whites more evolved?

I was laying in bed last night, and a thought occured to me. Are white people

more evolved than black people? Or are black people the stronger race?

Please give me your opinions, and any facts you may have on this.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well... if you are talking just about their skin color, then the black are more evolved. The whites are just too weak with sunlight - they need to be more careful.

If you are speaking of a matter of intelligence and this kind of stuff... then I guess this would be just racism...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh crap, not again.

White people are white because as humans moved to norther latitudes, the melanin blocks the sunlight needed for vitamin D synthesis.

Groups of Homo Sapiens that have been in more southern climates in recent geological time have adapted to the higher number of sunny days a year, and increased intensity of sunlight in lower latitudes. There is plenty of strong light for vitamin D synthesis, and the melanin is necessary to protect the skin from sunburn.

There has been no proven correlation between intelligence and the skins melanin content (or lack thereof).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

he's speaking about the skin repo man dont you get anything
in your thick scull inteligence



Philosopher Philocrazy

 

OverTheStars (quote)
I was laying in bed last night, and a thought occured to me. Are white people

more evolved than black people? Or are black people the stronger race?

Please give me your opinions, and any facts you may have on this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Miss overthestars i am Philosopher Philocrazy may i answear
thank you, listen how do you like the facts, western,eastern,
etc cause the facts are so widespread over the moon
basicly you do like to feel superior to yourself dont you
yes yes yes but yourself is not black people you see, you
have to find out for youself,please say to your friends that the
great Philosopher Philocrazy gave you a nice philosophical
answear on this thought

Philosopher Philocrazy

 

here we go, social darwinism all over again

 

What is it about this kind of topic that seems to get lots of people saying "Hey, I'm mad and ignorant"

 

You know what? Never mind! Close this damn thread, it was a pretty simple question, and everyone seems to be having problems understanding it. I'm not talking about skin color at all.

 

"You know what? Never mind! Close this damn thread, it was a pretty simple question, and everyone seems to be having problems understanding it. I'm not talking about skin color at all."


What were you talking about? Intelectual strength, athletic strength, immune system strenth, cultural superiority? I assume you are a racist; but that does not mean that anti-racists are well served by ducking your question or ridiculing your question.

Keep in mind that England and Germany were far more primative and backwards than most of the world as recently as 2000 years ago. People in Papua New Guinea have gone from stone age to space age in one generation. So don't think that the temporary state of a peoples culture is any reflection on genetic superiority or inferiority.

Child abuse is past down through families. Certain social disfunctions caused by slavery and racism may be passed down through the families that were victims of those situations even after racism has ended. Racism has not ended yet. American whites do not know how being black in America can still screw with a person. So if many American blacks are not yet able to compete equally in the economy, don't judge the African races for that. If American blacks had achieved equality already despite what their families had gone through, then we would have had proof that blacks were superior to whites.

Beware of junk science on all issues that are emotionally charged.

 

Racism (or at least willingness to consider differences in race) does not equal immaturity, ignorance, shallowness, or unobjectivity.

In fact refusal to face the possibility demonstrates these things just as well as some redneck idiot who hates himself and tries to constantly attack black people to feel better.

All poorly reasoned arguments against race even existing aside, let me ask a question here. If it were THE TRUTH, undeniable reality that one race was in general more intelligent than another would most members of the less intelligent race be able to deal with it? Probably not in this day and age.

But to answer the posters question, I think that the real problem with trying to determine this is that the question involves an invalid implied part of the definition of superiority. It implies that one race would be better at everything than the other.

There is no one design of a human being that would allow them to succeed in every goal. Right now we don't even know what intelligence really is, yet we are running around trying to determine who has more of it. We do for silly human emotional reasons. In reality intelligence handicaps of a certain race might be easily dealt with by some kind of drug, or one day we might discover that what we previously considered intelligence (perhaps the speed of which are unconsious mind removes invalid relations) is no longer relevant in the face of some new logic system which allows us to never create invalid relations to begin with. (less use of metaphors, similies, and other methods of forming implied definitions)

In the meantime it might be that intelligence is on a scale that on one side contains total lack of emotion yet high intelligence and the other low intelligence but very strong emotion. You can't really say one side is better than the other in such a case. The point being it is certainly nothing to worry about until we know what intelligence really is.

 

I agree with Repo Man, and would like to add that there is no such thing as race, all Caucasoids and Negroids and Mongloids are of the same species - Homo Sapiens. how could we define "race", there is no such thing as "pure race". and people in different regions of the planet possess those unique physical traits for their unique geographic reasons. we are all equally evolved, to the geographic region we live in.

 

i don't think that the question had anything to do with prejudice or racism. i think that the people who brought it up as such could quite possibly be prejudice or racism, as they say, "it takes one to know one" the original question was simply a question and if we, as humans(not black or white or any other color) can't look at an innocent question without flaring anger and resentment how are we going to create a world where we can live in peace.

she asked for an opinion and here's mine.

this is from a western civ class that i took a few semesters ago:
in the beginning all humans were black, when they started to migrate they had to adapt to variations in the sunlight and so some become white as they moved further away from the equator and some grew darker as they moved closer so that their skin would protect them. as for the more evolved, you would have to assume that white people had to evolve further, if you consider the fact that their skin changed from black to white evolution. now in no way is that prejudiced or racial, it's science whether or not you choose to believe it is your problem not mine. as for intelligence, that is in an individual trait, it can be passed on through the parents or a person can make themselves intelligent. it is believed that a person can only get so far in intelligence though and that peak is afforded by genetics.

as for everyone who got angry and mad, you do have to realize that the entire question revolved around one thing. OPINION. not fact.

