlords etc checking into someone's background and maybe being prejudice towards those with a visible criminal record. This kind of treatment forces people back into a life of crime.
So far this all might sound like apologetics but the amazing thing was that re incarceration of whites increased over non whites. A bit counter intuitive perhaps. But even more amazingly everything we know or assume about criminality in the genders was turned on its head as more women were re incarcerated over men!
Anyone who doesn't think environment can have a significant impact on people would do well to remember how easy the state of Florida finds it to socially engineer white people and even women to fail and go back to jail with nothing more than a 5 letter word. Felon <---doesn't seem so scary does it? But it literally destroyed people's lives.
rdos you are too ignorant for words and I think I am just about done with you. If you say people like me cling to complexity I take it as a compliment. The world is not a crayon drawing buddy. If you can't see the nuance and subtleties of institutionalised racism and environmental impacts it doesn't mean they aren't there. It just means you don't see them.

Crime is not a neurodiversity trait, or neurotypical trait, and thus has nothing to do with this. But perhaps you mean violence rather than crime, in which case there probably is a point. Neurotypicals in general are more violent than neurodiverse people, especially young males.



Yes, young neurotypical men is the group that comits most violence of all groups, and it has a genetic background.

Who said anything about artistic expression? Nobody.

Pure BS. I'm done with you

You have provided no evidence for the prevalence of neurodiversity in Sub Saharan Africa, and you have provided no evidence for the prevalence of 23andme scores in Sub Saharan Africa. I have provided evidence that African descent has about 1/5 of the interest rate in Aspie Quiz, with the same scores for those that participate. I also provided evidence that interest rate is strongly correlated to score (and the perception of being different), because 30-35% of the participants get "very likely Aspie", while their proportion in the general population is much less than that. You are welcome to refute that.



I'll just leave this as it has no bearing on the topic. Regardless of the evolutionary history of Homo, the results in Aspie Quiz place neurodiversity close to 2 million years back in time, not to the divergence of Neanderthal and modern humans. The reason for this is that the neurodiversity traits appear to be 10 times as diverse as the traits that evolved with modern humans (Neurotypical compulsion group). Additionally, explained variance for neurodiversity factor is 10 times higher than explained variance for neurotypical factor. As we know modern humans appeared about 150,000 years ago, this means neurodiversity must be about 1.5 million years. There is no way neurodiversity could have evolved with Neanderthal in less than 0.5 million years, much less in 250,000 years.

Edit: Rereading 23andmes technical paper, it appears they used African ancestry as a reference population that proposedly lacked Neanderthal ancestry. That would bias their test if this is not entirely correct, but I can understand their reasons for doing this. At any rate, since they calibrated the test with Africans as an outgroup, it means that 23andme scores cannot prove if Africans totally lack Neanderthal DNA or not (circular reasoning).

I also should point out that at this point neurodiversity only correlates 0.4 to 0.5 with the 23andme test, meaning they only detect a minority of the Neanderthal contribution. We expect most of the contribution to be CNVs. This is another reason why 23andme scores in Africa is not evidence for their amount neurodiversity, even if the Neanderthal theory is true.

But you mentioned behaviour. Crime is a behaviour. The study I mentioned from FSU shows how huge an impact environment can have on behaviour and life choices/outcomes, even with just a little 5 letter word. If you didn't really want to talk about human environmental impacts on behaviour then you shouldn't have said it.



See?



Yes this is true comcerning age. Whether black, white, brown or whatever, when you stick graphs of the age of violent offenders over the top of each other from anywhere in the world there is an eerie near universal pattern. It's likely this has to do with the unsteadiness of the teen/early 20's brain while undergoing childhood to adult rewiring and upgrading. This is new science being uncovered about teenage brains now. Would most of these young men be neurotypical? I guess, in the same way that most people that drive or brush their teeth are neurotypical. This doesn't make teeth brushing and driving genetic. Neurodiversity is just less common.



Actually you mentioned culture of which artistic expression is an enormous part. The human art explosion happened basically simultaneously after many groups were already separated but the African cave painters were among the first (if not the first, can't remember).



See again? If you're going to speak about this in very broad terms so flippantly be prepared for people to actually interpret things that you actually say then actually respond with logic and reason that actually makes sense. Otherwise what are you doing here? Just throwing in words like behaviour and culture to sound like you know what you're talking about? If you say them people will respond to them. Don't like it? Start a thread at StormFront

The results of the Aspie quiz are interesting, but the results don't provide a significant measure of what you label as neurodiverse or neurotypical traits in the indigenous Africans, that you suggest lack those traits.

I've already provided evidence that the African American Culture, would not be as likely to associate themselves with a disorder or seek a diagnosis, because of the cultural stigma associated with seeking a diagnosis of psychological related disorders, within that US subculture.

You haven't been directly associated with the African American Culture, so for an objective understanding of why they aren't taking your quiz, you would have to rely on the research that is available in regard to that issue, as provided. Unless you can find evidence to refute it, as it specifically pertains to that culture in the US.

And for those African Americans that do take part of websites that are part of their subculture, the Neanderthal Admixture Theory has already been villified as another tool for White Supremicists to use to suggest they have a genetic advantage over those of African Heritage.

Since there is now a Neanderthal question in the Aspie quiz, it makes it that much less likely that you are going to get participation from African Americans.

I didn't suggest what the prevalence of neurodiverse traits were in Africa. There haven't been prevalence studies done in the majority of nations in the world, on Autism or ADHD. However, Autism is definitely evidenced to exist among the indigenous Africans that research has shown don't possess measurable amounts of Neanderthal DNA.

You've suggested that Indigenous Africans don't possess neurodiverse traits. They do definitely possess them where they have been measured in Uganda, Kenya, and the children of Indigenous Africans from Somalia in Stockholm, per the evidence I provided.

There is prevalance data of Autism in the children of Indigenous Somalian Africans measured in Stockholm at 4 times the rate of non-somalian children.

As, per the peer reviewed research I have already provided, Neanderthal DNA has been studied not to exist in Sub-sarahan Africans except for the northern outskirts of the area.

This isn't my idea, it is from those whom have provided the peer reviewed evidence, that the Neanderthal admixture theory is correct.

And this is the research that the 23andme test is based on, as a starting point for zero neanderthal heritage in indigenous Africans. If you don't accept the validity of that research, the 23andme test is not an accurate one.

All the 23andme test does is associate the level of African Heritage, in the ancestry database they currently have, to provide an estimate of Neanderthal heritage. It doesn't actually provide a measure of neanderthal DNA, in anyone.

It's another reason why it would never be considered as a valid scientific tool to research an association of any human trait with Neanderthal DNA.

The 23andme organization states in their paper that the lower percentage of DNA in those with African Heritage is the only association that can be relied upon, in their data on which continent has the highest level of neanderthal DNA.