Re: Is the black race/culture under evolved (NON RACIST THREAD)?

þus cwæð Ray Martinez:
On Jun 11, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
jgris...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Jun 10, 8:36 pm, Artificer <eliezerfigue...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As far as I know there are not "black" highly developed countries.
I mean countries like the USA, Japan or Europe but where the
primary race is black. Somebody told that this is prove that white
and yellow races are far more evolved.

My personal opinion is that the reason for these phenomena is more
historical than evolution related.

Anybody could please contribute with NON RACIST information in
favor or against this theory. I really will like to make an
intelligent discussion out of this!

Clearly, the adaptation of darker skin pigment and the adaptation of
the eyelid against glare are significant evolutionary advancements
in human biology. These are the qualities of a more evolved human
than the Asian and White "races". But, as a consequence of being
better adapted to their environment, Blacks don't have the same
needs for clothing to protect their skin from the sun or hats to
protect their eyes from glare, so no significant need to originate
a textile industry. Asians and whites have adapted their cultures
to deal with their biological shortcomings and having found ways to
overcome their shortcomings, they have learned to be inventive in
many other ways. Africans are better adapted to the environment,
therefore the need to be inventive is greatly reduced. Biological
evolution is not equal to industrial developement.

Nobody can fit more errors into a single paragraph than Grisham.

Dark skin has evolved many times in human populations and so has
light skin, in response to particular environments. Dark skin works
better in the tropics, light away from the tropics. Both are
selected in their own environments and neither can be said to be
more "advanced". If we all accept that we came from Africa, then
it's probably that dark skin was the original human condition.
SNIP...


Imagine that; a man with a degree in evolutionary biology hiding
behind "science" and saying that human beings began in Africa after
evolving from a quasi Stone Age hybrid ape-man freak.

This is your racist brain on evolution.

Whoa back there, Tonto. The only possible way John's statement could be
construed as racist would be if somebody thought 'white' skinned people more
advanced, more 'evolved' than 'black' skinned people. Do you think that? I
don't. I'm pretty damn sure John doesn't either. In fact he specifically
denies it in the quote above. (I know some Southern Baptists who do think
that, but they generally reject evolution anyway, and just think God created
white folks better).

Here's a thing. Many people in India have very dark skin, yet some of their
ancestors, the peoples who brought Indo-European language to India, were
very likely as 'white' as the average Norwegian. So, here we have dark
skinned people evolving, if you like, from lighter skinned people. Tell me
again why evolution is racist, and is it still racist if turns out that
modern humans arose in China and not Africa?
Hey - if Adam and Eve were black, is Genesis racist?


.

Relevant Pages