Are Whites Descended From East Indian Albinos?

[Asclepias]

I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today. I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people. I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.

This lady is an albino East Indian.

So is this family.

White Europeans 'only evolved 5,500 years ago after food habits changed'


There are other theories, anyway Albinism is a mutation that all races have.Its rare. Albinos are at a distinct disadvantage for survival. Your theory counters the evolutionary process. Why would a race Evolve TOWARDS a position of disadvantage? thats not the way it works. Its just aberrations and recessive genes.

Maybe you misunderstand my theory. I didnt say europeans evolved towards a position of disadvantage. Obviously europeans are no longer albinos but they do share some of the same traits. My theory is saying they evolved from albinos cast out from darker skin people in India and the middle east. This is due to the albinism trait in both groups being the same and the fact that the gene for light skin for europeans occurred in that part of the world as well. However, I appreciate you coming up with something other than "it just cant be so".

 

[altdata]

This thread is based on one quadrant of one gene, defining White people as mutants. That is absurd.

If you look are each continent, you see that there was travel and then long periods of isolation, for unique evolution.

D.I.Y. population structure inference, part 1 of many - Gene Expression

Any discussion of evolution (Genome Project) should include basics.
- 50% of the DNA of all animals on Earth are shared with humans.
- 99% (on average) of human DNA is shared with Chimpanzees, but there were different isolated Chimps.
- There is actually a 2-3% variation range in Human DNA on different continents or even within one (Africa).

Example: Common Chimps have unique DNA only in Whites and Bonobo Chimps have DNA only in Africans. They were separated by the Congo River.

 

[altdata]

From article thread is based on : Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

...They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. ...

​

Those highlighted comments from the article ARE NOT SCIENCE. They are speculation and hypothesis for someone to prove.

- We only have 23 "chromosomes". Any human feature has a one in 23 chance of landing on the same chromosome.

- Things that happen "often" maybe happen 50% of the time or maybe 30% of the time.

- Humans have 99% the same DNA as Chimps, so are we "virtually" chimps?

 

[Asclepias]

Yes, it is always best to post the actual study, rather than news network synopsis, written by someone who majored in Journalism, not science.

Before belittling Neanderthal (the group you are apparently claiming are albinos), one should consider the other evolution options.

Today, a large brain is the #1 correlator to high IQ. Neanderthal's brain was even larger than today's Whites or Far East Asians (Japan/Korea). I guess Neanderthal had room for better eyesight too.

Lucy was found in Ethiopia, Turkana Boy was found in Kenya and the recent discovery of Homo Naledi was near Johannesburg, South Africa.

Evolution is a quickly moving path, as every person generates 8 mutations. 30,000 years seems like nothing in time. It is quite remarkable how quickly some humans upwardly evolved, while others stagnated.

I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them.

I dont know where you are getting your information that a big head means you have a high IQ. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first being the obvious. There are plenty of people with big heads that are dumb as a rock. Also there is no way to determine someones IQ accurately. Now if you mean intelligence that too depends on a lot of different factors like the number of synapses and even personal experience. Here is the actual study on the neanderthals.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168

 

[Asclepias]

From article thread is based on : Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

...They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. ...

​

Those highlighted comments from the article ARE NOT SCIENCE. They are speculation and hypothesis for someone to prove.

- We only have 23 "chromosomes". Any human feature has a one in 23 chance of landing on the same chromosome.

- Things that happen "often" maybe happen 50% of the time or maybe 30% of the time.

- Humans have 99% the same DNA as Chimps, so are we "virtually" chimps?

Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.

 

[Asclepias]

This thread is based on one quadrant of one gene, defining White people as mutants. That is absurd.

If you look are each continent, you see that there was travel and then long periods of isolation, for unique evolution.

D.I.Y. population structure inference, part 1 of many - Gene Expression

Any discussion of evolution (Genome Project) should include basics.
- 50% of the DNA of all animals on Earth are shared with humans.
- 99% (on average) of human DNA is shared with Chimpanzees, but there were different isolated Chimps.
- There is actually a 2-3% variation range in Human DNA on different continents or even within one (Africa).

