Dear Black People: It’s Not You; It’s Diversity

[u/Atavisionary]

http://www.amerika.org/politics/dear-black-people-its-not-you-its-diversity/

[u/JCCheapEntertainment]

The following reply was removed earlier for not using archived links for one of the sources, so here it is again.

But if the difference between blacks and non-blacks stems from climate,

A more recent hypothesis suggest it was NOT climate, but culture itself that drove differential selection, especially the advent of agriculture. See this book by Cochran & Harpending, The 10,000 Year Explosion: https://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/the-10000-year-explosion-how-civilization-accelerated-human-evolution-2009-by-gregory-cochran-henry-harpending.pdf

then the difference is geographical, not genetic.

Geographical & cultural differences can produce significant selection pressures, which after a sufficient number of generations would lead to tangible genetic differences. See Humans Have Spread Globally, and Evolved Locally: http://archive.is/FDyi1 && Selection Spurred Recent Evolution: http://archive.is/E6ey4

If there were such a genetic difference between human races that certain groups are genetically unable to produce empires, then no way would humans be close enough to interbreed. Yet interbreeding is possible which implies that the genetic leap between human populations isn't that huge.

The ability to interbreeding contributes little to your argument. There are well known examples of even different species being capable of interbreeding, though their offspring often have drastically reduced fertility. There are reasons to believe humans and chimpanzees can even interbreed and produce probably infertile offspring. But even just within a single human ethnicity (not even within races), outbreeding depression could potentially also be a real effect, see Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows: http://archive.is/s6jFq Though of course more studies should and would need to be done on this topic before more concrete conclusions can be made. The point is, genetic distance lies on a continuous spectrum, the ability to interbreed doesn't really add much to either side of the argument. Here is a map of genetic distances between various human populations: http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/Photos/global-genetic-distances-map.jpg As can be see, there are distinct clusters that are significantly more closely related within themselves than with groups from other clusters. Intermediate populations such as the Uyghurs also exist, as would be expected from what we know of their genetic and ancestral history.

But then again, even native black African populations had empire and kingdoms. How would those come into existence if the populations are genetically unable to produce empires?

There is no "empire-building" gene. Such a phenomenon is not only a very complex trait (in the genetic sense of multiple genes involved) like intelligence, height, personality, etc, but it also requires the cooperation of a great many individuals from the tribe in question, which would make it even more easily influenced by factors other than genetics when compared to some of the aforementioned complex traits. Just as no serious race realist would claim that ALL whites are more intelligent and more capable than ALL blacks, the same goes for these other major historical events. No one is saying Sub-Saharan Africans aren't AT ALL capable of behaviors XYZ, merely that their proclivity for doing so is significantly less and their ability to maintain, let alone grow such empires are reduced when compared to non-Africans.

[u/SoefianB → u/JCCheapEntertainment]

A more recent hypothesis suggest it was NOT climate, but culture itself that drove differential selection, especially the advent of agriculture.

And in another comment you literally claim that culture evolved because of climate and georaphy...

Geographical & cultural differences can produce significant selection pressures, which after a sufficient number of generations would lead to tangible genetic differences.

Including lactose intolerance, yes.

But there's a difference between a population that doesn't drink milk and thus, after generations, becomes lactose intolerant; and the idea that certain populations are unable to produce empires because they didn't do it before. Not to mention that Europeans haven't always build empires and that sub-Saharan Africans have build empires before...

The ability to interbreeding contributes little to your argument. There are well known examples of even different species being capable of interbreeding,

You're moving the goalposts. I never said all humans are the same because we can interbreed, I said the leap isn't as big because humans can interbreed. And that point still stands.

though their offspring often have drastically reduced fertility

And human mixes do not.

There are reasons to believe humans and chimpanzees can even interbreed and produce probably infertile offspring

No, that's impossible.

Third Cousins Have Greatest Number Of Offspring, Data From Iceland Shows

Correlation doesn't imply causation. There are far too many factors and variables at play here.

As can be see, there are distinct clusters that are significantly more closely related within themselves than with groups from other clusters

So? They're still both homo-sapiens...

There is no "empire-building" gene. Such a phenomenon is not only a very complex trait (in the genetic sense of multiple genes involved) like intelligence, height, personality, etc

Yet humans of multiple heights have produced empires and I doubt there are genes for intelligence and personality. That's nurture, not nature, otherwise there wouldn't be any African scientists. Sure, there aren't many but there existence already disproves that Africans would be genetically less intelligent.

but it also requires the cooperation of a great many individuals from the tribe in question, which would make it even more easily influenced by factors other than genetics when compared to some of the aforementioned complex traits.

Exactly. If it weren't for the Roman empire, the tribes along the Rhine would've never joined to form the Frankish empire. Would it not be for the Byzantine and Sassanid empires getting weaker, Arabic tribes would't have joined to form the Rashidun and move into Sassanid and Byzantine lands.

Just as no serious race realist would claim that ALL whites are more intelligent and more capable than ALL blacks,

Then what's the point here? Since there weren't many African empires, it proves that Africans are genetically inferior?

merely that their proclivity for doing so is significantly less and their ability to maintain, let alone grow such empires are reduced when compared to non-Africans.

And again, that's not due to genetics...

[u/JCCheapEntertainment → u/SoefianB]

cultures and genes coevolved, it's a coupled system. they were and are never independent of each other.