In this book, Richard D. Fuerle (2008) first rigorously expounded upon the evolutionary principles and then argued that Africans lack many essential modern traits, and finally that the Out of Africa (OoA) theory is flawed
Playtime is over everyone. I'm tired of watching the thread becoming a trollfest. If you can't act civilized, you will be banned. I already banned 3 persons (edit: now 4). If you have nothing to contribute, avoid leaving a comment. I will delete anything that fuels trolls or hatred. The thread is filled with useless comments as of now.
"As the West faces this decline, the center of global civilization is shifting to East Asia (China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea), where higher average IQs and lower levels of miscegenation support continued advancements in science, technology, and military power. The West, meanwhile, risks becoming mired in economic and intellectual stagnation, unable to reverse the effects of widespread racial mixing and the loss of its genetic and cultural heritage."
This is indeed the trend, and does not bode well for the West.
I'm a bit contentious on a lot of the claims he made. For instance, the idea that Southeast Asians have lower IQ due to being closer to the equator is basement dwelling stats. A warmer environment, you could equally argue, requires complex mental planning.
As for the cannibalism claims, it certainly happened, but it isn't particularly common in any population.
Also, regarding the claim that Africans had no civilization, I would push back on that. They had the Axumites, the Mali Empire, and Egypt. You could say Egypt was a multi-ethnic empire with a large African population, and of course, it also had native Egyptians.
I'm not denying per se that there might be differences, but a lot of what he says is just flat out contentious. I don't even know if they're fully true. You read one author and think you know something, and then another changes your framework
1. "A warmer environment, you could equally argue, requires complex mental planning"
If you read carefully, it was already explained. Even others before, such as Miller or Lynn, equally argued that in cold climates, women were more dependent on men for food provisioning. So, sexual selection would exert selection pressure for higher IQ. Tool complexity related to hunting was also far greater in colder climates, an evidence that survival relied more on g. And food storing during winter required careful planning and skills to avoid food poisoning.
2. "As for the cannibalism claims, it certainly happened, but it isn't particularly common in any population"
If you read carefully, Fuerle did not even say it was common among all africans, just that it happens more often than in colder climates.
3. "regarding the claim that Africans had no civilization"
If you were a careful reader once again, you would notice that Fuerle stated that most africans (not all) failed to meet most (not all) of Baker's standards of a civilized society. About your claim that Egypt was African (Black), that's wild.
I’m familiar with r/K selection theory. R-selected species, like elephant seals, produce high quantities of offspring with low parental investment. Due to harsh ecological conditions, males mate and leave after four weeks, leading to greater sexual dimorphism and an evolutionary "arms race" for survival. In contrast, K-selected species, such as orangutans, have low birth rates, long gestation periods, and high parental investment. Humans are the most K-selected species on the planet.
Claims linking traits like penis size differences across ethnicities to promiscuity are inaccurate. A study of 10,000 individuals found no statistically significant differences to support such claims. Additionally, there’s a lack of reliable data on infidelity rates among racial groups, and confounding factors muddy the waters. For example, a highly religious African community—whether Muslim or Christian—is less likely to engage in infidelity due to fear of divine judgment or social shaming. In contrast, African American communities, influenced by a dysfunctional welfare state and high rates of single motherhood, may exhibit higher infidelity due to cultural and systemic issues.
Another issue with the resource provisioning hypothesis is that it oversimplifies the complexity of hunting and long-term planning for efficient food acquisition. One could argue that Arctic climates imposed harsher conditions, favoring only the smartest individuals for reproduction. However, group cooperation likely reduced mortality rates, meaning strict selection for intelligence alleles may not have been as pronounced. In the absence of strong selective pressure, intelligence alleles might not have been as prevalent in certain populations.
The biggest challenge is the need for more genetic data from African populations to improve GWAS predictions. This would clarify whether Arctic populations truly possess superior intelligence alleles compared to sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations. We also need a deeper understanding of how general intelligence (G) works, including whether there are complexities beyond commonly studied factors. Most studies, such as those from the Reich Lab, focus on Europe and Western Eurasia. Africa, being economically disadvantaged, struggles to invest in education or genetic research, limiting available data. We also need to better understand how genes interact with environmental factors, like nutrition or socioeconomic conditions, and develop culturally transferable datasets, which are currently lacking.
Finally, regarding Baker’s standards for defining civilization, they are not universal laws. You’re somewhat misrepresenting my position on Egypt—I didn’t claim Egypt was purely African but rather a multi-ethnic empire with African minorities that made significant contributions.
The more I examine this, the clearer it becomes that we need more data. Current studies, with their small sample sizes and impoverished environmental conditions, are inconclusive and fail to point in any definitive direction.
That being said if there are differences but my view is that IQ is poorly correlated to crime these are seperate same with standards living I thank Thomas sowells view it's more how the government works.
But again your an austraian econamist I thought you would be for pro free markets even if there are on average differences
“A study of 10,000 individuals found no statistically significant differences to support such claims.”
You have no idea how much I hate people who cite a study and they can’t even cite the title and authors. Next time, avoid it. I know a couple studies on penis length, the literature is rare and they often have very small sample sizes. Another reason why I’m suspicious without being given the reference.
