This isnt meant to be racist or anything but speaking from a biology and evolution perspective. Are black people less evolved?
I mean in general their iq is lower the whites, more uncivilised from the crime rate and theres no denying in general they just look more like a homo erectus than a typical white guy.
Again this isnt meant to be racist but its a question that had me thinking
Yes
it goes
blacks < whites < asians < ashkenazi jews
Everything is equally evolved, from the lowest beetle to the smartest human.
If, however, you mean something along the lines of, "Have Africans genetically preserved an ancient phenotype?" then the answer is a resounding, "Probably."
Homo ergaster of 1.2 million years ago had exactly the same receptor protein as sub-Saharan Africans. In addition, computer calculations of what humans looked like 70,000 years ago (by analyzing skull structure, etc.) are virtually indistinguishable from modern-day Africans. There are two pieces of a vast and growing body of evidence in the same direction.
So if an African gentleman tells you he's "more human" than Europeans, he may be onto something, however unaware of the implications of that claim.
Do you mean genetic distance?
If so, yes.
ah thats very intresting thanks. Im curious if the iq is just because of the african environment like living in mud huts they are bound to have a lower average iq than a white guy in europe. Or if biologically their brain is simply less advanced from whites evolving "faster"
>theres no denying in general they just look more like a homo erectus than a typical white guy.
Doesn't that depend on the specimen?
>are virtually indistinguishable from modern-day Africans
You kinda have to be a little more specific about "modern day African"
well in general you can kind of visualise the average black mans face and compare it with the typical homoerectus. It would look alot closer than if you compared the average white face to a homoerectus
>I mean in general their iq is lower the whites, more uncivilised from the crime rate
There are a lot of factors that go into intelligence and crime, like education, poverty, discrimination, culture, and so on.
>This isnt meant to be racist or anything but
Shut up you thread baiting retard.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" just preservation of older dna by x amount.
>I mean in general their iq is lower the whites
There are several central asian ethnic populations with IQs in the 80's.
There are at least two Russian ethnic populations with IQs in the 70's.
Aboriginal Australians have IQs around the 70 range.
Non-Inuit Amerindian populations both north and south have IQs in the mid-late 80s.
And khoisan people (who are a genetically different stratification of sub-saharans) of south Africa have IQs in the 65 range.
>Again this isnt meant to be racist but its a question that had me thinking
No, this thread is either meant as bait or to show off your lack of individual research skills. Either way I've spoon-fed you so now you can fuck off.
We get it, you don't like blacks and want to look for any means to justify your hate or meme jokes about them. But unfortunately for you they aren't they only sub-90 or 80 IQ people in the world for you to hate.
>Everything is equally evolved
That's bullshit. Some stuff has been evolving much faster than other stuff.
Well, Africa is a much easier climate to survive in than the harsh cold of Europe, so they never had to utilize critical thinking in order to prepare for the harsh winter, which would increase their IQ gradually over generations.There are quite a few factors that explain why Africans are not able to perform on the same level as Europeans and Asians. It's just climate; if you place them in Europe for a few hundred years and force them to fend for themselves, they would likely see the same cognitive growth that Asians and Europeans experienced.
>let me tell you you hate blacks only because of their low IQ so I can tell you there are other peoples who have low IQ too so you are automatically wrong in hating them
i would never hate anyone for something they cant control, especially a group of people when i dont know them. The closest that come would be christians or muslims but even then i wouldnt say i hated them.
It was just a question i had on my mind, chill out im not a biologist
>I'm with Her.
Fortunately for you, neither ignorance nor stupidity is a bannable offense. So whichever is the case, you're fine to hang around.
I'm not sure why you're referencing modern Bantus when or abbos is as close as you're going to get. Even in OP's image the only thing that's apparent are the teeth. Peking Man developed in asia while some developed in africa. They're both erectus for the time being. I'm not sure what being less or more evolved means in the context.
ahhh yeah evolution is occurring quicker ( literal fixing rate of BPM mutations ) because of the scale of humanity. What affects scale of humanity? Civ/city life; what affects civ/city life: judifcial system and army. I'm sorry, but the older the civ the greater the period of evolution that selected for civ-life. If you take that proportionaly by continent africa and australia are at the bottom. China and WE are at the top
It would probably be clearer if you pointed out what effects that before civs came about.
Everything has been evolving for the exact same amount of time. Common ancestor and all that.
what the fuck dude? you think any one man can conceptualize modern society's affect on the genome? I would win a nobel prize if I could match socioeconomic pressure's affect on the genome. That SNPs are fixing quicker is directly related to our pop size; pop size is related directly to agriculture and class structure of society; society's class structure is related to it's miltary and order. (clearly as unrest and insurrection are the lynchpin to the falls of empires and dynasties')
it is very simple, do not drink bullshit coolaid. That being said, our genome is incredibly similar to that of our anchestors 20k years ago - i doubt we are at all different in cognitive capacity. IQ is related to systems of education, and epigenetic changes affect development - so the best chances for the genius to occur are in the best developed, most educated areas. Even if the genius pops up anywhere else without education he has to recreate all the systems (s)he would use to push society forward (Akkan for example).
Without society we are nothing but apes.