Example: Common Chimps have unique DNA only in Whites and Bonobo Chimps have DNA only in Africans. They were separated by the Congo River.

I think you are having trouble reading the material. We all are mutants so I dont understand what makes you think whites are not? Your only provided link has nothing to do with the discussion. What does chimps and bonobos have to do with the topic of the thread?

 

[Yarddog]

I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today. I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people. I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.

This lady is an albino East Indian.

So is this family.

White Europeans 'only evolved 5,500 years ago after food habits changed'


There are other theories, anyway Albinism is a mutation that all races have.Its rare. Albinos are at a distinct disadvantage for survival. Your theory counters the evolutionary process. Why would a race Evolve TOWARDS a position of disadvantage? thats not the way it works. Its just aberrations and recessive genes.

Maybe you misunderstand my theory. I didnt say europeans evolved towards a position of disadvantage. Obviously europeans are no longer albinos but they do share some of the same traits. My theory is saying they evolved from albinos cast out from darker skin people in India and the middle east. This is due to the albinism trait in both groups being the same and the fact that the gene for light skin for europeans occurred in that part of the world as well. However, I appreciate you coming up with something other than "it just cant be so".

Ok, well you have a theory there but it is among others. Its true Albinos would have been shunned, and say they did travel north, well they would not be the only ones. Dark skinned peoples also traveled North as well at various periods in history, as others have noted here.

Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features. Change as the world evolves doesn't really happen in a straight line. To say that Albinos contributed to the " melting pot" would be true, but to think that they are somehow the KEY to why there are white people? No , I would strongly disagree with that, just from common sense. At least the way I see it.

 

[Asclepias]

I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today. I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people. I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.

This lady is an albino East Indian.

So is this family.

White Europeans 'only evolved 5,500 years ago after food habits changed'


There are other theories, anyway Albinism is a mutation that all races have.Its rare. Albinos are at a distinct disadvantage for survival. Your theory counters the evolutionary process. Why would a race Evolve TOWARDS a position of disadvantage? thats not the way it works. Its just aberrations and recessive genes.

Maybe you misunderstand my theory. I didnt say europeans evolved towards a position of disadvantage. Obviously europeans are no longer albinos but they do share some of the same traits. My theory is saying they evolved from albinos cast out from darker skin people in India and the middle east. This is due to the albinism trait in both groups being the same and the fact that the gene for light skin for europeans occurred in that part of the world as well. However, I appreciate you coming up with something other than "it just cant be so".

Ok, well you have a theory there but it is among others. Its true Albinos would have been shunned, and say they did travel north, well they would not be the only ones. Dark skinned peoples also traveled North as well at various periods in history, as others have noted here.

Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features. Change as the world evolves doesn't really happen in a straight line. To say that Albinos contributed to the " melting pot" would be true, but to think that they are somehow the KEY to why there are white people? No , I would strongly disagree with that, just from common sense. At least the way I see it.

I agree change does not always go in a straight line. However, in this case the dynamics are pretty compelling. I cant seem to find something that would definitely rule it out.

Can you elaborate on why you believe the following to be true?

"Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features."

 

[altdata]

I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them.

I dont know where you are getting your information that a big head means you have a high IQ. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first being the obvious. There are plenty of people with big heads that are dumb as a rock. Also there is no way to determine someones IQ accurately. Now if you mean intelligence that too depends on a lot of different factors like the number of synapses and even personal experience. Here is the actual study on the neanderthals.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168

You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant.

Statistics show big brained Whites and Far East Asians have the highest IQs. This has not news. For sometime there has been a PC movement to suppress that fact. In fact, in places it is illegal to breakdown IQ/performance data by race/ethnicity.

 

[Asclepias]

I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them.

I dont know where you are getting your information that a big head means you have a high IQ. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first being the obvious. There are plenty of people with big heads that are dumb as a rock. Also there is no way to determine someones IQ accurately. Now if you mean intelligence that too depends on a lot of different factors like the number of synapses and even personal experience. Here is the actual study on the neanderthals.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168

You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant.