“a highly religious African community—whether Muslim or Christian—is less likely to engage in infidelity due to fear of divine judgment or social shaming”
This argument makes no sense. Imagine living in a communist society that punishes any display of wealth. IQ will not be predictive of anything. In a free market society, where individuals can use their potential to the fullest without fear of retaliation, IQ is highly predictive of life outcomes. Likewise, you would expect crime to be very low and therefore, group differences as well, in China due to people being aware of the advanced technology in use (drone surveillance). It does not mean there is no “latent” group difference in criminality or infidelity nor does it mean that groups have no varying tendencies to commit crimes. The upshot is that societal context can hide these latent differences. Observed difference is not equivalent to latent difference. Learn this.
“group cooperation likely reduced mortality rates, meaning strict selection for intelligence alleles may not have been as pronounced”
If you keep on arguing out of context, you won’t get anywhere. I already told you before about winter starvation (the context that you are ignoring). Where food is available year-round, you don’t need to plan for winter. And without healthcare and modern medicine, the weak will invariably perish. More importantly, your argument makes no sense because cooperation increases intelligence, as it selects for communication skills, division of labor, and leadership (which reinforces the selection for better strategists, negotiators, etc.). I even mentioned this point in the review. This confirms my first impression: your reading was indeed superficial.
“This would clarify whether Arctic populations truly possess superior intelligence alleles compared to sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations”
Who said that arctic populations have higher IQ? If you were a careful reader, it was clearly explained in the review why arctic populations likely won’t achieve that high level of IQ. Probably the main reasons are the small population size and the stable climate, perhaps they even reached the cognitive threshold for survival due to the availability of high-fat, marine-based diets.
“Finally, regarding Baker’s standards for defining civilization, they are not universal laws.”
It’s quite naïve to think that Baker never thought of such a counter-argument. Obviously he did. Baker knows fully well that the list of requirements will vary somewhat across individuals. His point is that these criteria will be regarded as satisfactory by the majority of people. More importantly, he explained in great detail why these points matter, and what would make a society worth the title of civilization. Many so-called civilizations were, in his view, not civilizations at all. It will take too much to explain everything in detail. My advice is to read Baker’s book.
“You’re somewhat misrepresenting my position on Egypt—I didn’t claim Egypt was purely African but rather a multi-ethnic empire with African minorities that made significant contributions.”
I obviously didn’t. I wrote that because I wanted to expose your contradiction. In your first sentence, you literally grouped Egypt with the sub-saharan africans. In the second, you were being purposely vague by stating that the African population there was large, without providing further context. This doesn’t prove anything, except that your definition of a civilization, unlike Baker’s, is inconsistent. Baker made it very clear in his explanation, that a civilization is to be built by his people without external intervention or influences by foreigners, including the neighborhood. Interestingly, Baker cited Egypt as one worthy to be called civilization, yet his interpretation is different than yours.
“Current studies, with their small sample sizes and impoverished environmental conditions, are inconclusive and fail to point in any definitive direction”
Again with the claim of unreliable data without any sourcing... Stop being elusive and cite these supposedly weak, small N, studies. Cite all of them.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant you your position. What is the point of this research if it dehumanizes people?
Currently, the technology doesn’t exist to address these issues, so the only outcome of this research seems to be justifying racist policies like sterilization or banning migration.
I’m all for gene editing and embryo selection in principle, but conducting research like this only leads to dehumanizing people.
You might claim neutrality, and that’s fine, but people will cite your research to make meta-ethical normative claims, such as: “Because Africans have lower IQs, we should ban race mixing to prevent miscegenation.” Is that not harmful?
Or another example: “Let’s stop all non-white or non-Northeast Asian migration because they have lower IQs.” I’ve already seen these arguments on Instagram used to justify racism toward Indians and Black people. Don’t tell me this research is unbiased or lacks political motivation.
This isn’t a dodge—science should aim to discover things that benefit humanity. What benefit does this research provide? It only fuels stereotypes, with your data used as justification.
Imagine some people use knives to kill others. Should we stop producing knives for people who need those in their daily cooking? Suppose you do it, this will not deal with the source of the problem. Some people will use other methods to kill. Using rocks, pushing others off the cliff, etc.
Now you will likely ask what is the usefulness of this research. I propose you do your research, as this has been addressed a couple times already. Even recently, some people wrote a response to people like Bird, Jackson, Winston, Giangrande, Turkheimer etc who argued this kind of research can never be useful, but only harmful.
India, particularly Bengal, was among the wealthiest regions in the 1700s. The concept of socialism, especially the Fabian variety, originated in Europe, not India. Bengal and India never embraced wealth redistribution. Their economy was agrarian, but this was not socialism as we understand it today; it was simply a pre-modern system.
The Mughals had a sophisticated tax system, and Indian muslin was highly sought after, indicating a level of modernization.
The notion that India's poverty stems from flawed native ideas is baseless. The ideas contributing to its economic challenges, such as socialism, originated in Europe, notably from Karl Marx, a German Jew. The ancient Indian text, the Arthashastra, contains no concept of socialism. Thus, these ideas are not native to India.
I agree that Britain is not the primary cause of India's poverty today. However, the idea that socialism is native to South Asia is absurd, akin to claiming Europeans are native to America—they are not; they arrived later. This is not inherently good or bad, but it is fallacious to assume the current state of affairs has always existed when, in reality, the opposite was true historically.
Do I believe Bengal and India could have become a first-world country, comparable to Dubai, if they had retained their monarchical systems? Yes, I absolutely believe that, in terms of raw advancement, India would be far ahead today.
Of course, you're kind of strawmanning what I said. I stated it was statistically improbable and usually occurred due to desperation.
