No.  Civilization building is highly dependent on circumstance and environment.  Natural resources, periods of stability, and climate are all important factors.  Civilizations developing within rain forests, for example, is very rare, as they typically lack the raw materials to create safe, long-standing structures and proper tools.  Proper roads are difficult to create.  There is very little need to move away from the hunter-gatherer system, though doing so is often the beginning of the structure needed to advance.  Wet environments are not nearly as viable for record-keeping as dry environments and so systems of writing rarely develop.

There are a LOT of factors that can push or hold back the development of civilization.  The conditions have to be just right.

Wouldn't it just be wrong? Wouldn't they fit in with Mediterrean or Arab more than African? I don't think racism has a part in it.

Well, if you're judging ancient African cultures based on European standards, they're obvious going to come out as inferior.  My advice would be to simply let people be wrong on the internet.

What study was this?  How is intelligence defined? Is this pertaining to the US, Europe, Asia, or globally?   I'm not aware of any study that shows this. 

Egypt is part of Africa and before it was overrun by Arabs it used to have a very close relation with countries South of its border.

That doen't mean much but Arabs were confined to Arabian Peninsula mostly before the appearance of Islamism.

No, Romans constantly refer to ancient Egyptians as being a lot darker than the Roman somatic norm. Some Romans (Diodorus Siculus for example) claimed ancient Egyptians were colonists from Ethiopia. 

Romans didn't think of themselves as "white" either, but as "palebrown". They detested people with fair skin like the Gauls, Scythians, etc.

There's also enough scientific evidence that Egypt was an African kingdom (language, dna, etc)

Musa I of the Mali Empire was so wealthy when he took his pilgrimage to Mecca he affected the economies of every city he passed with his gold.  Imagine in 1300s roughly 60K procession in your town for a time and then leaving. Be pretty awe inspiring to me.

I didn't know that. History and ancient civilizations fascinate me.

Before you possibly come up with a rather stupid argument, maybe you should really first think about the psychological side of all this.

The first question is: Why is this person claiming this, what is his personal motivation?  A person claiming something like this is usually trying to boost his own feeling of self-worth by bashing others. He's probably not very confident of his own intelligence, so he tells himself, hey, at least I'm still more intelligent than all those black guys! Of course, that's just something he likes to read into the statistics, it could very well be that he is in fact more stupid than 99% of all blacks,

But the other question is: Why do you even care? Why do feel this strong need to debunk him, even though you don't even know how? I think the most mature reaction would be to simply not react and instead understand that this is a poor guy who must boost his own self-worth by bashing others. You seem to feel personally hurt, which is ridiculous.

Now for the actual topic. The problem is: Statistically, there is a certain truth to what he says. In intelligence tests, blacks tend to perform slightly under-average. Jews on the other hand for example tend to perform slightly above average. But those are just statistical average numbers with absolutely no informative value for individual cases.

In practice, the main reason why some groups tend to perform slightly above or below average isn't because they were genetically born more or less intelligent, but because of social class etc. On statistical average, jews for example are somewhat more wealthy and simply receive better education. Many black families on the other hand are so poor that they simply cannot afford better education.

So it is actually correct that statistically, blacks perform slightly under-average in intelligence tests. But a person who seems to be taking satisfaction at this is actually just feeling happy about still ongoing effects of century-long discrimination against black people.

There is one chief difference between superior and inferior peoples. von Mises explained this 60+ years ago:

"If the Asiatics and Africans really enter into the orbit of Western civili-
zation, they will have to adopt the market economy without reservations.
Then their masses will rise above their present proletarian wretchedness and
practice birth control as it is practiced in every capitalistic country. No
excessive growth of population will longer hinder the improvement in the
standards of living. But if the oriental peoples in the future confine them-
selves to mechanical reception of the tangible achievements of the West
without embracing its basic philosophy and social ideologies, they will
forever remain in their present state of inferiority and destitution. Their
populations may increase considerably, but they will not raise themselves
above distress. These miserable masses of paupers will certainly not be a
serious menace to the independence of the Western nations. As long as there
is a need for weapons, the entrepreneurs of the market society will never
stop producing more efficient weapons and thus securing to their country-
men a superiority of equipment over the merely imitative noncapitalistic
Orientals. The military events of both World Wars have proved anew that
the capitalistic countries are paramount also in armaments production. No
foreign aggressor can destroy capitalist civilization if it does not destroy
itself. Where capitalistic entrepreneurship is allowed to function freely, the
fighting forces will always be so well equipped that the biggest armies of
the backward peoples will be no match for them. There has even been great
exaggeration of the danger of making the formulas for manufacturing “secret”
weapons universally known. If war comes again, the searching
mind of the capitalistic world will always have a head start on the peoples
who merely copy and imitate clumsily.
The peoples who have developed the system of the market economy and
cling to it are in every respect superior to all other peoples. The fact that they
are eager to preserve peace is not a mark of their weakness and inability to
wage war. They love peace because they know that armed conflicts are
pernicious and disintegrate the social division of labor. But if war becomes
unavoidable, they show their superior efficiency in military affairs too. They
repel the barbarian aggressors whatever their numbers may be."