inb4 miscers start chewing on animal skin for jawsthetics

I'm not even sure if this is anything relevant to what you wrote, but in general poorer people seem to have better genetics when it comes to athleticism and athletic prowess.

"Pulling things out of thin air"

Yet, i provide evidence.So, first of all.. "Genes are everything" but then you say evolution is being influenced by "liberal policies" - i.e. culture, so which one is it?

Explain to me how the inferior thing works given the strongest genes survive. Is that how it works or nah?

In 100 years humans will likely have vastly superior technology that today. Most likely a greater improvement that all of previous human history, because technology grows exponentially built upon previous generations. With faster computers, we can work more efficiently and develop even better tech, and even faster. This DOES NOT mean that humans 100 years from now are somehow more intelligent than humans of today. If Einstein lived 9000 years ago he would have been able to accomplish nothing, because he would have had to hunt to survive. Civilization, and agriculture allowed some people to no longer have to spend their time hunting and gathering, and could now spend time doing other things. Tomorrow's generation will build upon the technology of today. This doesn't make them any more intelligent, it simply means they have more knowledge and tools to allow them to use the intelligence they have.

So do you consider yourself to be intellectual (not knowledgeable) or not?

Yea.. Righteo mate. Caveman are just as smart as albert einstein

Again, its almost moot talking about if you cant give a succint definition of intelligence. There is none btw

No, you havn't. Not gonna waste my time when it's obvious to me that not only are you not objective, and your reasoning is entirely emotional, but you are unable to even understand my arguments, or ignore them.Humans 9000 years ago were the same species as today. Caveman were neanderthal, which are an entirely different species of hominids. I already gave my definition of intelligence in this thread. Yes it is moot even entertaining you anymore, bye.

I could use your same exact reasoning and say that people in the West, who have advanced civilizations are therefore more intelligent than people in 3rd world sh#t hole countries. People living in 3rd world dung huts must be retarded then, like caveman. Because having access to technology is as good as an iq test. Hopefully even you can see how absolutely retarded that is.

Could prob beat the UFC heavyweight champ in 1 round

Provide me with proof of what constitutes "intelligence"

There are tons of theories on it and scientists have dedicated their lives to understanding it yet havent provided a universal definition. It almost seems impossible without also defining consciousness (which is also unknown)

HOWEVER, lets just go by webster merriams definition:

the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations : reason; also : the skilled use of reason. (2) : the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one's environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria

Caveman would be able to fathom einsteins general theory of relativity? Einstein doesnt show a greater application of knowledge than the caveman who couldnt speak?

It is most certainly a combination of environment/ culture + genes.. And i lean more toward environment

I score a 127 on the raven's progressive matrices, which is considered to be one of the more accurate IQ test of raw genetic potential; as things such as language, culture, and previous knowledge will not influence the outcome of this particular test. It measures pure pattern recognition. I'm no genius but above average as far as potential goes. I do not have the genetic potential to be a top physicist no matter how much I studied. That's my opinion.

This is why iq tests arent accurate. And particularly why im saying environment is a large contributing factor

Further, how in the hell would you even prove someone taking an iq test hadnt been exposed to previous information before? I.e. application of knowledge

Someone exposed to similar lines of thinking would likely do better than someone whos never seen it before. Once again, how could you discern who has been exposed to what?

Yes my position is that if you took a human from 9000 years ago, one which had a large cranial capacity, and you placed that 9000 year old into todays society from birth, that it would be able to function at a higher level on average than a modern human. Because they had superior genetics. Every generation is getting objectively weaker, dumber, ect. I've already said all this so Im done repeating myself. The fact that they did not have access to technology or a different way of life does not mean they were dumb. Just like a human living in the jungles of the amazon, or in a dung hut in Africa is not necessary dumb just because they don't have access to a better way of life. You are a potato though so this all goes over you head.

Lmao i completely understand it, but i think youre wrong as fuk

Its not just about cell phones or the tech its about the application of knowledge that the previous generation didnt have

Once again, the strongest genes survive. So i have no idea how you think were inferior. What would be the explanation for that? Genes change as we adapt to environment and the best genes for thar environment win out

Why in the hell or how would evolution work if organisms just got "inferior"

Because the ravens progressive matrices takes no previous knowledge. You could know more about math, and history, and have the best formal education and score lower than someone with no education on the IQ test, if that person has more raw IQ potential than you. Culture, language, previous knowledge is irrelevant when measuring IQ because the test measures your ability to think logical and recognize patterns i.e. solve problems.

Theres still no way to prove that the higher performer wasnt previously exposed to similar lines of thinking. Not even begging the question on who gets to discern whats important or not. At best, intelligence can be confined to molds or frames based on the application of certain information, but it still doesnt define a capacity.