This isn't rare in the animal kingdom, though the causes differ. Lions kill the cubs of other lions because lionesses won't go into heat if another male's cub is alive. Nature prioritizes generational clocks and passing down genes over ethics, so lions kill cubs to trigger estrus in lionesses.
Another common behavior in the animal kingdom is killing a cub deemed too weak, often followed by eating it.
The cruelest act, I would argue, is when parents, whose duty in nature is to sacrifice themselves for their kin, kill their offspring during resource scarcity to survive hunger.
Humans are no exception; we can be just as brutal. However, it's less common due to religion, higher cognition, and more advanced mirror neurons. These factors have contributed to stronger ethical frameworks. I'm not saying it was common for humans, but it still happened. By the time Europeans arrived, they had centuries of civilization, while Africans had less developed institutions to address such ethical challenges. This is why I disagree with purely biological explanations, as humans differ from other animals in these ways.
"The whole thing is absolute mental bullshit. It’s the worst fascist flight of lunacy I’ve ever read. “Southeast Asians have lower IQ due to being closer to the equator” and you kept on reading?"
It is a theory; it may not be correct, but it is one explanation. Why do you think Southeast asians have lower IQs?
Living close to the equator means high temperatures so maybe they have parboiled their brains. Sometimes I wonder if same is true in Alabama or Mississippi.
I lived in Appalachia for 2 years. The idea that closely inbred populations bring out favorable dominant alleles is observationally false. Low IQ, poor healthy and maladaptive behaviour was rampant. We moved away in short order, never wanting to be anywhere near those people again.
The reason royal dynasties and Middle East minorities practice( or used to) endogamy is because despite the potential downsides, "useful" genes can be doubled up in the descendants...
ALL human beings were created by God in His Own Image. This is what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom. God loves every single human being who has ever been conceived and who will ever be conceived more than we can possibly imagine. Every single one of us will die, but earthly death is not the end-it is merely the beginning of our eternal life. God loves us so much that He gave us free will. God does not force us to believe in Him nor love Him. He gives us the choice because true love is never forced nor coerced. He loves us so much that He gave us His Only Begotten Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to show us how to live. He sent Jesus Christ to teach us how to love one another, and Jesus Christ willing and obediently (to God His Father) submitted to humiliation, torture and death on the cross as the Only Perfect Sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the whole world. Jesus died for us so that we may live in eternity with Him and Our Heavenly Father, God, and the Holy Spirit-One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity. The only thing we need to do to go to Heaven rather than Hell after we die is to admit that we are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God, ask God to forgive us, repent (turn away) from our sins, and accept Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior. Salvation is a free gift of grace and mercy. If we reject Him and His free (to us-it cost Him a great deal) gift of salvation, then we will be judged and condemned to Hell for eternity, where there is wailing and knashing of teeth. Hell is real. Hell is where those of us who reject God will spend eternity separated from God and in unimaginable torment. God does not want anyone to go to Hell. He loves all human beings and wants every human being to go to Heaven, but out of love, He will not force us. He beckons us with Love. He invites us. He allows us to choose. I sincerely pray that everyone will come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and the peace and joy that only come from Him. His peace is beyond all understanding. Praise God and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit!
All human beings were created by Odin in his own image? God originally pronounced Goth is the Gothic name for Odin. This is why so many barbaric acts have been done in the name of Christ, because of the misconception that he was like a Semitic Thor. That and the misconception that Jesus had anything to do with the actual Semitic Thor who was the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He told the other rabbis that their father was the devil. Which is true when taken into context that their deity was the all singing all dancing good and evil review. They were non dual and openly admit that their god is the devil to this day. At least to everyone else in the world, because they were chosen by the god they made god of the whole world after the Babylonian captivity.
WASPs said the same thing about Asians, Eastern and Southern Europeans, and the Irish. That was proven wrong when nutrition and disease burdens were fixed. The Lynn-Flynn effect slowed or stopped due to microplastics, etc. The Bell Curve data was terrible; it’s always the stupidest scientists who make such arguments. It’s unfortunate successful low IQ individuals don’t have the capacity to spot poor science; Dunning Kruger.
Richard D. Fuerle is generally not considered a mainstream or widely respected figure among academics in anthropology, genetics, or human evolutionary studies. His book Erectus Walks Amongst Us presents views that are quite contrarian and often challenge well-established scientific consensus, such as the Out-of-Africa theory and conventional understandings of human race and evolution.
In the academic community:
Mainstream scholars usually rely on extensive genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa model and reject simplistic or rigid racial categorizations.
Fuerle’s ideas tend to be seen as controversial or fringe and have not been widely cited or embraced in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
His work appeals more to readers interested in alternative or non-mainstream perspectives rather than professional researchers or academics.
So, while his book may spark interesting discussions, it has not gained broad respect or acceptance among professional anthropologists and geneticists.
"His book Erectus Walks Amongst Us presents views that are quite contrarian and often challenge well-established scientific consensus, such as the Out-of-Africa theory and conventional understandings of human race and evolution."
When I saw your statement '...often challenge well-established scientific consensus,...' I knew you had no idea of what science was, and sure enough, I checked your bio and found you were an English teacher. There is no such thing as consensus in science; it is antithetical to the scientific method.
"Mainstream scholars usually rely on extensive genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa model and reject simplistic or rigid racial categorizations."
This is not true at all. The OoA theory is much more simplistic than the OoEA theory. I doubt that the history of human evolution is a simple matter. While Fuerle's theory may not be complete or accurate on all points, it certainly raises valid questions about mankind's origins.
