I could destroy this server with my newest argument

@calebcool really?

@Romulus when did i use a "like OMG, how can you say that, how dare you" argument

and not at least elaborate

Hahaha

Libtard is still mad

yes i am.

I have every right to be angry

but i try to keep anger out of my arguments

Buutthurt libtard

Even ifm that's true it doesn't make me wrong

this is an ad hominem argument

but back to what we were discussing yesterday, humans don't have a crime gene, and IQ tests involve vocabulary, something which is taught, not inherent. It is foolish to attribute both purely to genetics

If crime is the incapacity to maintain societal rules, then yes there is a genetic basis for crime.

Different populations have different proclivities to behavioral inhibition.

Not genetically

East Asians are usually far less impulsive than africans because they had selective pressures applied to them, which translated into selecting certain genes compared to another

or maybe their culture suppresses their feelings, telling them to keep in line. East Asian culture is very conservative usually

Just ask the father of DNA

How do you think their culture came to be numb nuts

A recursive pattern of selective pressure

@Fidel Castro Bro,impulsivity is directly attributed to frontal lobe proportions and hormonal balance. Other than nutrition, what else can you attribute to those things outside of genetics?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Watson

Material conditions in Africa did not lead to developement of agriculture in many places, meaning that society could not be formed neither could advanced cultures

Someone who is socially ostracised for being gay is much less likely to identify as gay than someone who is accepted for being gay, as an example

Impulse control can be affected by upbringing and experience

europeans and chinks made agriculture ez pz there in less than a decade. Plus africa had better infastructure than china for atleast a hundred years

Certain african countries

If sub-Saharan Africa couldnt develop due to material conditions prior to the intake of latin american trade and its agricultural goods, then they werent exposed to the selective pressures that more sedentary people were @Fidel Castro

thus, under natural selection, would not have developed the same temperament.

Just ask charles darwin on his thoughts on them

Agriculture has only arisen in the last 10,000 years, even for Europeans. That's not a long enough time for substantial genetic difference, but europeans aren't "impulsive"

Btw Karl Marx said that darwinism was the missing piece to communism

In a few letters to engels

@Fidel Castro the variety already existed, it was a matter of selection

not social darwinism though

@Fidel Castro wrong, of digestive systems and neoteny went through major changes in the last 10k years

we know of genetics have had major change

Those features were already present but were selected over other traits

There was a lot of genetic noise

And it turned into a symphony