Are Asians/whites more evolved?

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 68
Next Last
Jake

San Antonio, TX

#1 Sep 18, 2007
This will be a controversial topic--but do any of you believe that the fact that what became Asian and white populations are more evolved than ones who stayed in Africa?

Would it not be far fetched for one to surmise that traveling by foot thousands of miles over hundreds of years and being faced with various obstacles and challenges that one had to adapt to would over time cause a trend in increased intelligence?

It cannot be denied that those originating from Europe (and Asian) have been responsible for much of what makes modern life modern. I mean, it's just a fact.

Furthermore, why are white and Asian skulls flatter with more pronounced features and larger brain capacities (less similar to ancient ancestors)?

I'm not arguing that there aren't some highly intelligent people of African descent--there are. But overwhelmingly, these observations I think hold some truth.

Thoughts? Opinions?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#2 Sep 19, 2007
Look, if you WANT to try to justify your prejudices, don't look to _science_ for your "reasons".

Just do what many other believers do--just _assume_ your prejudices are correct, based on faith alone.

Why go looking for justification for your petty small-minded thinking? You're just going to believe it anyway....

But if you look at _scientific_ evidence, you _may_ find that your pet petty thoughts are--- inconceivably incorrect.
Christopher

San Antonio, TX

#3 Sep 19, 2007
How can I be racist when I myself am black? I'm asking a serious question here and need a serious answer without all the PC bs.

Would it not be scientifically plausible to surmise that the bell curve distribution observed among different races is accurate? And that the movement of a given population in conjunction with exposure to different environmental elements would ultimately result in higher spacial capacity?

I don't think these are "racist" questions at all.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#4 Sep 19, 2007
Christopher wrote:
How can I be racist when I myself am black? I'm asking a serious question here and need a serious answer without all the PC bs.
Would it not be scientifically plausible to surmise that the bell curve distribution observed among different races is accurate? And that the movement of a given population in conjunction with exposure to different environmental elements would ultimately result in higher spacial capacity?
I don't think these are "racist" questions at all.
Why would one population's movement into different environment cause "advanced evolution" and the population that stays behind remain static?

The group that stayed in Africa would continue to face evolutionary pressure just as much as a group that left and went north.

The pressures are different, true, and clearly lead to some differentiation: lighter skin as a response to lower levels of sunlight. Migration of subcutaneous fat storage from hips and behind, to more general body distribution, in response to colder climates.

One set of physiology is not "superior" to another-- each has advantages AND disadvantages to the individual.

To imply one is somehow "superior" or "more evolved" is stepping out of the realm of science, and firmly into the realm of subjective judgment.

Neither is "more evolved" than the other-- both groups are evolved.

A scientist would not speak of "more evolved" as "more superior" or "better".

To a scientist, "more evolved" simply means there are more changes/mutations in a particular line of organisms, when compared to an ancestorial one.

It's not a measure of quality-- must be a measure of quantity.
Christopher

San Antonio, TX

#5 Sep 19, 2007
Well, why then do most blacks demonstrate a more "primitive" skull shape--with noticeable prognathism, whereas white and Asian skulls are flatter and less similar to our common ancestors?

I know this sounds bad...I'm not trying to make it racial. I just cannot overlook the reality that blacks have contributed very little to modern society and continue to demonstrate inferior intellectual capabilities.

Ask yourself this: computers, automobiles, and other technologies were created by whites. They didn't have teachers or past experience with such complex systems--they merely created them. I think that says a lot.

Of course you have blacks like myself, which are a minority. But there seems to be far more "naturally" intelligent white and Asians than there are blacks.

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

San Bernardino, CA

#6 Sep 19, 2007
I think Bob of Quantum Faith's answer still applies.

I'm afraid that I have to dissagree with the concept of natural intellegence. I could come up with a whole host of reasons other than natural intelegence for why groups of blacks are underachievers. I also fear that you have some misunderstandings about how technology advances. While we as a society place a great deal of importance in Inventors, I think that you will find many people in the background.

I also think that you'll find intellegence has less to do with sucess than dilligence does. It's not how smart you are, but how hard you work (mostly).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#7 Sep 19, 2007
I should be pointed out, that the basic level of _raw_intelligence_ has not change all that much, in homo sapiens (all humans) in the past 10,000 years or so.

The amount of sheer _knowledge_, certainly. That is growing exponentially.

But raw "IQ"... pretty much the same general level across the board.

When so-called IQ tests are adjusted for language appropriate to the group being studied, you get the same results.

That is, the average IQ seems to be the same, no matter which race or culture you measure.

Superficial things like skull shape or facial features or skin color are just that: superficial.

If you want to "blame" something for the differences in lifestyles of the different continents, look at the basic cultures, instead of the physical attributes of race.

