[jfiwefwo]

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]

If that is true, then you have to find the phenotypes that matter. So far, after a century of trying, they only exist after an extensive factor analysis in intelligence testing, a statistical method known for giving biased results if you feed it with biased data.

No, if anything there would be a natural selection against intelligence. As society grows more complex there is less and less need for any individual to be smarter as humans operate better collectively. However for such a minor trait in the overall scheme of survival, I doubt there has been any time in the past 50k years to select for or against it.

As for continental differences in humans. Humans are a remarkably homogeneous species. Isolated populations are far less common among humans then among other mammals. Any difference between population is bound to be insignificant next to the difference between individuals. I am aware Lewontin’s fallacy (it is weird, that Lewontin’s “fallacy” is always brought up at this point; as if the goalpost keeps shifting. See https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)