Do you think you, or anyone, could do math in wingdings? Not like 1 + 1 but quadratic equations. Just lol at thinking knowledge isnt a part of everything

The strongest genes survive in a natural environment. In an unnatural environment the opposite is true. We have breed species of canine that are objectively inferior than their wolf ancestors. They are dumber, slower, less athletic, and less able to survive in a natural environment. Do you agree? If so how can you not see the same is true of humans. Humans that would have died in a natural environment, say someone born mentally retarded, today can survive and pass on their genes because of the welfare state and modern medicine. I'm not saying this is a bad thing on an individual level, it is good for the individual. But it is objectively bad for the human species as a whole as we are getting more inferior with every generation because survival of the fittest no longer influences our species. That doesn't mean I advocate we employ some eugenics policies, because that would be unjust and inhumane IMO. Though I am objective and consistent enough to admit it would produce an objectively superior human species in the future, it would just completely go against my ethics.

I think dogs are inferior because humans evolved with them and selectively breeded them for different reasons

Anyways, i gotta go. I do think some of your reasoning is objective but its not up to date

Dunno why anyone's surprised - life back then was tough as phuck; doubt many delicate flower types survived (if they even existed).

The males couldn't even have 'afforded' to look after them, they needed women as touch as they were.

I'm descended from Spartans. My ancestors threw the weak babies off the cliff, resulting in a superior warrior class in which 300 could battle 1,000,000+ inferior warriors. If you think modern medicine and welfare allowing people to pass on their genes that would have otherwise died in a more competitive environment has no influence on the future of the human species, then we are going to have to agree to disagree. Because IMO you are not consistent and chose your positions on with whatever feels good emotionally instead of objectively analyzing the truth even if it is harsh. BTW you CAN admit how this is true, AND still not advocate implementing such policies because of your ethics. You can admit it would be beneficial for the collective species, but detrimental to individual human rights.

meh...wood smash

wish these threads would make up their minds. first we are black britans then we are female arnolds.

Back, but prob only for this post

The reason its not consistent is there is no consistency. Theres no definitive definition of what were talking about.

If you want to go even further.. Prove to me objectivity exists. Einstein disliked quantum mechanics because he felt science was based upon evidence of "systems" that you could objectively identify as separate from other systems. Within quantum mechanics, you cant do that

While i see an efficiency in potentially getting rid of "bad babies".. I also see tons of reasons wrong with it

Including shortsightedness not accounting for epigenetic changes as a result of the environment. Mark zuckerberg wasnt chit until later in life.. Are we a "worse species" as a result of him? There are so many possibilities here they are almost endless

I found her today, she is fighting in the UFC...

Understand the point you're trying to convey, but poor example. Mark Zuckerberg is a globalist PC enforcing shill. I don't see how FB has improved our lives. I would argue FB has been negative to our social culture and society in general. But I digress, Mark Zuckerberg was a healthy human as far as I know. The Spartans only put down disfigured, deformed, diseased babies that would be dependant on others, like parasites, for their lives in order to survive (similar to welfare recipients dependant on producers to survive today) As I've already said, I'm not saying we even go that far as it is an ethical issue. I'm not saying what we should do, I'm just contending that if we did not have a welfare state, it would benefit the species. It is scientific fact proven via selectively breeding animals such as race horses, or dogs, even microbes, for performance; that when only the best genes reproduce it results in superior species. When inferior genes reproduce it results in an inferior species. Race horses have records of their genetic lineage, only the best genes are allowed to reproduce which has allowed for an objectively superior organism. Objective because we can measure the horses performance, muscle density, tolerance to stress, rate for disease, ect. We have created an environment for humans that no longer let's "bad" genetics to die off as they would have in the past. This hurts the collective species. Again I am not saying we should correct for this by throwing babies off cliffs, all I'm doing is making observations of reality and the evidence before me. I'm not making any subjective ethical or moral arguments. I don't believe in eugenics because who would get to chose what is considered "superior" genetics, it would require centralized power, which I oppose. Humans are not objective enough to do this, humans are innately biased and would just chose their own kind as the "master race"

Think there's legit truth to it.

I've been gnawing on chicken bones since I was little, love eating the cartilage, will basically strip all flesh off the bone and crunch any softer chewable bones like wings.

Solid square jaw/10

Having Children with that 9000 year old heavenly blessed beauty would surely guarantee Chads

LOL fuk how did we not see the DeadlyStrikers resemblance?

damn, strong inbreeding, bitch ugly as f*ck




but strong gene pool, only the strong babies survive...

Lol. Half the misc goes oneitis for these 4/10 'chicks' with female usernames and lower body avi's but claim they're repulsed by Grecomagnon without IG makeup.


Y u lion mane?