[JackinMelbourne]

(11-30-2018 11:55 PM)Emancipator Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 08:45 PM)Bacchus Wrote:  

Neanderthal's had the advantage in being smarter, so they could create various types of tools and adapt to various types of resources. Neanderthals would basically invent stuff on their own (but typically the same stuff over and over) without passing the technology on to others.

Sapiens, would instead of adapting themselves to the environment, made the environment suit them. They could socialize to form larger groups and probably won out simply by outbreeding the Neanderthals.

Sounds like autists

You could be right. Autism could be a latent neanderthal gene trait that gets activated by certain conditions.

[spokepoker]

The next season of survivor, or one of those survivor shows, should be done with all autists.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(12-01-2018 10:47 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Here's what I believe the cause:



https://phys.org/news/2010-03-cro-magnon...hrunk.html

Quote:

The skull belonged to an elderly Cro Magnon man, whose skeleton is called Cro Magnon

Using new technology, researchers have produced a replica of the 28,000-year-old brain and found that it is about 15-20% larger than our brains.

Quote:

Their brain capacity was about 1,600 cc (98 cu in), larger than the average for modern Europeans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_e...attributes

Cro-Magnon man was also taller than almost all modern populations until modern medicine and nutrition (except maybe viking populations and some african).

Simply put, the Cro-Magnon man, the original European, was taller, stronger and smarter than any other human population - ever - including modern Europeans.

We don't even have a speck of a Neanderthal brain anywhere around to analyze, yet somehow we know for sure that "they were smarter". What about brain structure? Even the most basic neural components can differ between individuals, let alone species.

To see how ridiculous the claim above sounds, just extrapolate it to its logical conclusion:

Quote:

The adult sperm whale brain is 8,000 cubic centimeters.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/new...an-we-are/

Sperm whales are bigger, stronger and smarter.

Quote:

ENIAC computer weighed more than 30 tons, which is 100.000 times more than Intel i7's weight of just 300 grams.

ENIAC was heavier, stronger and more powerful.

pelicanto8888 Wrote:

Can you explain this in more detail? I don't understand how it is defeatist to say that certain mixtures of DNA might confer an advantage. It is the fundamental premise of Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Trumpian Wrote:

You seem uncomfortable with the idea of certain groups of people having a genetic advantage. Most people are. But I don't think science and data should take a backseat to such peoples feelings.

I'm not uncomfortable with groups and genetic advantages. Not at all. I love discussing these differences. I'm amused by the ridiculous, wishful-thinking and ultimately self-flagellating idea of all your present individual and collective achievements being credited to someone else, specifically to your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-x1000 grandma fucking a superior Neanderthal guy somewhere in ancient history.

If an ancient hunter gatherer from Botswana had fucked a superior Neanderthal woman, would Africans be ruling the world now and you'd live in a mud hut praising their genetic superiority?

[nomadbrah]

Mr. Eel,

I don't think neanderthals were smarter, but Cro-Magnon certainly were, because they are - wait for it - genetically almost identical to modern (northern) europeans.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...204741.htm

Quote:

Some 40,000 years ago, Cro-Magnons -- the first people who had a skeleton that looked anatomically modern -- entered Europe, coming from Africa. Geneticists now show that a Cro-Magnoid individual who lived in Southern Italy 28,000 years ago was a modern European, genetically as well as anatomically.

Thus, it is fairly safe to assume their brains had the same structure. I'm not a brain surgeon, but I figure you can tell a lot from the skull.

As for neanderthals, I pointed out, their brain is mainly larger in the cerebellum region, what's called the occipital bun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bun

Quote:

the cerebellum, a region of the brain which mediates the timing of motor actions and spatial reasoning.

Visual-Spatial reasoning is also what white europeans do best at in IQ tests (jews do remarkably poor here). It's essentially the ability to "imagine things which are not there", such as rotating an object in the mind. It's easy to see how that could be beneficial in architecture or art, right? It's obvious speculation though, but coupled with introversion and depression, known neanderthal traits, and you have the makings of an artist or obsessed inventor.

