Nope. Everything I've said is correct. You're the one who's wrong. Let's keep score, shall we?
Sickle Cell Anemia is a disease not a natural resistance.
I didn't say "sickle cell anemia" I said "sickle cells" - do you understand the difference? Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, sickle cells are a huge advantage. A little anemia is a small price to pay. (source)
So, I'm right. They developed resistance to the disease. That's one point for me. Your reply fails, so that's negative 1 point for you.
Malaria has been the most deadly disease that Europeans have ever faced.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?? Holy shit! You're way off track. Here, let me help you. You claimed that malaria prevented blacks from developing technology. I compared malaria's effect on blacks to the black plague's effect on whites.
That is the comparison being made. How deadly is malaria to blacks (who have some protection due to the sickle cell trait) vs. how deadly is the black plague to whites.
Here are two things that are irrelevant: (1) how deadly is the black plague to blacks (2) how deadly is malaria to whites
Once again, -1 points to you for raising an irrelevant objection.
Wheat isn't just some random grass.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
The score is now 2 to -3
Sub-Saharan Africa's waterways are absolute shit.
Given your performance in this thread so far (literally everything up to this point has been irrelevant), I'm reticent to believe you here, but I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point. The score is 2 to -2
There wasn't any lions in England and France.
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today. So what's different between these two groups? The presence of lions is not the difference.
The ancestors of the europeans killed off or tamed the megafauna, then developed a great civilization that flew to the moon. The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
Another point for me, and another point taken away from you for raising a faulty objection. Final score, me: 3, you: -4
Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria.
Reduces, you're not immune from Malaria. It's still a massive killer disease in Africa.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced. It's not. For Europeans, it's actually one of the worst.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
And that's still wrong. Europe and the Middle East had access to three of the most useful cash crops imaginable: Wheat, barley, and rye. High protein and high carbohydrate edible crop grasses that aren't native outside those regions. They are particularly useful because they can be grown in huge swathes, allowing for massive amounts of edible food. Those crops are unique.
It was not created. They existed naturally and were cultivated into having higher yields over thousands of years. The most important point is that they existed naturally in those areas so that they could be cultivated in the first place. The rest of the world wasn't lucky enough to have that happen to them. The native Americans could never cultivate Tall Fescue enough to make it into an edible staple crop; that's not how plants work. You have to have something to start with, and nothing was better than having wheat, barley, and rye all at the same time. Nothing's even close.
I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point.
Maybe you should go backwards and see if you can figure out why plants and disease are just as relevant as fucking geography, not geology.
How can you guys be this confident about shit you are this ignorant about.
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
Over 10,000 years before the heraldry you quoted existed, yes they saw it with their eyes. Meanwhile, Arabs and Persians forgot the names of the ruined cities they built within 200 years. By the time heraldry was made, the only reason that the French and English had pictures of lions is because the Romans brought lions to Rome and made artwork of them. The Celts don't have pictures of lions because no one in their entire civilization's history had ever encountered one.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today.
Your arguments need to be based on reality, not ignorance, racial stereotypes, and memes. That's a poor country by the way. It's Nairobi, Kenya. Africa actually has cities, apparently you didn't know this either.
The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
It's one problem. Sub-Saharan Africa has all of them.
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced.
No, I didn’t. I said that Europeans had faced worse diseases than Africans. That is a comparison between how malaria affects Africans (not Europeans) and how the Black Plague affects Europeans
We really can’t continue this conversation until you successfully parse that sentence
Nope. Everything I've said is correct. You're the one who's wrong. Let's keep score, shall we?
I didn't say "sickle cell anemia" I said "sickle cells" - do you understand the difference? Sickle cells is an adaptation that reduces the mortality from malaria. In a region where malaria is endemic, sickle cells are a huge advantage. A little anemia is a small price to pay. (source)
So, I'm right. They developed resistance to the disease. That's one point for me. Your reply fails, so that's negative 1 point for you.
How is mortality to Europeans at all relevant to this conversation?? Holy shit! You're way off track. Here, let me help you. You claimed that malaria prevented blacks from developing technology. I compared malaria's effect on blacks to the black plague's effect on whites.
That is the comparison being made. How deadly is malaria to blacks (who have some protection due to the sickle cell trait) vs. how deadly is the black plague to whites.
Here are two things that are irrelevant: (1) how deadly is the black plague to blacks (2) how deadly is malaria to whites
Once again, -1 points to you for raising an irrelevant objection.
I didn't say that wheat was "just some random grass" - I said that wheat was created by our ancestors through selective breeding. And what our ancestors started with is no poorer than what Africans have available to them.
The score is now 2 to -3
Given your performance in this thread so far (literally everything up to this point has been irrelevant), I'm reticent to believe you here, but I actually don't know much about the geology so, I'll throw you a bone and grant you one point. The score is 2 to -2
I literally mentioned the name of the gave IN FUCKING FRANCE where our ancestors drew lions that they saw with their own two eyes.
The people who lived in those caves and drew those lions were at approximately the same state of development as must africans today. So what's different between these two groups? The presence of lions is not the difference.
The ancestors of the europeans killed off or tamed the megafauna, then developed a great civilization that flew to the moon. The ancestors of the first australian aborigines also killed off their megafauna, but then failed to develop a great civilization. Meanwhile, the africans did absolutely nothing.
Another point for me, and another point taken away from you for raising a faulty objection. Final score, me: 3, you: -4
Reduces, you're not immune from Malaria. It's still a massive killer disease in Africa.
You're the idiot that claimed that Malaria was one of the less deadly diseases that Europeans had faced. It's not. For Europeans, it's actually one of the worst.
And that's still wrong. Europe and the Middle East had access to three of the most useful cash crops imaginable: Wheat, barley, and rye. High protein and high carbohydrate edible crop grasses that aren't native outside those regions. They are particularly useful because they can be grown in huge swathes, allowing for massive amounts of edible food. Those crops are unique.
It was not created. They existed naturally and were cultivated into having higher yields over thousands of years. The most important point is that they existed naturally in those areas so that they could be cultivated in the first place. The rest of the world wasn't lucky enough to have that happen to them. The native Americans could never cultivate Tall Fescue enough to make it into an edible staple crop; that's not how plants work. You have to have something to start with, and nothing was better than having wheat, barley, and rye all at the same time. Nothing's even close.
Maybe you should go backwards and see if you can figure out why plants and disease are just as relevant as fucking geography, not geology.
How can you guys be this confident about shit you are this ignorant about.
Over 10,000 years before the heraldry you quoted existed, yes they saw it with their eyes. Meanwhile, Arabs and Persians forgot the names of the ruined cities they built within 200 years. By the time heraldry was made, the only reason that the French and English had pictures of lions is because the Romans brought lions to Rome and made artwork of them. The Celts don't have pictures of lions because no one in their entire civilization's history had ever encountered one.
I didn't know that caves came with 50 story buildings.
Your arguments need to be based on reality, not ignorance, racial stereotypes, and memes. That's a poor country by the way. It's Nairobi, Kenya. Africa actually has cities, apparently you didn't know this either.
It's one problem. Sub-Saharan Africa has all of them.
This is so sad. I literally feel bad for you
No, I didn’t. I said that Europeans had faced worse diseases than Africans. That is a comparison between how malaria affects Africans (not Europeans) and how the Black Plague affects Europeans
We really can’t continue this conversation until you successfully parse that sentence
And that's still wrong. Ebola.
Africa has a lot worse diseases than anything Europe faced.
And you don't accept that Africans can die from Malaria, and you think they are immune to it.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Wow you are literally retarded