You could also look at how easy (or hard) it is to eckk out a living in the various ecosystems of the world.

The easier it is, the less reason a give culture has to seek innovations. For example, look at some of the primitive south sea human cultures. Their lifestyles are often quite simple; without a great deal of need to work hard to provide the basics: food and shelter. No need for complex shelters, either; weather is always mild.

Africa shares some of the same conditions: mild weather (or at least, no freezing weather). Prior to the current high population levels, "making a living" was not as difficult a task as in climates that had frozen-water temperatures. One did not need to worry about storing up for winter, etc.

Contrast to northern climates: frozen water temperatures would eliminate year-round plant harvesting. Any group of primitive humans would need to plan ahead for these conditions, or else revert to hunting-only. A hunting-only type of culture is more risky, and more likely to face starvation.

Innovation would be _quite_ useful, under these conditions; both in hunting AND in food storage.

But, you can't _store_ food, if you don't _have_ extra food _to_ store.

So, a group cannot simply depend on "wild" plants-- there aren't enough, what with animals eating them, too.

Innovation in planting would be an advantage.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

It has _nothing_whatsoever_ to do with the degree to which a group has _evolved_.

It has everything to do with the environment, and the culture that that environment causes to come into being.

One way is not "superior" to another; just different.

Indeed: had humankind stayed in Africa, we'd likely only be a few million strong, and NOT be facing the ecological mess that our technology has helped us create...

But, lest you think I'm a luddite, I'm not-- I LIKE technology.

I just hope we develop some, soon enough, to help us get _off_ this dirtball, before we foul it to the point of unlivibility.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#8 Sep 20, 2007
As for why some populations advanced more technologically than others, you should read Jerad Diamond's "Guns, Germs and Steel". He makes a very good case that the reasons are geographical, not biological.

For example, Europeans had access to more and better work animals, more and better crops. That boost in initial conditions, along with some other factors, allowed Europeans to develop technology faster.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#9 Sep 20, 2007
You are making some broad assumptions here and it hurts your arguement.

1st assumption: The people which left Africa continued to evolve while those that stayed behind did not.

Northern populations evolved lighter skin to make up for loss of Vitamin D due to weaker sun. The result is skin cancer.

Southern population evolved the resessive sickle cell gene which provide immunity to malaria. The result is an increase in anemia.

Both groups are evolving advantages (and disadvantages) constantly. Further, both groups are interbreeding and exchanging genes to such a degree that they can truly be considered different "groups" at all.

2nd assumption: The advantages Northern people have seen historically is indicative of some sort of genetic superiority.

This is false. Northern people have had 3 very distinct advantages - animals, disease, geography.

Certain animals have proven domesticatable. Others have not. If you happen to live someplace which has horses, sheep, goats, pigs, camels, cows, etc. you have a huge advantage (militarily and economically) over someone who does not have these.

Disease - this sounds like it would be a disadvantage, but that's a simplistic view. Domestication of animals yeilds aggriculture, which in turn yeilds larger, closer populations. Big populations allow for diseases. Those that survive the diseases are better able to handle them in the future.

So, which the disease resistant group (let's call them Spaniards) runs into the non-resistant group (let's call them Native Americans), we see a massive death toll on the non-resist side. This is a HUGE military advantage. Just ask the Aztecs.

Geographically, Europe and Asia are oriented W-E whereas Africa is oriented N-S. What these means is, farmers in Germany are at the same latitude and experience the same seasons as farmers in Russia. Where as farmers in South Africa and farmers in Kenya experience very different seasons.

The Northern groups can exchange crops and technology whereas the southern groups can not.

Basically, if you took the same populations and simply switched their locations, the group in the N would come out on top once again.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#10 Sep 20, 2007
Christopher wrote:
Well, why then do most blacks demonstrate a more "primitive" skull shape--with noticeable prognathism, whereas white and Asian skulls are flatter and less similar to our common ancestors?
I know this sounds bad...I'm not trying to make it racial. I just cannot overlook the reality that blacks have contributed very little to modern society and continue to demonstrate inferior intellectual capabilities.
Ask yourself this: computers, automobiles, and other technologies were created by whites. They didn't have teachers or past experience with such complex systems--they merely created them. I think that says a lot.
Of course you have blacks like myself, which are a minority. But there seems to be far more "naturally" intelligent white and Asians than there are blacks.
WOW! Just wow.

Dude, I don't know where you are getting your information, but you are completely wrong across the board.

First of all, African skulls do not show "prognathism" this is a myth perpetrated by a single racist ethnographer who drew (not photographed) skulls. He let his prejudices dictate his findings. Much like you are drawing conclusions based on your own overt racism.

I won't even address your astounding lack of understanding of both history and technology other than to say this: People didn't wish computers and automobiles out of the air, they deveoloped them from earier technologies. Read a history book, see what was going on when these super smart whites were mired in the dark ages.