Statistics show big brained Whites and Far East Asians have the highest IQs. This has not news. For sometime there has been a PC movement to suppress that fact. In fact, in places it is illegal to breakdown IQ/performance data by race/ethnicity.

You evidently missed the memo that neanderthals are not humans and that IQ cannot be accurately measured. IQ is social construct made up so you can feel better about yourself.

IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

"When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. "There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence."

 

[altdata]

Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.

That is almost a funny claim. There is no agreed upon criteria, test or ranking for "scientists".

Those scientists in your article presented a HYPOTHESIS for someone to prove. They proved nothing. They made some casual observations.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.

That is almost a funny claim. There is no agreed upon criteria, test or ranking for "scientists".

Those scientists in your article presented a HYPOTHESIS for someone to prove. They proved nothing. They made some casual observations.

Nothing is funnier than your opinion its not science. So basically you're saying its your opinion its not science because you sure have no proof. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

 

[altdata]

You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant.

Statistics show big brained Whites and Far East Asians have the highest IQs. This has not news. For sometime there has been a PC movement to suppress that fact. In fact, in places it is illegal to breakdown IQ/performance data by race/ethnicity.

You evidently missed the memo that neanderthals are not humans and that IQ cannot be accurately measured. IQ is social construct made up so you can feel better about yourself.

IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

Okay, now we have clarified that you are among those who deny intelligence, sex, gender, ... are different between people/ races. Yes, you PC types claim everything is a social construct. Dogs can be Cats if they feel it.

For rational people, we can read the evidence. Take SAT tests that are broken down by race. Take reading comprehension, math, whatever.

National Center for Educational Statistics Data:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

 

[Asclepias]

You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant.

Statistics show big brained Whites and Far East Asians have the highest IQs. This has not news. For sometime there has been a PC movement to suppress that fact. In fact, in places it is illegal to breakdown IQ/performance data by race/ethnicity.

You evidently missed the memo that neanderthals are not humans and that IQ cannot be accurately measured. IQ is social construct made up so you can feel better about yourself.

IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

Okay, now we have clarified that you are among those who deny intelligence, sex, gender, ... are different between people/ races. Yes, you PC types claim everything is a social construct. Dogs can be Cats if they feel it.

For rational people, we can read the evidence. Take SAT tests that are broken down by race. Take reading comprehension, math, whatever.

National Center for Educational Statistics Data:
Fast Facts

We've only clarified that white people dont get to determine what intelligence is. Sorry bub. Other white people even agree with that sentiment.

 

[Yarddog]

I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today. I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people. I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.

This lady is an albino East Indian.

So is this family.

White Europeans 'only evolved 5,500 years ago after food habits changed'


There are other theories, anyway Albinism is a mutation that all races have.Its rare. Albinos are at a distinct disadvantage for survival. Your theory counters the evolutionary process. Why would a race Evolve TOWARDS a position of disadvantage? thats not the way it works. Its just aberrations and recessive genes.

Maybe you misunderstand my theory. I didnt say europeans evolved towards a position of disadvantage. Obviously europeans are no longer albinos but they do share some of the same traits. My theory is saying they evolved from albinos cast out from darker skin people in India and the middle east. This is due to the albinism trait in both groups being the same and the fact that the gene for light skin for europeans occurred in that part of the world as well. However, I appreciate you coming up with something other than "it just cant be so".

Ok, well you have a theory there but it is among others. Its true Albinos would have been shunned, and say they did travel north, well they would not be the only ones. Dark skinned peoples also traveled North as well at various periods in history, as others have noted here.

Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features. Change as the world evolves doesn't really happen in a straight line. To say that Albinos contributed to the " melting pot" would be true, but to think that they are somehow the KEY to why there are white people? No , I would strongly disagree with that, just from common sense. At least the way I see it.

I agree change does not always go in a straight line. However, in this case the dynamics are pretty compelling. I cant seem to find something that would definitely rule it out.

Can you elaborate on why you believe the following to be true?

"Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features."