Your comments reveal a lack of scientific principles... stick to dangling participles.
You know it's a red flag when someone starts with "scientific consensus says..." because almost every single time it comes from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. The purpose is to end the conversation without getting involved in the real debate.
Fuerle's theory is indeed incomplete. One pattern which I found very funny is whenever an outcome does not fit his theory, Fuerle usually goes with "it's due to admixture". Whenever he says that, he is wrong most of the time. And so, it feels like a shortcut to me. Like I've said in my short introduction, Fuerle raised valid concerns about the validity of OoA, that you couldn't find anywhere, yet his execution and argument lack strength. But Shi Huang succeeded where Fuerle failed. I hope Huang can publish more papers on MGD/NT, because his papers are fascinating.
As best as i can tell, the repeated claims by Chinese scientists that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa are politically motivated and believed by basically no scientists outside China.
You’re actually strengthening my broader point. You agree that Fuerle’s theory breaks down and that his reasoning is often weak and ad hoc (“it’s due to admixture”). That’s exactly the kind of untestable claim that makes a theory pseudoscientific.
As for Shi Huang, he’s welcome to challenge existing models like Out-of-Africa—but to be taken seriously, that work needs to meet the standards of the field: falsifiability, reproducibility, and publication in peer-reviewed journals with open datasets. So far, it hasn’t displaced OoA because the global evidence—fossil, genetic, and archaeological—still supports it.
Critique is welcome in science. But critique without rigor is just speculation.
You're misunderstanding how science works. While it's true that science isn’t governed by consensus in the same way politics or popularity are, scientific consensus is very real—and essential. It's what happens when experts in a field, after rigorous testing, peer review, and replication, broadly agree on an explanation because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it.
Here’s how it works:
The theory of gravity, germ theory, evolution by natural selection, and the heliocentric model are all backed by overwhelming scientific consensus.
Consensus doesn’t mean infallibility—it means that no credible competing explanation currently accounts for the evidence better.
The Out-of-Africa theory is supported by genetics, anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology. It’s not just an "opinion" held by some elite club. It’s a model based on:
DNA evidence (especially mitochondrial DNA)
- Fossil records
- Migration patterns
- Linguistic and cultural traces
Scientists update consensus when new evidence emerges. That’s how science self-corrects. But rejecting consensus outright because it exists is not scientific skepticism—it’s just contrarianism.
Finally, yes—I was an English teacher, among many things. But appealing to someone’s profession instead of addressing their argument is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy Credentials don’t change the facts. Either the argument is valid, or it’s not. And the argument here is: Erectus Walks Amongst Us is not taken seriously by any credible geneticist, evolutionary biologist, or anthropologist—for good reason.
Let’s keep the debate about evidence and logic, not personal dismissals.
" While it's true that science isn’t governed by consensus in the same way politics or popularity are, scientific consensus is very real—and essential."
Indeed, scientific consensus is real, but not essential.
"Consensus doesn’t mean infallibility—it means that no credible competing explanation currently accounts for the evidence better."
In the opinion of those in consensus.
"But appealing to someone’s profession instead of addressing their argument is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy Credentials don’t change the facts. Either the argument is valid, or it’s not. "
I only looked up your bio because your misunderstanding of science was so blatant.
Scientific consensus is essential—not because it’s infallible, but because it reflects the current best understanding based on rigorous evidence, peer review, and reproducibility. It’s not a popularity contest or mere opinion. It’s the collective judgment of experts who’ve tested hypotheses against data.
You say “in the opinion of those in consensus,” but scientific consensus is far more than opinion. It’s a reasoned conclusion based on a vast amount of data from multiple independent fields—genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and more.
If you disagree, that’s fine. Science thrives on challenges. But to contribute meaningfully, you need to present testable hypotheses and data, not just dismiss consensus as “opinion.”
Regarding profession: If you need to point mine out just to dismiss arguments based on who presents them—rather than their content—that is a logical fallacy (ad hominem). We should all focus on the evidence and reasoning, regardless of background.
Happy to continue the discussion grounded in evidence and logic.
The traditional Out of Africa model has been rendered highly unlikely by recent evidence, although Out of Africa is still the consensus meta-theory. However, the evidence for significant differentiation of Eurasians in Eurasia, perhaps further back than what used to be accepted, is growing.
Thank goodness the science is settled in such things as aortic valve replacement and passenger aircraft design ! I might never take another plane if it wasn't !
That’s not science, it’s engineering, (there’s a difference) it’s based on an actual empirical process that would have involved (presumably) a lot of trial & error. So that’s technically a false equivalence.
Playtime is over everyone. I'm tired of watching the thread becoming a trollfest. If you can't act civilized, you will be banned. I already banned 3 persons (edit: now 4). If you have nothing to contribute, avoid leaving a comment. I will delete anything that fuels trolls or hatred. The thread is filled with useless comments as of now.
They obviously are. Genetic testing and observation confirms it.
There are multiple subspecies of human, just like there are multiple subspecies of Tigers.
Do your own research. Why are Bengal Tigers a different subspecies from Siberian Tigers?
Now apply that same logic to humans.
Bruh it has come down to this??
"As the West faces this decline, the center of global civilization is shifting to East Asia (China, Japan, Singapore, South Korea), where higher average IQs and lower levels of miscegenation support continued advancements in science, technology, and military power. The West, meanwhile, risks becoming mired in economic and intellectual stagnation, unable to reverse the effects of widespread racial mixing and the loss of its genetic and cultural heritage."
