The blatantly false liberal mantra "Races differ ONLY in skin color"

Jews are a religious group and an ethnicity, certainly not a race unto themselves.

As for the multiple nationalities, the dispora, various mass evictions and WWII took care of that.

 

Actually, neanderthalensis and idaltu had about the same cranial capacity. The head is the hardest part to pass through the birth canal.

To compare some modern populations, Asian women have relatively narrow hips, and Asian heads are normally quite round. That did not cause my Korean wife extreme problems delivering our son and his nasty great Neanderthal-sized head, at a total body weight of 8 lbs, 14.5 oz.

 

There is nothing superior about the European brain type.

Did you notice how much slower Aryans were to develop civilizations than were Asians and Semites?

Are you going by brain size?

Size don't matter, whether we are talking about sex or arithmetic or the ability to make tools.

Compare the cranial capacity of a chimp ((500cc) to H. erectus (1100) and H. floresiensis (417cc.)

Thanks for playing "Let's Be Bigots."

 

I suggest you look at skull volumes , form and also take into account that Neanderthals were born in a later stage ( bigger ) than we are.
Hips have nothing to do with birth canal .

 

The birth canal is remarkably elestic. Hips are not.

THe idaltu skull was not much shorter front to back than the neanderthalensis.

 

Europeans have smaller brains than East Asians, who also have wider pelvises. Of course brain size matters. The trajectory in hominid evolution has been towards larger brains. It's not an absolute link and other factors affect intelligence. Why would hominids evolve large energy sapping brains and inefficient pelvises if size did not matter? Surely having a large brain would be strongly selected against. Unless it resulted in higher intelligence.

Thanks for playing "Making up Crap OTI".

 

Idaltu and neandertalensis were also huge, with brains to match. Our brains are smaller.

H. floresiensis was tiny, had a brain smaller than an average chimpanzee, and a tool kit as sophisticated as that of H. erectus.

Try again. Your ignorance of evolution is surpassed only by your ignorance of African history and culture.

 

You are looking at extremes and ignoring the pattern.

 

And you are running like hell from the facts.

Explain the "Hobbits" in terms of your blather about brain size and genetic intelligence.

 

I am not "running like hell from the facts". This is an utterly vacuous statement.

The tendency is for bigger brains to be more intelligent. It's not an absolute rule and other factors affect it (such as folding). Do you really deny that there is any relationship between brain size and intelligence?

 

I am saying that it is far less important within any species than you seem to think it is in humans.

I remember reading somewhere that Einstein's brain was a bit on the light end of the normal range of weights.

 

I know you are saying that. And you are making it up.

Einstein was less intelligent than Maxwell, Lorentz and Poincare.

In fact the brilliance of Einstein is largely a myth.

 

Did you know this was used as an excuse in Victorian times to argue women are naturally less intelligent than men?

It's not brain size perse, as it is relative brain size. And even that's deceptive. For instance, as I understand it, most of our large frontal lobe structure has nothing to do with intelligence per se; it's dedicated to the one thing human's excel at: abstraction and imagination. That co evolved with advanced tool use.

Other hunting species may have a broad cranial structure for similar reasons: you have to imagine what the prey might do to anticipate it's moves.

Anyway, brain size by itself and without qualification paints too simplistic a picture.

 

Yes, I agree with you.