Well some of that is in the article I posted. Moving North would mean less Vitamin D absorbed by the skin from sunlight. Skin would naturally lighten to allow more absorption. Then as the article noted, a shift to a farm based diet would also provide less vitamin D also giving more reason for lighter skin.

They would find different types of vegetables in their new lands as well, lots of root vegetables like turnips and such would give different concentrations of minerals. Maybe they would have to store food for winter and only eat certain foods during those periods. Over time, different minerals in the diet, i think would change peoples physique somewhat.

Just the way grain is harvested and milled makes a difference. The health differences between Wet milled and dry milled grain affects bone health
because of the acidity in dry milled . I don't have time to go into that right now because Im leaving but you can look it up.

 

[Syriusly]

No- your 'theory' is nothing more than your speculation. It makes 'sense' to you- because you have developed a whole story in your mind in how it happened.

The more conventional theory- i.e. widely accepted theory- is that a population of humans migrated to an area of less intense sunshine and that gradually they evolved/adapted to the conditions of their new climate.

You want to assume that there was a sudden mutation among a group of proto-caucasoids and that they became 'outcasts'.

Why you want to make that assumption- I have no idea- but it isn't supported by any known science.

I am not making an assumption that there was a sudden mutation. Scientific facts that I have posted says there was a sudden mutation. Thats the whole meaning of a mutation. It just happens. You are correct that its more speculation but its speculation based on genetic and historical facts. The genetics is self evident. There is no arguing that. The historical facts are also irrefutable. People have long thought albinos were evil or diseased. Anyone understanding human nature would see that

Your conventional theory has been debunked due to this new information as a I pointed out. Indias climate is not much different than Africas and thats where the mutation occurred. There is no proof environment caused the mutation. It was always just a theory. Now we have proof that theory was wrong. I dont want to assume anything. If I wanted to assume something I would have just done that and not started the thread. I was looking for intelligent input as to what other people thought based on facts.

No- we don't 'have proof' that that theory is wrong.

Based upon the facts there is absolutely no evidence that Caucasians are any more 'descended' from albino's than any other group of human beings.

Yes there is proof as I posted. The gene for light skin arose in an area that is just as hot as Africa. If the "conventional" theory was correct then they would have found that the gene would have appeared in the north pole first. Do you understand what I am saying?

You are saying you believe that humans were at the North pole 10 or 20,000 years ago.

Which makes as much sense as any of your other theories.

I guess I asked for that. My point is that the gene would have occurred in a colder climate than India or the middle east.

Cold has nothing to do with the issue.

It is all about exposure to sunlight. The farther from the equator, the less sunlight exposure there is.

The best theory I have seen about how light skin became a competitive advantage for populations further north has to do with how sunlight works with I believe folates in reproduction- lower melanin at higher latitudes gave a reproductive advantage.

 

[Syriusly]

No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.

and, there are white people that are albinos, so this is a logical failure.

East Indians came from Africa so no this isnt a logical failure. Its already been proven that the gene for light skin arose in India. You do realize 2 albiinos can have a child that isnt a albino if the 2 parents have different types of albinism? Of course white people can have albinos. Every race can. The most common type of albinism is OCA2 and people from Africa have it more than anyone else. OCA1 occurs predominately among whites and east indians. Coincidence?


Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

Looking at your article again- let me quote you from the actual article you cite- rather than your interpretation of it.

They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.


Penn State College of Medicine's Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin colour in Europeans and differs from West Africans

They discovered that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code.

According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

The pattern of people with this lighter skin colour mutation suggests that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

Now lets look at a map of Africa and the Middle East- and the Indian Subcontinent.

'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent- Iran- Afghanistan- Pakistan- all North of of most of Africa. All receiving less sunlight than anyone in Sudan or Kenya.

Using your own map Egypt to Sudan down to Ethiopia is right in line with the middle east and the Indian subcontinent. Egypt receives the 3rd most sunlight of any spot on earth. BTW Yuma AZ receives more sunlight than any spot on earth. Basically it doesnt work like you are implying. The amount of sunshine varies within places. Parts of India and the middle east for example gets roughly the same amount of sunshine that places in Africa do.