This is indeed the trend, and does not bode well for the West.
You spout pseudoscience.
"You spout pseudoscience."
It is cute that an English teacher endeavors to school me on science!
Fascinating and extremely informative book review...thank you.
Would certainly go a long way towards explaining black dysfunction, violence, etc.
Fascinating!
The comments show that debate is dead. We like what we agree with, and we hate what we don’t agree with.
Don’t know about different species but quite possibly they are Darwin’s missing link.
I'm a bit contentious on a lot of the claims he made. For instance, the idea that Southeast Asians have lower IQ due to being closer to the equator is basement dwelling stats. A warmer environment, you could equally argue, requires complex mental planning.
As for the cannibalism claims, it certainly happened, but it isn't particularly common in any population.
Also, regarding the claim that Africans had no civilization, I would push back on that. They had the Axumites, the Mali Empire, and Egypt. You could say Egypt was a multi-ethnic empire with a large African population, and of course, it also had native Egyptians.
I'm not denying per se that there might be differences, but a lot of what he says is just flat out contentious. I don't even know if they're fully true. You read one author and think you know something, and then another changes your framework
1. "A warmer environment, you could equally argue, requires complex mental planning"
If you read carefully, it was already explained. Even others before, such as Miller or Lynn, equally argued that in cold climates, women were more dependent on men for food provisioning. So, sexual selection would exert selection pressure for higher IQ. Tool complexity related to hunting was also far greater in colder climates, an evidence that survival relied more on g. And food storing during winter required careful planning and skills to avoid food poisoning.
2. "As for the cannibalism claims, it certainly happened, but it isn't particularly common in any population"
If you read carefully, Fuerle did not even say it was common among all africans, just that it happens more often than in colder climates.
3. "regarding the claim that Africans had no civilization"
If you were a careful reader once again, you would notice that Fuerle stated that most africans (not all) failed to meet most (not all) of Baker's standards of a civilized society. About your claim that Egypt was African (Black), that's wild.
I’m familiar with r/K selection theory. R-selected species, like elephant seals, produce high quantities of offspring with low parental investment. Due to harsh ecological conditions, males mate and leave after four weeks, leading to greater sexual dimorphism and an evolutionary "arms race" for survival. In contrast, K-selected species, such as orangutans, have low birth rates, long gestation periods, and high parental investment. Humans are the most K-selected species on the planet.
Claims linking traits like penis size differences across ethnicities to promiscuity are inaccurate. A study of 10,000 individuals found no statistically significant differences to support such claims. Additionally, there’s a lack of reliable data on infidelity rates among racial groups, and confounding factors muddy the waters. For example, a highly religious African community—whether Muslim or Christian—is less likely to engage in infidelity due to fear of divine judgment or social shaming. In contrast, African American communities, influenced by a dysfunctional welfare state and high rates of single motherhood, may exhibit higher infidelity due to cultural and systemic issues.
Another issue with the resource provisioning hypothesis is that it oversimplifies the complexity of hunting and long-term planning for efficient food acquisition. One could argue that Arctic climates imposed harsher conditions, favoring only the smartest individuals for reproduction. However, group cooperation likely reduced mortality rates, meaning strict selection for intelligence alleles may not have been as pronounced. In the absence of strong selective pressure, intelligence alleles might not have been as prevalent in certain populations.
The biggest challenge is the need for more genetic data from African populations to improve GWAS predictions. This would clarify whether Arctic populations truly possess superior intelligence alleles compared to sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations. We also need a deeper understanding of how general intelligence (G) works, including whether there are complexities beyond commonly studied factors. Most studies, such as those from the Reich Lab, focus on Europe and Western Eurasia. Africa, being economically disadvantaged, struggles to invest in education or genetic research, limiting available data. We also need to better understand how genes interact with environmental factors, like nutrition or socioeconomic conditions, and develop culturally transferable datasets, which are currently lacking.
Finally, regarding Baker’s standards for defining civilization, they are not universal laws. You’re somewhat misrepresenting my position on Egypt—I didn’t claim Egypt was purely African but rather a multi-ethnic empire with African minorities that made significant contributions.
The more I examine this, the clearer it becomes that we need more data. Current studies, with their small sample sizes and impoverished environmental conditions, are inconclusive and fail to point in any definitive direction.
That being said if there are differences but my view is that IQ is poorly correlated to crime these are seperate same with standards living I thank Thomas sowells view it's more how the government works.
But again your an austraian econamist I thought you would be for pro free markets even if there are on average differences
“A study of 10,000 individuals found no statistically significant differences to support such claims.”
You have no idea how much I hate people who cite a study and they can’t even cite the title and authors. Next time, avoid it. I know a couple studies on penis length, the literature is rare and they often have very small sample sizes. Another reason why I’m suspicious without being given the reference.
“a highly religious African community—whether Muslim or Christian—is less likely to engage in infidelity due to fear of divine judgment or social shaming”
This argument makes no sense. Imagine living in a communist society that punishes any display of wealth. IQ will not be predictive of anything. In a free market society, where individuals can use their potential to the fullest without fear of retaliation, IQ is highly predictive of life outcomes. Likewise, you would expect crime to be very low and therefore, group differences as well, in China due to people being aware of the advanced technology in use (drone surveillance). It does not mean there is no “latent” group difference in criminality or infidelity nor does it mean that groups have no varying tendencies to commit crimes. The upshot is that societal context can hide these latent differences. Observed difference is not equivalent to latent difference. Learn this.