>less evolved
The real problem with your conception is that there is nothing in evolutionary biology that gives evolution and endgoal. You are less evolved compared to what? What are evolving towards too.
Higher Intelligence, Light Skin & Soft Hair are Evolutionary adaptations that both White European & East Asian share.
Higher Intelligence helps to survive through harsher Winters.
Light skin helps Vitamin D production in environments with less Sun UV light.
Soft Hair allows to grow long hairs & beards which warm up the face, again another adaptation to colder climates.
Also Whites have thin noses & East Asian have small noses to retain heat inside body in cold.
While blacks have huge nostrils & large noses to dissipate heat in hotter climates.
Bonus points for those who noticed the swastika in the pic.
>In addition, computer calculations of what humans looked like 70,000 years ago (by analyzing skull structure, etc.) are virtually indistinguishable from modern-day Africans.
Most likely indistinguishable from every other group of anatomically modern humans as well, as humans 70,000 years ago were in fact "modern," by our standards.People before 200,000 years ago could be argued to resemble erectus to a certain degree, but not enough to classify it as such.
>pic related
On the left, the earliest homo sapiens inidvidual identified thus far, at ~300,000 years. Compare that to the modern Zairian individual on the right. I see no evidence for your claim.
>that pic
>"hurr they lips are open, dey a munkey"
And ignorance is found to be present in all political parties yet again.
what? where are you seeing the political party affiliation brainlet? stop trying to force false similarities
>Most likely indistinguishable from every other group of anatomically modern humans as well
You can already distinguish a modern african's skull from a modern european's skull, so the 70000 year old skull should be distinguishable from a modern non-african skull.
I've seen liberals use that picture to prove racism on the right, alt-tards using it to "confirm" race, and creationists who use it to show evolution is racist and evil. Get on my fucking level, brainlet.
As is to be expected, as both groups went on their own paths, their phenotypical features changed. While some groups of modern Africans do resemble 70,000 year old skulls (I'd like a sauce, by the way), others seem to be dissimilar from them (pic related right was the closest I could find).
...
How does one ""confirm race""? Do you have trouble with English?
so you're using random anecdotes we have no evidence of - kute bro
>As is to be expected, as both groups went on their own paths, their phenotypical features changed. While some groups of modern Africans do resemble 70,000 year old skulls (I'd like a sauce, by the way), others seem to be dissimilar from them (pic related right was the closest I could find).
kill yourself you uneducated pleb you have no idea what you're talking about - time to go back (you have to go back)
your words, not mine
>liberals using skulls
phrenology has gotta be one of the absolute most degenerate things a liberal thinks is degenerate
i mean besides full blown lynching what is more of a faux pas than telling your nouveau riche friends how much you make, pretending liberals and concucks are the same?
u
need
to
go
back
(to pol)
>Are black people less evolved?
Definitely. They can barely be considered human. That's not to be racist though, I'm merely stating the facts.
A better version.
I meant they try to say that the races are subspecies, or even worse, separate species alltogether, or are closer to the primitive humans and man-apes of old.
>"phrenology"
>acting like you have the moral high-ground
>libruls
Ah, the guy from the last race thread. How's life treated ya?
>>"phrenology"
>>acting like you have the moral high-ground
>>libruls
Who said this?
>That second paragraph
Ya blew it. Back to /pol/
This guy
>phrenology
>degenerate, lynching, go back to pol, etc=acting higher than thou
>liberals
>>degenerate, lynching, go back to pol, etc=acting higher than thou
Where did he say this sentence?
>phrenology has gotta be one of the absolute most degenerate things a liberal thinks is degenerate
>i mean besides full blown lynching what is more of a faux pas than telling your nouveau riche friends how much you make, pretending liberals and concucks are the same?
That's what I got from this.
Yes, that is indeed in his post. But the text you quoted earlier isn't.
Homo erectus had prominent browridges and a sagittal heel on top of his head. Those are more common in whites. Blacks are more neotenous than whites. Neoteny is considered a modern trait.
I was saying that it was equivalent to acting like he has the high ground.
Provide a proof of this "equivalence".
>u need to go back (to pol)
Acting as though I'm /pol/ = thinking you have the high ground.
Provide a proof of this "equality".
>卐
kek
In general, any time you ask the question "is (organism X living today) less evolved than (organism Y living today", the answer is no. If they exist today, it's because they are as evolved as what is currently possible given their environment.
Race X is not less or more evolved than race Y - race X has evolved perfectly to suit environment X, just as race Y evolved perfectly to suit environment Y.
Remember, as far as evolution goes, the only thing that matters is which characteristics allow the organism to more easily adapt, which need not be intelligence, physical strength, etc.
Also P. S. you're racist.
>you're racist.
So?
Sub-Saharan Africans (Negroes) do have lower frontal lobe mass, which probably accounts for the lower intelligence and different behavior, and their skulls are closer to chimps than Caucasians/Mongoloids.
I don't think they're less evolved, though. Just suited for where they evolved.
We have this thread every day.
Ashkenazi are just inbred white converts to Judaism. If I convert to Judaism tomorrow, it doesn't make me a Jew racially, it just makes me a Jewish supremacist asshole. like yourself.