Yes: You made the erroneous claim that Native Americans domesticated dogs. I corrected your error by pointing out that dogs were domesticated prior to the arrival of humans in the Americas. Thus, knowledge is not evenly distributed.

"I meant intelligence, not knowledge," you counter, to which I retort: The idea that intelligence is evenly distributed among populations has been soundly refuted. There are demonstrable differences in every metric of intelligence thus far devised both between and within populations. Incidentally, intelligence by itself is not sufficient for colonialism. The Han Chinese typically score higher on IQ tests than Europeans, and yet it was the latter that conquered the world, not the former. "You're proving my point!" you protest - I never made the claim that Europeans conquered the world due to their intelligence, I rejected the notion that this had anything to do with luck, because it kept occurring over the course of dozens of geographies and hundreds of years.

Let's suppose it was luck. Do you have this luck? Can I see it, have it defined? What would it mean for Europeans to have conquered the world by means of luck? Does it manifest out a magical aether like the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow?