In nature there are specialized and generalized populations. Think of the latter as a Swiss army knife, species that can do a lot but nothing too well. A specialized species has one niche, like a parasite that lives off a certain host. Specialized populations tend to evolve where climate is stable (i.e. Africa) and generalized populations where climate changes (i.e. Eurasia). It's easier to go from generalized to specialized than the other way around. This means that Eurasians were more likely to evolve into Africans than vice versa. Africans, specialized for the tropics, were less likely to be able to conquer those living in seasonal climates and evolve into Eurasians than Eurasians, generalized by seasonal climates, were to invade Africa and become a tropic specialized population. Also, humans are the most generalized species there is and by that reasoning most likely evolved in a changing climate.

Also, there's the issue of selection pressure. erectus and Neanderthals were well adapted to the Northern climates. If we believe OoA, we have to ask how did Africans, never having left the tropics, evolve the traits to wipe out populations that had evolved in their respective environments for hundreds of thousands or millions of years? The Neanderthal was no slouch. He was stronger and had a bigger skull than any group of humans living today (as mentioned above, this may be due more to bulk than IQ but regardless they had a 200 cc advantage over modern Africans). In many ways Eurasian pre-human populations were more advanced than modern Africans.

Charles Murray said, "When it comes to race, science is corrupt." Nobody with a clear view of the intellectual climate can believe that every theory of human origins has been given an equal hearing. For the interested reader, section IV of this book is devoted to the author's political and philosophical ideas including entertaining rants against miscegenation and egalitarianism.

This review simply scratches the surface of what's in this fascinating book. The story of human origins and race is more interesting than you think. The author tells us about the Australian pygmies, a short people not very well known due to political correctness, Baskop, a 30,000-10,000 ya skull found in South Africa with an 1860 cc brain that doesn't fit into any theory of human origins (besides maybe the one in this book), and how differences in sexual behavior between gorillas and orangoutangs and how they walk can shed light on the human past. Science is indeed corrupt and Erectus Walks Amongst Us is the best collection of politically incorrect information on where we came from available.

*To be Continued


[edit on 28/7/09 by fapython]

I have a feeling I'll learn many new words by reading this book.

Thank you for letting us know about this book. I probably would never have heard about it if you had not posted this thread. It is fascinating subject matter. And the part about being politically incorrect was the clincher.

The introduction was interesting because it made so much sense. Why would science defraud us?

Its very interesting but your link is not working at all

second line

The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

I think we should change the term "race" to "genetics."

Are there different genetics in the world, which plays a role in IQ, fitness, skin color, vulnerability to disease, etc. Yes. Yes there are.

Saying all people with black skin fit into such and such category is wrong, though.

My 2 cents, at least.

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

They say that the Eskimo are even better on IQ than the Whites(which are better than the Blacks) Do they have so many bookstores and libraries up there in Arctic??

---

---

Oh dear.
I have seen a resurgence of thinly and inexpertly veiled racism lately.
It is currently taking refuge behind the buzzphrase "politically incorrect."
As if "politically incorrect" makes it alright.

It is not alright.
It is so far from alright that it occupies another planet.

I hope the author of this book, and all of you who agree with him, form your own little commune somewhere where you won't have to see anyone who isn't white.

That way, the rest of us (who are white, black, asian, blue, green. polka dotted and consider ourselves equals) could go about our daily lives without having to deal with this sort of rabid idiocy.

One should be clued in by the books cover - or at least the last one I saw - and the affliations the author has. He isn't exactly unbiased.

Some of us probably do have more Erectus in us. And some of us have some Neandrathal. And all of us are descended from cro-magnon, but some will have more doubling back.

That is the most likely source of our difference. Varied amounts of interaction from reproductively compatible splits, coupled with geographic isolation.

Now...I'm waiting from someone to figure out that caucasians and lighter skinned types have more doubling back with the variations that are more like the bonobos and that the darker skinned have more doubling back with the larger apes. Even the trends towards societal types should clue them in eventually.