“group cooperation likely reduced mortality rates, meaning strict selection for intelligence alleles may not have been as pronounced”
If you keep on arguing out of context, you won’t get anywhere. I already told you before about winter starvation (the context that you are ignoring). Where food is available year-round, you don’t need to plan for winter. And without healthcare and modern medicine, the weak will invariably perish. More importantly, your argument makes no sense because cooperation increases intelligence, as it selects for communication skills, division of labor, and leadership (which reinforces the selection for better strategists, negotiators, etc.). I even mentioned this point in the review. This confirms my first impression: your reading was indeed superficial.
“This would clarify whether Arctic populations truly possess superior intelligence alleles compared to sub-Saharan African (SSA) populations”
Who said that arctic populations have higher IQ? If you were a careful reader, it was clearly explained in the review why arctic populations likely won’t achieve that high level of IQ. Probably the main reasons are the small population size and the stable climate, perhaps they even reached the cognitive threshold for survival due to the availability of high-fat, marine-based diets.
“Finally, regarding Baker’s standards for defining civilization, they are not universal laws.”
It’s quite naïve to think that Baker never thought of such a counter-argument. Obviously he did. Baker knows fully well that the list of requirements will vary somewhat across individuals. His point is that these criteria will be regarded as satisfactory by the majority of people. More importantly, he explained in great detail why these points matter, and what would make a society worth the title of civilization. Many so-called civilizations were, in his view, not civilizations at all. It will take too much to explain everything in detail. My advice is to read Baker’s book.
“You’re somewhat misrepresenting my position on Egypt—I didn’t claim Egypt was purely African but rather a multi-ethnic empire with African minorities that made significant contributions.”
I obviously didn’t. I wrote that because I wanted to expose your contradiction. In your first sentence, you literally grouped Egypt with the sub-saharan africans. In the second, you were being purposely vague by stating that the African population there was large, without providing further context. This doesn’t prove anything, except that your definition of a civilization, unlike Baker’s, is inconsistent. Baker made it very clear in his explanation, that a civilization is to be built by his people without external intervention or influences by foreigners, including the neighborhood. Interestingly, Baker cited Egypt as one worthy to be called civilization, yet his interpretation is different than yours.
“Current studies, with their small sample sizes and impoverished environmental conditions, are inconclusive and fail to point in any definitive direction”
Again with the claim of unreliable data without any sourcing... Stop being elusive and cite these supposedly weak, small N, studies. Cite all of them.
For the sake of argument, I'll grant you your position. What is the point of this research if it dehumanizes people?
Currently, the technology doesn’t exist to address these issues, so the only outcome of this research seems to be justifying racist policies like sterilization or banning migration.
I’m all for gene editing and embryo selection in principle, but conducting research like this only leads to dehumanizing people.
You might claim neutrality, and that’s fine, but people will cite your research to make meta-ethical normative claims, such as: “Because Africans have lower IQs, we should ban race mixing to prevent miscegenation.” Is that not harmful?
Or another example: “Let’s stop all non-white or non-Northeast Asian migration because they have lower IQs.” I’ve already seen these arguments on Instagram used to justify racism toward Indians and Black people. Don’t tell me this research is unbiased or lacks political motivation.
This isn’t a dodge—science should aim to discover things that benefit humanity. What benefit does this research provide? It only fuels stereotypes, with your data used as justification.
Imagine some people use knives to kill others. Should we stop producing knives for people who need those in their daily cooking? Suppose you do it, this will not deal with the source of the problem. Some people will use other methods to kill. Using rocks, pushing others off the cliff, etc.
Now you will likely ask what is the usefulness of this research. I propose you do your research, as this has been addressed a couple times already. Even recently, some people wrote a response to people like Bird, Jackson, Winston, Giangrande, Turkheimer etc who argued this kind of research can never be useful, but only harmful.
If you want to know my perspective on this subject, I wrote this short note: https://substack.com/@menghu/note/c-86967361
It is economically disadvantaged due to vast qualitative disparity in useful attributes.
India, particularly Bengal, was among the wealthiest regions in the 1700s. The concept of socialism, especially the Fabian variety, originated in Europe, not India. Bengal and India never embraced wealth redistribution. Their economy was agrarian, but this was not socialism as we understand it today; it was simply a pre-modern system.
The Mughals had a sophisticated tax system, and Indian muslin was highly sought after, indicating a level of modernization.
The notion that India's poverty stems from flawed native ideas is baseless. The ideas contributing to its economic challenges, such as socialism, originated in Europe, notably from Karl Marx, a German Jew. The ancient Indian text, the Arthashastra, contains no concept of socialism. Thus, these ideas are not native to India.
I agree that Britain is not the primary cause of India's poverty today. However, the idea that socialism is native to South Asia is absurd, akin to claiming Europeans are native to America—they are not; they arrived later. This is not inherently good or bad, but it is fallacious to assume the current state of affairs has always existed when, in reality, the opposite was true historically.
Do I believe Bengal and India could have become a first-world country, comparable to Dubai, if they had retained their monarchical systems? Yes, I absolutely believe that, in terms of raw advancement, India would be far ahead today.
Fair comment.
Of course, you're kind of strawmanning what I said. I stated it was statistically improbable and usually occurred due to desperation.
This isn't rare in the animal kingdom, though the causes differ. Lions kill the cubs of other lions because lionesses won't go into heat if another male's cub is alive. Nature prioritizes generational clocks and passing down genes over ethics, so lions kill cubs to trigger estrus in lionesses.