Lastly, much of what you are talking about related to events in America (computers, cars,etc). Why? The "black" population in America is hardly a pure population. A couple centuries of rape at the hands of slave owners tends to do that.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#11 Sep 20, 2007
It reminds me of a (sarcastic) comment made by someone about 30 years ago...

It went something like: The people we mistreat, and don't educate, exhibit much criminal behavior. We think this is due to the shape of their skulls...

“we do sarcasm and irony here”

Since: Aug 07

San Bernardino, CA

#12 Sep 20, 2007
Fossil Bob wrote:
It reminds me of a (sarcastic) comment made by someone about 30 years ago...
It went something like: The people we mistreat, and don't educate, exhibit much criminal behavior. We think this is due to the shape of their skulls...
Gawd thats good.
Christopher

San Antonio, TX

#13 Sep 20, 2007
How the hell can I be a racist when I myself am black. I'm just trying to find out why Asians and whites are at the top of social ladder (in which social status is directly correlated to intelligence).

Damn.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#14 Sep 20, 2007
Christopher wrote:
How the hell can I be a racist when I myself am black. I'm just trying to find out why Asians and whites are at the top of social ladder (in which social status is directly correlated to intelligence).
Damn.
But social status IS NOT directly correlated to intelligence.

If that WERE the case, Albert Einstein would've been the richest man on earth. Or Stephen Hawking.

Bill Gates is, however. Although he's bright, he's not THE brightest candle on the mantle-- not even the brightest at Microsoft, even.

No, social status is pretty much a function of your birth situation.

Even the "self made" millionaires had the luck to have had $$ opportunities at one or more points in their history.

This is not to discount entirely the efforts of these "self mades" but, the element of luck, involving the accident of one's birth plays a seriously major role, regarding social status.

(I arbitrarily chose income as a measure of social status. Obviously, there are other measures. Money is just easy to measure, is all.)

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#15 Sep 20, 2007
Christopher wrote:
How the hell can I be a racist when I myself am black. I'm just trying to find out why Asians and whites are at the top of social ladder (in which social status is directly correlated to intelligence).
Damn.
A person which believes that one "racial" group is inferior is racist. Being a member of that group is not a factor.
Monterrey ITESM

United States

#16 Nov 1, 2007
I don't agree with "Bob of Quantum-Faith" when he states "The group that stayed in Africa would continue to face evolutionary pressure just as much as a group that left and went north." Clearly a species in equilibrium with its environment will not evolve as rapidly as a species that is introduced into a new environment. Think about it, alligators have been around for 450 million years and have changed little since they have been perfectly adapted to their environment. It is clear that not all species feel the same evolutionary pressures from nature. Cold weather of Europe acted like a good filter to weed out those who did not have the mental capacity for "delayed gratification" - something that takes intelligence.
Falasha

Poulsbo, WA

#17 Nov 1, 2007
Christopher: Don't believe you are black. If you were you would know that Egyptians had a very high civilization that created writing, agriculture, and built temples that we STILL can't figure out today how they were built.

Also, you would realize that ALL western civilizations are built on the back of African civilizations.
maria

Fredericksburg, VA

#18 Nov 6, 2007
falasha- thank you. Christopher- I don't think you're black either. But regardless self-hate is not exclusive to white computer geeks trying to bolster their own insecurities by regurgitating crap taken out of context. Instead of asking these questions Why don't you focus your attention on what made you a closet racist.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#19 Nov 6, 2007
Monterrey ITESM wrote:
...Think about it, alligators have been around for 450 million years and have changed little since they have been perfectly adapted to their environment...
First of all, alligators have changed quite a bit. Look at at the alligators that were around 450 million years ago. They certainly aren't the nile croc and kamens of today.

Secondly, your point makes the assumption that people are "perfectly adapted" to the environment in Africa.

People are "perfectly adapted" to any place. That's why we have tools. The people in Africa face starvation, predation, disease, etc just like people that left Africa.
Monterrey ITESM

Moraga, CA

#20 Nov 6, 2007
I would like to know why there is no first world, stable, black, democracy anywhere in the world.

You cannot claim blacks are soley victims of slavery, poverty, etc since many of their same behaviours exist in Africa proper.

At one time, the whole world was poor and uneducated and still, some groups of people were able to pull themselves out that.

I still think that the winters of northern Europe were a determining factor that forced evolution of the people that lived there. Either you evolved by creating shelter, storing food, etc or you died. I cannot think of a better evolutionary filter.

Most of the worlds industrial centers lie away from the equator. Interesting.....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 68
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 7 min replaytime 120,872
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 15 min DanFromSmithville 709
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 2 hr woodtick57 373
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 10 hr Dogen 138,177
Darwin on the rocks 12 hr The Dude 358
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE