These are well thought out arguments. I will make a good effort to address them.
1. In my thread, I admitted that there are some scientists who do not fit that phenotype. However, it is clear that they are very much in the minority.
2. My thread is still in progress. More examples and information to come.
3. I mentioned Marie Curie in the thread. It's obvious that you did not read it, or only skimmed it very briefly.
Again, you trying to find four or five people who go against your phenotype theory doesn't mean anything. You also REALLY push the envelope for who fits and who doesn't.
Marie Curie, for example, THIS is all you had to say:
1) I'm not sure if many people would call her "masculine" especially when she was pretty fashionable for her time period. She really doesn't have many "masculine" features.
2) her skull isn't that huge... in fact, if you were to shave her head, her skull would have been pretty average sized.
See? Not that big.
In fact, when I read all the people you've listed... only a handful seem to have a larger than average skull...
And when you look at a lot of other female "geniuses" most of them are very feminine and pretty and have normal sized skulls as well.
What I'm getting at is this: I think your theory is very .... nitpicked.
You say this genius and this genius and that genius have this phenotype, so all geniuses must have that phenotype. You do allow for some outliers, which is far more than what someone like Holden allows for, so I appreciate that.
But big skull and genius aren't necessarily factors that influence each other. It's like this; Icecream sales go up in the summer, this is a well known fact, Crime also goes up in the summer.... obviously this means that Icecream sales are causing the crime to go up right? Wrong, there's a plethora of different reasons why icecream sales go up in the summer (heat) and why crime would also raise (heat, people on vacations and out of home, etc). I feel like some geniuses having a certain phenotype does not mean their skull shape or physical features influenced their IQ or logistics.
You said "Our species" = humans. Homo Sapiens. A good example of genetic degradation was the transition from Homo neanderthalensis to Homo sapiens."
I also don't understand this quote and the article you linked about neanderthals and homo sapians... We didn't directly descend from them... so how is that a genetic degradation?
I'm also interested in learning why you feel it's better for race to breed within its own race when there is ample evidence to show that this causes genetic problems as recessive genes cannot be "overridden". I get that it sucks that one day red heads and blue eyes will be gone with the dodo bird... but so will some diseases (hopefully). It's been shown in dogs and cats and tons of other animals. Mutts are a crap ton healthier than the purebreeds. Why do you feel that mixing races is a bad idea?
