No it isn't, the human breeds are very different and africans have been separated from other humans for >50k years in very different environments. Even Darwin recognized the differences are massive and some populations seem like different species.
The human genome wasn’t recognized in Darwin’s time so there is no surprise that he would underestimate how much of our genome is actually shared.
> africans have been separated from other humans for >50k years
This is flat out not true. People have always traveled and intermarried between Europe, Africa and Asia. Even the Roman Empire included parts of all three continents. There are only a few populations that have historically been separated for 50k years (which is not a long time in genetic terms) and it is only if you define intelligence in really euro-centric terms where you could claim that natural selection has resulted in those populations being less intelligence then the afro-eurasian population. In other words, this is a racist talking point.
It doesn't matter how much of the genome is shared, what matters is how large the phenotypic differences are. Same with dog breeds who share a large portion of their genome but are very different. This is classic Lewontin's fallacy.
And no, there wasn't much gene flow at all between africans and non-africans, and selection operated strongly during that timeframe due to things like different degrees of civilization between populations creating massively different selective pressures.
If the definition of intelligence corresponds strongly to thriving in complex large-scale civilizations, some populations are far less adapted. It's not like calling it "ability to thrive in current society" is going to please the science-denialist crowd.
runarberg|3 years ago
> africans have been separated from other humans for >50k years
This is flat out not true. People have always traveled and intermarried between Europe, Africa and Asia. Even the Roman Empire included parts of all three continents. There are only a few populations that have historically been separated for 50k years (which is not a long time in genetic terms) and it is only if you define intelligence in really euro-centric terms where you could claim that natural selection has resulted in those populations being less intelligence then the afro-eurasian population. In other words, this is a racist talking point.
jfiwefwo|3 years ago
And no, there wasn't much gene flow at all between africans and non-africans, and selection operated strongly during that timeframe due to things like different degrees of civilization between populations creating massively different selective pressures.
If the definition of intelligence corresponds strongly to thriving in complex large-scale civilizations, some populations are far less adapted. It's not like calling it "ability to thrive in current society" is going to please the science-denialist crowd.