Another common behavior in the animal kingdom is killing a cub deemed too weak, often followed by eating it.
The cruelest act, I would argue, is when parents, whose duty in nature is to sacrifice themselves for their kin, kill their offspring during resource scarcity to survive hunger.
Humans are no exception; we can be just as brutal. However, it's less common due to religion, higher cognition, and more advanced mirror neurons. These factors have contributed to stronger ethical frameworks. I'm not saying it was common for humans, but it still happened. By the time Europeans arrived, they had centuries of civilization, while Africans had less developed institutions to address such ethical challenges. This is why I disagree with purely biological explanations, as humans differ from other animals in these ways.
"A warmer environment, you could equally argue, requires complex mental planning."
Not at all, food is plentiful, and the climate presents little challenge.
"The whole thing is absolute mental bullshit. It’s the worst fascist flight of lunacy I’ve ever read. “Southeast Asians have lower IQ due to being closer to the equator” and you kept on reading?"
It is a theory; it may not be correct, but it is one explanation. Why do you think Southeast asians have lower IQs?
Yeah of course I can disagree with the idea but still engage with the topic besides it makes sure your views aren't echo chamber based.
Living close to the equator means high temperatures so maybe they have parboiled their brains. Sometimes I wonder if same is true in Alabama or Mississippi.
I lived in Appalachia for 2 years. The idea that closely inbred populations bring out favorable dominant alleles is observationally false. Low IQ, poor healthy and maladaptive behaviour was rampant. We moved away in short order, never wanting to be anywhere near those people again.
Did you read only the first sentence of the relevant paragraph or the whole thing?
I swear, some people here...
Yup, read the whole thing. But I'm no evolutionary scientist so I admit my ignorance on the granularity of the subject.
The reason royal dynasties and Middle East minorities practice( or used to) endogamy is because despite the potential downsides, "useful" genes can be doubled up in the descendants...
Evolution is nonsense. You’re Aztecs
ALL human beings were created by God in His Own Image. This is what makes us different from the rest of the animal kingdom. God loves every single human being who has ever been conceived and who will ever be conceived more than we can possibly imagine. Every single one of us will die, but earthly death is not the end-it is merely the beginning of our eternal life. God loves us so much that He gave us free will. God does not force us to believe in Him nor love Him. He gives us the choice because true love is never forced nor coerced. He loves us so much that He gave us His Only Begotten Son, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to show us how to live. He sent Jesus Christ to teach us how to love one another, and Jesus Christ willing and obediently (to God His Father) submitted to humiliation, torture and death on the cross as the Only Perfect Sacrifice for our sins and the sins of the whole world. Jesus died for us so that we may live in eternity with Him and Our Heavenly Father, God, and the Holy Spirit-One God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity. The only thing we need to do to go to Heaven rather than Hell after we die is to admit that we are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God, ask God to forgive us, repent (turn away) from our sins, and accept Jesus Christ as Our Lord and Savior. Salvation is a free gift of grace and mercy. If we reject Him and His free (to us-it cost Him a great deal) gift of salvation, then we will be judged and condemned to Hell for eternity, where there is wailing and knashing of teeth. Hell is real. Hell is where those of us who reject God will spend eternity separated from God and in unimaginable torment. God does not want anyone to go to Hell. He loves all human beings and wants every human being to go to Heaven, but out of love, He will not force us. He beckons us with Love. He invites us. He allows us to choose. I sincerely pray that everyone will come to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and the peace and joy that only come from Him. His peace is beyond all understanding. Praise God and Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit!
All human beings were created by Odin in his own image? God originally pronounced Goth is the Gothic name for Odin. This is why so many barbaric acts have been done in the name of Christ, because of the misconception that he was like a Semitic Thor. That and the misconception that Jesus had anything to do with the actual Semitic Thor who was the god of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He told the other rabbis that their father was the devil. Which is true when taken into context that their deity was the all singing all dancing good and evil review. They were non dual and openly admit that their god is the devil to this day. At least to everyone else in the world, because they were chosen by the god they made god of the whole world after the Babylonian captivity.
To funny someone steeped in religious dogma calling themselves truthseeker.
I have always thought we are 2 different species.
WASPs said the same thing about Asians, Eastern and Southern Europeans, and the Irish. That was proven wrong when nutrition and disease burdens were fixed. The Lynn-Flynn effect slowed or stopped due to microplastics, etc. The Bell Curve data was terrible; it’s always the stupidest scientists who make such arguments. It’s unfortunate successful low IQ individuals don’t have the capacity to spot poor science; Dunning Kruger.
"The Bell Curve data was terrible; it’s always the stupidest scientists who make such arguments."
With statements like that, your aspirations to be a polymath will never be achieved.
“That’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Richard D. Fuerle is generally not considered a mainstream or widely respected figure among academics in anthropology, genetics, or human evolutionary studies. His book Erectus Walks Amongst Us presents views that are quite contrarian and often challenge well-established scientific consensus, such as the Out-of-Africa theory and conventional understandings of human race and evolution.
In the academic community:
Mainstream scholars usually rely on extensive genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa model and reject simplistic or rigid racial categorizations.
Fuerle’s ideas tend to be seen as controversial or fringe and have not been widely cited or embraced in peer-reviewed scientific literature.
His work appeals more to readers interested in alternative or non-mainstream perspectives rather than professional researchers or academics.
So, while his book may spark interesting discussions, it has not gained broad respect or acceptance among professional anthropologists and geneticists.