'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent'- not 'in the Indian subcontinent'.

If you look at the native populations of Africa, what we consider to be modern 'Negroes' were located in the Sub-Sahara- along the north of Africa were darker skin- but not black - non-negroes- such a Berbers- and frankly even Ethiopeans. Modern humans originated further south in Africa and migrated north- again looking at latititudes- the northern most part of Egypt is the same latitude as the southern tip of Iraq, and the southern quarter of Iran, and south of almost all of Afghanistan.

Sure- the amount of sunshine varies by many things- climate and elevation among them- but latitude is the primary component.

 

[Asclepias]

No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.

and, there are white people that are albinos, so this is a logical failure.

East Indians came from Africa so no this isnt a logical failure. Its already been proven that the gene for light skin arose in India. You do realize 2 albiinos can have a child that isnt a albino if the 2 parents have different types of albinism? Of course white people can have albinos. Every race can. The most common type of albinism is OCA2 and people from Africa have it more than anyone else. OCA1 occurs predominately among whites and east indians. Coincidence?


Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

Looking at your article again- let me quote you from the actual article you cite- rather than your interpretation of it.

They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together.

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.


Penn State College of Medicine's Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin colour in Europeans and differs from West Africans

They discovered that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code.

According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

The pattern of people with this lighter skin colour mutation suggests that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent.

Now lets look at a map of Africa and the Middle East- and the Indian Subcontinent.

'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent- Iran- Afghanistan- Pakistan- all North of of most of Africa. All receiving less sunlight than anyone in Sudan or Kenya.

Using your own map Egypt to Sudan down to Ethiopia is right in line with the middle east and the Indian subcontinent. Egypt receives the 3rd most sunlight of any spot on earth. BTW Yuma AZ receives more sunlight than any spot on earth. Basically it doesnt work like you are implying. The amount of sunshine varies within places. Parts of India and the middle east for example gets roughly the same amount of sunshine that places in Africa do.

'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent'- not 'in the Indian subcontinent'.

If you look at the native populations of Africa, what we consider to be modern 'Negroes' were located in the Sub-Sahara- along the north of Africa were darker skin- but not black - non-negroes- such a Berbers- and frankly even Ethiopeans. Modern humans originated further south in Africa and migrated north- again looking at latititudes- the northern most part of Egypt is the same latitude as the southern tip of Iraq, and the southern quarter of Iran, and south of almost all of Afghanistan.

Sure- the amount of sunshine varies by many things- climate and elevation among them- but latitude is the primary component.

I saw several "buzz words" in your post. What "we" consider to be "modern Negroes" has nothing to do with "sub-sahara". Those are outdated white boy concepts trying to separate the continent of Africa. There was no magical wall keeping people from southern Africa from migrating north. Matter of fact the Nile river runs down into central Africa and provides the same highway that has been proven all humans have traditionally used to move about. Also you are wrong. Ethiopians/Eritreans are "Negroes". This is an Ethiopian lady from the Hamer tribe.

 

[altdata]

We've only clarified that white people dont get to determine what intelligence is. Sorry bub. Other white people even agree with that sentiment.

Every race has an input on the composition of SAT tests. In fact, they have bent over backwards for the last 50 years to increase non-White scores ... without success.

The psychology of your "social construct" position is that people who perform poorly by any given criteria, reject that criteria.

- Fat people don't like to be judged by BMI.
- Non athletic people don't like to be judged by athletic performance.
- Ugly people don't like to be judged by beauty.
- Low IQ people don't like to be judged on problem solving.
- ...

The reality is, IQ is the key metric of success, as the 1st world demonstrates.

 

[altdata]

Nothing is funnier than your opinion its not science. So basically you're saying its your opinion its not science because you sure have no proof. You're entitled to your wrong opinion.

I'm saying it is opinion or an unproven hypothesis, because they provide no proof and use ambiguous language. Even they don't seem to consider it proven, only you do.

It is just a sensational title from a British tabloid to get people to hit their page and view their ads.