The neanderthals were not really artistic though, but early wasn't either. There's no real "modern human culture", until Cro-Magnon 50.000 years ago.

[CynicalContrarian]

According to ol' Tex Arcane / Vault-Co.

The answer to the thread title / question is - yes.

[Aurini]

(12-02-2018 01:47 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

Quote:

And if Genghis Khan was a blue-eyed ginger as "it is well known", why don't any modern Mongols/Central Asians look like that?

First off those features are recessive. So it may have been exceedingly rare even back then. But it's also fair to say Mongolian genetics have drifted over the last millenium. Lots of interbreeding with Han Chinese. And also, they undoubtedly brought back many foreign wives and slaves from all over the empire during the conquests.

The question is a bit silly though. We know there were were white tribes in China from 2,000 BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

Really not hard to imagine that the Mongols and other peoples in central Asia intermarried with them and occasionally showed that phenotype.

Many Asians do have red hair; you can see it when the light shines through it, that it's a black-red rather than a black-brown or a black-blue. This is a trace of their Neanderthal past.

[Pride male]

If nearnderthals are the reason why whites rule the world are they also the reason why whites are facing extinction? Considering the fact that the nearndethals went the way of the dodo.

[nomadbrah]

(12-02-2018 01:44 PM)Pride male Wrote:  

If nearnderthals are the reason why whites rule the world are they also the reason why whites are facing extinction? Considering the fact that the nearndethals went the way of the dodo.

Probably.

White populations have gone extinct multiple times:

Indus Valley people
Aryans in India
Tocharians in Central Asia
Egyptians
Lake Titiaca people
Easter Island redheads

[BossOfBosses]

Quote:

No other people have come close, with the exception of the Mongols (who obviously had a heavy European admixture).e come close, with the exception of the Mongols (who obviously had a heavy European admixture).

Your 'brutality worship' bores me to tears. Is this the highest thing a human can aspire to? Ruling over mewling subjects and cracking whips? What about science? Knowledge? Commerce?

(11-30-2018 09:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

I don't see any reason to be sheepish or modest about it. Europeans seem to have a unique predilection for ruling vast territories.

That is simply not true (not that I care).

Songhai empire of west africa (over 3 million square miles.) Larger than all of western europe combined. Lots of huge empires found everywhere.

Mongols are not European and not mixed.





And they don't have a single drop of "neanderthal" blood.

Shitty theory, shitty thread.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

nomadbrah Wrote:

Thus, it is fairly safe to assume their brains had the same structure. I'm not a brain surgeon, but I figure you can tell a lot from the skull.

Well, the whole point of my previous post was that you can't tell a lot from the skull, but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree there. But sure, for the sake of discussion let's assume that Neanderthals really were smarter and stronger.

If Neanderthals were overwhelmed by dumber but more fertile Homo Sapiens, then why weren't Neanderthal-admixed Europeans also later overwhelmed by dumber but more fertile non-Europeans? Why didn't this process simply continue to its natural conclusion, but instead stopped to leave the new Neanderthals magically untouched?

[Thot Leader]

(12-02-2018 01:57 AM)JackinMelbourne Wrote:  

You could be right. Autism could be a latent neanderthal gene trait that gets activated by certain conditions.

Except there are shitloads of autistic black kids. Somali immigrants in particular have a high occurrence of autism.

(12-02-2018 04:16 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 09:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

I don't see any reason to be sheepish or modest about it. Europeans seem to have a unique predilection for ruling vast territories.

That is simply not true (not that I care).

Songhai empire of west africa (over 3 million square miles.) Larger than all of western europe combined. Lots of huge empires found everywhere.

...

Shitty theory, shitty thread.

If you think ruling over 3 million mosquito-infested, stone-aged square miles in west Africa is remotely comparable to, say, the British empire, then you're simply a dimwit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Four of the top six are European (if we include Russia), the other two are east Asian. Outside the top six, it's still almost entirely Asian (inc. middle eastern) and European.