"His book Erectus Walks Amongst Us presents views that are quite contrarian and often challenge well-established scientific consensus, such as the Out-of-Africa theory and conventional understandings of human race and evolution."
When I saw your statement '...often challenge well-established scientific consensus,...' I knew you had no idea of what science was, and sure enough, I checked your bio and found you were an English teacher. There is no such thing as consensus in science; it is antithetical to the scientific method.
"Mainstream scholars usually rely on extensive genetic, fossil, and archaeological evidence supporting the Out-of-Africa model and reject simplistic or rigid racial categorizations."
This is not true at all. The OoA theory is much more simplistic than the OoEA theory. I doubt that the history of human evolution is a simple matter. While Fuerle's theory may not be complete or accurate on all points, it certainly raises valid questions about mankind's origins.
Your comments reveal a lack of scientific principles... stick to dangling participles.
You know it's a red flag when someone starts with "scientific consensus says..." because almost every single time it comes from someone who doesn't know what he is talking about. The purpose is to end the conversation without getting involved in the real debate.
Fuerle's theory is indeed incomplete. One pattern which I found very funny is whenever an outcome does not fit his theory, Fuerle usually goes with "it's due to admixture". Whenever he says that, he is wrong most of the time. And so, it feels like a shortcut to me. Like I've said in my short introduction, Fuerle raised valid concerns about the validity of OoA, that you couldn't find anywhere, yet his execution and argument lack strength. But Shi Huang succeeded where Fuerle failed. I hope Huang can publish more papers on MGD/NT, because his papers are fascinating.
As best as i can tell, the repeated claims by Chinese scientists that Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa are politically motivated and believed by basically no scientists outside China.
You’re actually strengthening my broader point. You agree that Fuerle’s theory breaks down and that his reasoning is often weak and ad hoc (“it’s due to admixture”). That’s exactly the kind of untestable claim that makes a theory pseudoscientific.
As for Shi Huang, he’s welcome to challenge existing models like Out-of-Africa—but to be taken seriously, that work needs to meet the standards of the field: falsifiability, reproducibility, and publication in peer-reviewed journals with open datasets. So far, it hasn’t displaced OoA because the global evidence—fossil, genetic, and archaeological—still supports it.
Critique is welcome in science. But critique without rigor is just speculation.
You're misunderstanding how science works. While it's true that science isn’t governed by consensus in the same way politics or popularity are, scientific consensus is very real—and essential. It's what happens when experts in a field, after rigorous testing, peer review, and replication, broadly agree on an explanation because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it.
Here’s how it works:
The theory of gravity, germ theory, evolution by natural selection, and the heliocentric model are all backed by overwhelming scientific consensus.
Consensus doesn’t mean infallibility—it means that no credible competing explanation currently accounts for the evidence better.
The Out-of-Africa theory is supported by genetics, anthropology, paleontology, and archaeology. It’s not just an "opinion" held by some elite club. It’s a model based on:
DNA evidence (especially mitochondrial DNA)
- Fossil records
- Migration patterns
- Linguistic and cultural traces
Scientists update consensus when new evidence emerges. That’s how science self-corrects. But rejecting consensus outright because it exists is not scientific skepticism—it’s just contrarianism.
Finally, yes—I was an English teacher, among many things. But appealing to someone’s profession instead of addressing their argument is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy Credentials don’t change the facts. Either the argument is valid, or it’s not. And the argument here is: Erectus Walks Amongst Us is not taken seriously by any credible geneticist, evolutionary biologist, or anthropologist—for good reason.
Let’s keep the debate about evidence and logic, not personal dismissals.
" While it's true that science isn’t governed by consensus in the same way politics or popularity are, scientific consensus is very real—and essential."
Indeed, scientific consensus is real, but not essential.
"Consensus doesn’t mean infallibility—it means that no credible competing explanation currently accounts for the evidence better."
In the opinion of those in consensus.
"But appealing to someone’s profession instead of addressing their argument is a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy Credentials don’t change the facts. Either the argument is valid, or it’s not. "
I only looked up your bio because your misunderstanding of science was so blatant.
Scientific consensus is essential—not because it’s infallible, but because it reflects the current best understanding based on rigorous evidence, peer review, and reproducibility. It’s not a popularity contest or mere opinion. It’s the collective judgment of experts who’ve tested hypotheses against data.
You say “in the opinion of those in consensus,” but scientific consensus is far more than opinion. It’s a reasoned conclusion based on a vast amount of data from multiple independent fields—genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and more.
If you disagree, that’s fine. Science thrives on challenges. But to contribute meaningfully, you need to present testable hypotheses and data, not just dismiss consensus as “opinion.”
Regarding profession: If you need to point mine out just to dismiss arguments based on who presents them—rather than their content—that is a logical fallacy (ad hominem). We should all focus on the evidence and reasoning, regardless of background.
Happy to continue the discussion grounded in evidence and logic.
We disagree. Leave it at that.
An intellectual impasse. Fine.
Do you need me to post a full bio of the past 68 years?
The traditional Out of Africa model has been rendered highly unlikely by recent evidence, although Out of Africa is still the consensus meta-theory. However, the evidence for significant differentiation of Eurasians in Eurasia, perhaps further back than what used to be accepted, is growing.
Thank goodness the science is settled in such things as aortic valve replacement and passenger aircraft design ! I might never take another plane if it wasn't !
That’s not science, it’s engineering, (there’s a difference) it’s based on an actual empirical process that would have involved (presumably) a lot of trial & error. So that’s technically a false equivalence.