Reply #44: Genetics and science

[murdoch]

There are no skulls of the homo sapiens species found before 200,000 years ago. We find skulls of the homo genus prior to this, but 200,000 years ago is the furthest back homo sapiens (human) skulls are found. That is not to say definitively homo sapiens was around 200,000 years ago, as it is disputed if the Omo and Dali skulls are 200,000 years old, or whether they are in fact homo sapiens, but we go back no further than 200,000 years.

Looking at the Y-chromosome of many men, it is estimated the furthest back the common male ancestor of all people is 90,000 years ago (the common female ancestor of all is further back). 90,000 is the largest number, some think it is tens of thousands of years less.

Aside from skull shape, evidence of humans acting in a non-animal fashion - fishing nets, cave drawings, Venus figurines, goes back only 50,000 years.

Our genetic code is simply a recipe for proteins. For whites to be genetically smarter than blacks, that would pre-suppose that some time in the past 90,000 years from that father "Adam" of all people (some thinking him being less than 90,000 years back), there would have had to have been a mutation that made whites smarter.

I should point out of course that if one goes back in time one thousand years, Europe was in pretty sad shape, while civilizations in the Americas, Asia and Africa were flourishing. In 1054, the Eastern Christian church broke off from the Western Christian church - and in terms of civilization, the Eastern, mostly non-European church was at that time much superior, which is one of the reasons for the schism.

You also wonder what the scientific test would be that shows a white can do something that a black can not do. If you had a test which showed blacks were incapable of integrating a differential equation or something, I might start listening, but these people tend to talk more about the liberal conspiracy to keep the truth from coming out about this, how global warming is a hoax and the like.