"Shitty theory, shitty thread"? Please. WE WUZ COLONIALISTS N SHEEIT

[BossOfBosses]

(12-02-2018 04:50 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 01:57 AM)JackinMelbourne Wrote:  

You could be right. Autism could be a latent neanderthal gene trait that gets activated by certain conditions.

Except there are shitloads of autistic black kids. Somali immigrants in particular have a high occurrence of autism.

(12-02-2018 04:16 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 09:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

I don't see any reason to be sheepish or modest about it. Europeans seem to have a unique predilection for ruling vast territories.

That is simply not true (not that I care).

Songhai empire of west africa (over 3 million square miles.) Larger than all of western europe combined. Lots of huge empires found everywhere.

...

Shitty theory, shitty thread.

If you think ruling over 3 million mosquito-infested, stone-aged square miles in west Africa is remotely comparable to, say, the British empire, then you're simply a dimwit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Four of the top six are European (if we include Russia), the other two are east Asian. Outside the top six, it's still almost entirely Asian (inc. middle eastern) and European.

"Shitty theory, shitty thread"? Please. WE WUZ COLONIALISTS N SHEEIT

No, a dimwit is someone who calls a society that was a) Using iron age weapons and armor b) more knowledgeable and richer than contemporary Europe the "stone age".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts



And the whole "WE WUZ" meme, never heard that un-creative insult before. Be more creative.

Oh and most of their territory fell out of mosquito zones, dumbass.



Once again, shitty thread idea. Look I don't care about going back and forth about this silly theory. Nor OP's brutality worship. I simply wanted to point out that huge empires are more commonly found than he thinks, some obviously larger than others, but having guns, cannons and boats doesn't mean Europeans have magical superpowers. It's obvious why they spread empires so quickly after 1500.

[speculator]

Europeans "rule" because they were the perfect host for parasites. The host has served its role and soon it will be discarded.

[66Scorpio]

Guns, Germs and Steel has a pretty good take on things. Eurasia had most of the world's domesticatable animals, grains and such. It was basically inevitable that civilization and technology there would outstrip Africa, Australia and the Americas. The other alleged factor was that Europe was heavily balkanized while China tended to be a single nation although sometimes divided between north and south. The European states have been in competition with each other for the last thousand years and competition drives innovation. China had no regional competitors. Invaders tended to conquer the whole place and left the culture and bureaucracy intact. At about the time that Columbus sailed, the Chinese were sending huge fleets over to Africa, the flagship of which made the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria look like dinghy's. However, all it took was for the emperor to change his mind, recall the fleet and put an end to the exploration. The European monarchs were busy trying to outdo each other.

The genetic aspect is interesting but probably not the base cause for the dominance of Europeans. In any event, my understanding is that Europeans have something like 1% Neanderthal DNA.

Culture plays a huge part. Africa remains a shithole because European culture never really took root. South Africa and Rhodesia became rather advanced because the Europeans stayed in charge the longest. Zimbabwe? Not so much anymore. There is a racial argument to be made but then all you have to do is look at all the oreos in America and contrast them with the ghetto trash. Or as Chris Rock said, "Niggers vs. Black people". (Or similarly, contrast southern red necks with northern yankees - southern culture was imported from lower class UK. In the Reconstruction Era, the only people who hated poor southern blacks who moved north more than northern white folks were northern black folks, because it made them look bad.)

[Trumpian]

(12-02-2018 07:50 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 04:50 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(12-02-2018 01:57 AM)JackinMelbourne Wrote:  

You could be right. Autism could be a latent neanderthal gene trait that gets activated by certain conditions.

Except there are shitloads of autistic black kids. Somali immigrants in particular have a high occurrence of autism.

(12-02-2018 04:16 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 09:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

I don't see any reason to be sheepish or modest about it. Europeans seem to have a unique predilection for ruling vast territories.

That is simply not true (not that I care).

Songhai empire of west africa (over 3 million square miles.) Larger than all of western europe combined. Lots of huge empires found everywhere.

...

Shitty theory, shitty thread.

If you think ruling over 3 million mosquito-infested, stone-aged square miles in west Africa is remotely comparable to, say, the British empire, then you're simply a dimwit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires

Four of the top six are European (if we include Russia), the other two are east Asian. Outside the top six, it's still almost entirely Asian (inc. middle eastern) and European.

"Shitty theory, shitty thread"? Please. WE WUZ COLONIALISTS N SHEEIT

No, a dimwit is someone who calls a society that was a) Using iron age weapons and armor b) more knowledgeable and richer than contemporary Europe the "stone age".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbuktu_Manuscripts



And the whole "WE WUZ" meme, never heard that un-creative insult before. Be more creative.

Oh and most of their territory fell out of mosquito zones, dumbass.



Once again, shitty thread idea. Look I don't care about going back and forth about this silly theory. Nor OP's brutality worship. I simply wanted to point out that huge empires are more commonly found than he thinks, some obviously larger than others, but having guns, cannons and boats doesn't mean Europeans have magical superpowers. It's obvious why they spread empires so quickly after 1500.

You're getting emotional over objective realities. As I already said, the main difference between European and other civilizations was global power projection. The Chinese and I'm sure even sub saharans had regional empires.

But the phenomenon of consecutive global empires from small Euro nations without much in the way of natural resources was unparreled (Greece, Portgual, Spain, Netherlands, France, England..all had massive empires stretching the globe at some point).

Also you dismiss the technology which made this possible when that's 90% of the question. Technology didn't come out of an abyss. There was/is an innovative drive in Europe that was lacking in other parts of the world. Neanderthal dna might explain it, I dunno. But we should be able to discuss it without you throwing your toys out the pram.

[BossOfBosses]

@Trumpian You really answered your own question. Maybe you don't even realize it.

If Europeans lived in small, cramped countries with little in the way of resources dont you think that would motivate them to find and if need be, seize more land?

If you have guns and boats and your enemy doesn't, does that not make conquest (and indeed global conquest) a hell of a lot easier?

Where does your "magical superpower" theory of Europeans factor in light of these simple facts? Please explain to me how I am the one who is being emotional.

[Trumpian]

You can't just put quote marks around something I never said lol.
Genetic advantages are not a magical superpower. It's just science bud.

Of course that tech made it easier. Question is why we develop it, and how much of the innovative ability is genetic, and more specifically due to Neanderthal admixture.

Also, Asians lived in equally densily populated areas, but they didn't send colonies to Europe, or the America's. So it doesn't really answer the question at all.

[BossOfBosses]

@Trumpian the title of this thread is "Is Neanderthal DNA the reason why Europeans rule the world?" , and you essentially answered your own question when you stated Europeans lived in small places that "lacked" resources. Europe is smaller and more densely populated than Asia. No further explanation is needed. Occam's razor.

Are you claiming that Europeans have a gene for rape, theft and genocide? Your claim basically amounts to that because that was the end result of European imperialism. You call this savagery a "genetic advantage". Your attempt to "glorify" such an undertaking betrays your immature/naive mindset.

[chicane]

Genetics, at scale, is society.

[Trumpian]

(12-03-2018 02:07 AM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

@Trumpian the title of this thread is "Is Neanderthal DNA the reason why Europeans rule the world?" , and you essentially answered your own question when you stated Europeans lived in small places that "lacked" resources. Europe is smaller and more densely populated than Asia. No further explanation is needed. Occam's razor.

The lack of growing room theory might explain the impetus for expansion, but not the ability to. And also, you're wrong. Japan, Vietnam, South Korea,etc..have greater pop densities than most European countries.

And what's more, you entirely ignored the Neanderthal part of the discussion. I'll admit that's just a hypothesis, but it's an interesting one. You're just triggered by the reality of European geopolitical and cultural domination. We can argue about that or the morality of it another time. But frankly, it's a red herring and you're derailing the thread.