The logic of the Swiss army knife is flawed. True, it does many tasks, but it doesn't do any of them as well as a single tool for that task. However, you are much more likely to carry a single Swiss army knife, than a toolbox filled with tools. A somewhat inadequate tool is often better than no tool at all.

There is a lot of nattering about "intelligence", but we don't even know what that is. The truth about intelligence is that it is a measure of how well we do on intelligence tests. It is not based on scientific principles. The reasoning about it is circular - a person is intelligent, based on his IQ tests. Brilliant people often test poorly on those tests; dullards may test well. It's how well they take the test, not how intelligent they really are. Blacks don't test as well on IQ tests. That says nothing about how intelligent they are. It only says that they don't do as well on IQ tests.

Intelligence, while highly respected in Western society, is not necessarily a survival trait. Yes, we needed it when we were small little rodents hiding from larger reptiles; it stood us in good stead when we started walking upright. It was absolutely vital for our survival in the past. Whether intelligence - and in particular, extreme intelligence - is useful now is debatable. We have the intelligence to blow ourselves out of existence, but not the common sense not to do it. It may well be that more common sense is better than more intelligence.

Species develop as a result of stresses in the environment, changes that put pressure on organisms. The organisms who can adapt to the new circumstances tend to reproduce and prosper. The ones who don't adapt tend not to reproduce, and they eventually die out. Exactly what an organism may need at any given moment is unpredictable, random. For example, maybe they'll need to be able to handle heat to survive global warming; maybe they'll need to handle cold to survive a new ice age.

Because of this unpredictability, it is exactly the Swiss army knife of organisms that we need - people who may not be the smartest, the strongest, the bravest, the fastest - but who can adapt to whatever comes their way. It's no good being the smartest organisms on earth, if we need to survive temperature extremes. It's no good being the biggest, if we need to adapt to lack of food. It's no good being the most civilized, if civilization breaks down and jungle law takes over. What is great in one situation is death in others.

BTW, I doubt very much that there are any "pure" "races" left. There has been so much intermingling of genetic material between these "races" that it is likely not one person is without some material from another "race".

I'm sorry to see such active, blatant racism here on ATS. What a shame...

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
The IQ test (on which I scored in the genius level) is flawed and skewed in favor of white European culture, specifically the literate variation. It also does not represent axes of knowledge such as mechanics, visual schematics and social relationships on which nonwhites and non-Europeans vastly outperform whites.

Ok first and foremost, if that was the case, then why is it that asians (Who are non-europeans) usually perform better then white (Europeans) in IQ tests, surely if they were flawed in favour of white european culture, then the asians would be down their with the other races instead of above the Europeans, so your logic is plain wrong and incorrect in claiming it favours white european culture.

Originally posted by DaisyAnne
Oh dear.
I have seen a resurgence of thinly and inexpertly veiled racism lately.
It is currently taking refuge behind the buzzphrase "politically incorrect."
As if "politically incorrect" makes it alright.

It is not alright.
It is so far from alright that it occupies another planet.

I hope the author of this book, and all of you who agree with him, form your own little commune somewhere where you won't have to see anyone who isn't white.

That way, the rest of us (who are white, black, asian, blue, green. polka dotted and consider ourselves equals) could go about our daily lives without having to deal with this sort of rabid idiocy.

I have seen a carrying on of great ignorance, and you my friend are full of it. First and foremost before you make the claim that the book is racist and is not alright , how about you read it first, then make your opinion based on proper evidence, not on pathetic ideological nonsense; absolutely nothing in nature is equal and that is fact, so why should the races be any different, because quite frankly this book is backed up by sound evidence and makes perfect sense. So being perfectly frank here, you are the idiot to have the nerve to claim this book and people who see the truth in it are idiots without infact reading it yourself.

Horse poop.

Africa has shifts. Just because they aren't as extreme on the cold end does not mean they aren't there. You survive a day of +50C.

Innu and Innuit should be the smartest people on the planet by your theory.

An Australian Aboriginie would kill you off by taking you for a walk on a big empty seeming plain, and then "losing" you - because they have WAY better spatial perception. Survive that smarty pants.