 

OverTheStars
good on you for posting in the human science thread, but you did not escape the loonies

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

guthrie put it soo well

basicly to answer your question , it has been almost answered above,
but, because of the huge inequality of living conditions and wars different cultures have developed at different rates and in ways that has been determined by the type of wars and the type of religions present in that country.

if you do a little cross comparrison of different ancient cultures you will see there is many varing types of intellegent evolution in some ways , but always has gone backwards with war.
where ever you have the most stable living conditions and peacefull society .. then there is where the greater amount of intellegence will be able to thrive and evolve.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Survival of the fittest, the white race is slowly becoming minority and dying out

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Interracial marriage/babies also adds to the extinction

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

OvertheStars, I've also wondered this myself, or at least if there is truth in racism. However, I quickly shun it because of what it has justified, and what it could. I am no advocate for racism. With that said, allow me to engage in some armchair exo-biology.

If natural selection, through the environment, caused a change in skin color (as stated numerously in this thread), could not it cause changes in behaviour and attitude?

For instance, domestic dogs are recognized as one species, yet there are many breeds. Some breeds are more loyal, some breeds smarter, faster, stronger, etc. The different breeds' characteristics have been brought about through both natural selection and human selection. Domestic dogs can and do breed with wolves, but any breeder will tell you that they have intrinsically different personalities.

It is also recognized that different groups of people have changed physically to suit their environs, and moreso than just skin color. Eskimos tend to put on weight quickly because of their harsh environs. Native Americans are more easily alcoholics, supposed because their genetic exposure to alcohol through agriculture has been much shorter than Westerners.

Since these environmental factors cause physical changes, it is not implausible to reason that different groups of people will exhibit different strength and weaknesses based on their ancestry.

However, there are multiple reasons for alcoholism, including a loss of cultural identity. A change in cultural values (traditionally subsistence lifestyle culture shocked with MaterialTV and gasoline) in small villages leads to boredom and depression. Boredom and depression are the harbingers of Jim Beam.

Progress, as measured by Americans and Westeners is generally dependent upon ability to wage war and economic superiority. The rate of agricultural discovery and accomplishment is dependent on environment, and ultimately the shape of the continent masses. The Old World had a lot more stuff to domesticate than the New, as well a larger, more hospitable biome. For a much better explanation, check out Jared Dimond's "Guns, Germs and Steel."

People are very complex, and denying an entire group of people rights or the chance at fair work and pay based soley on their ancestry is entirely unfair. Because of the millions of factors that play into our personalities, one is just as likely to find a greedy Christian as a greedy Jew, a lazy white vs a lazy Mexican, and so forth and so on.

Are whites more evolved? Are you asking if they are superior, and if so, in what context? Genetically, whites could be more evolved in several ways than say, New Zealanders, and vice versa. However, as evolution is entirely subjective to environment, racial "superiority" doesn't make much sense. Jesse Ownes outran Hitler's super-aryans.

And then, you're ignoring the nurture/society/culture part of one's personality.

 

If aliens or a Hitler or oligarchy decided to breed humans into a variety of strange and diverse breeds the way humans have breed dogs then I have no doubt they could create very real and obvious physical and psychological differences between the various breeds of humans. I don't see obvious psychological differences between the human races.

We take 12 years to reach breeding age and dogs take what, two years? Breeding humans would take longer.

 

In response to the original question: No.

 

whites are much stronger than blacks, in terms of physical strength. this is well known and has been proven in weight lifting, world's strongest man events, etc. The world's strongest man currently is a polish guy named Mariusz Pudzianowski.

http://www.pudzian.pl/

John Entine, a well known author on the subject, wrote "Whites of Eurasian ancestry...have stronger upper bodies."

http://www.jonentine.com/reviews/national_post_2001.htm

 

alexanderkarelin
your post made me think of the potential truth within your comment and i found that
what you have highlighted is evolution but not nessesarily equal to the concept of MORE evolved,
as it would be fair to use as a contrast the idea behind this concept.
1 it seems african men have ruled the marathons for a good length of time as far as consistantcy is concerned,
and one could summise this to be relative to selective breeding along with basic evolution.
2 whites as you use the term could be relative to central europe as an example and where modes of transport have been used in part of evolution through trade routes, selectively combined with the mediaval age where armour and sword use was seen to be a most desirable and potential evolutionary breeding goal.

so in genralised brief conclusion it would be fair to say that both have evolved, just in different ways, leaving the orriginal question still standing in question of terms and specifics.
without taking into effect the DE-Evolution of certain societys and cultures through war i suspect there is no real difference in human development once defined by genral terms where trade between cultures is established to be a fair point of intergration of localised knolledge.