Quote:

Are you claiming that Europeans have a gene for rape, theft and genocide? Your claim basically amounts to that because that was the end result of European imperialism. You call this savagery a "genetic advantage". Your attempt to "glorify" such an undertaking betrays your immature/naive mindset.

Irony of a presumably black guy lecturing europeans on rape. Have you seen the stats in sub saharan africa?

I'm able to look at history objectively without casting any moral judgement. The fact is invasion and wars over land, resources, etc. was a norm throughout human history. It was a messy business, but nobody at the time would have feigned any sort of moral outrage over it.

Europeans just get hated on for our land grabs because we did it so damn well. And yes - I am rather proud of it (a long with a multitude of other accomplishments). If we were to think of history as a football match, my team won.

[BaatumMania]

(11-30-2018 09:56 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 09:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

^^ The Persian Empire was a superpower since as early as the 6th century BC until at least the 18th century.

And that heavy European admixture of the Mongols is heavily dispytable. Never saw evidence of it anywhere. I would say the opposite, some Eastern Europeans have Mkngol admixture.

Ancient Persians (pre-Arab invasion) were essential a European people in the same vein as the Greeks. Also significant Neanderthal admixture in Central Asia so it just makes my point.

Many Mongols, including the great Khan, were described as having European - not asiatic features. There were Indo European speaking "white" tribes as east as China. Tocharians for example.

Yeah if Eastern Europeans had legit Mongol blood in them they wouldn't have such big noses (and I'm not talking about Jews from Eastern Europe. Even 100% pure blooded Slavs seem to have big noses. Not as big as Italians though).

[fiasco360]

(12-02-2018 04:16 PM)BossOfBosses Wrote:  

Quote:

No other people have come close, with the exception of the Mongols (who obviously had a heavy European admixture).e come close, with the exception of the Mongols (who obviously had a heavy European admixture).

Your 'brutality worship' bores me to tears. Is this the highest thing a human can aspire to? Ruling over mewling subjects and cracking whips? What about science? Knowledge? Commerce?

(11-30-2018 09:11 AM)Trumpian Wrote:  

I don't see any reason to be sheepish or modest about it. Europeans seem to have a unique predilection for ruling vast territories.

That is simply not true (not that I care).

Songhai empire of west africa (over 3 million square miles.) Larger than all of western europe combined. Lots of huge empires found everywhere.

Mongols are not European and not mixed.





And they don't have a single drop of "neanderthal" blood.

Shitty theory, shitty thread.

They don't have a single drop of neanderthal blood? What was the main language used to write the manuscripts? Where does all this influence come from?

You're acting as if they did this without outside influence both literary and technological. North Africans and Middle Easterners are much closer to European stock than any other race and had a heavy hand in this "great empire."

Nearly 10% of their genetic influence in certain parts of West Africa come from Eurasian. It's exceptionally clear that without the influence of both middle eastern knowledge and gene flow this wouldn't have happened.

[redpillage]

(12-03-2018 05:04 AM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

They don't have a single drop of neanderthal blood? What was the main language used to write the manuscripts? Where does all this influence come from?

You're acting as if they did this without outside influence both literary and technological. North Africans and Middle Easterners are much closer to European stock than any other race and had a heavy hand in this "great empire."

Nearly 10% of their genetic influence in certain parts of West Africa come from Eurasian. It's exceptionally clear that without the influence of both middle eastern knowledge and gene flow this wouldn't have happened.

I have watched people knock heads and literally spend years of their lives debating this dreaded topic. All I ever had to say about it was this:

Look across the entire continent of Africa, then look at Europe or the United States. Find the difference. Then move on and live your life.

[Fortis]

Unfortunate that such a thread always draws the usual suspects. Then again, whenever you have such a loaded thread title, they're bound to show up.

[Pride male]

^Where is Simeon Strangelight?