|
Posts:
3
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(1 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 12:08 PM
|
I found the show Ape to Man very interesting, even though I don't truly believe in evolution. However, I do support the basic timeline of development.
What is really interesting is that every method used to compare the fossils can also be used to show major differences in existing human racial types. When you are talking about extinct species it is perfectly normal to use cranial cavity, skull thickness, facial angle, ect. to show that one is more advanced than the other.
When you use the same standards and methodology to compare say Caucasian and Negro skulls, all the sudden it is "discredited pseudo-science of racists."
Now if you take Tasmanians and Khoidsanids, it becomes borderline acceptable to say they are more primitive than other peoples. Tasmanians went exstinct in 1887 and there are only about 50,000 Khoidsanids (Hottentot, Bushmen) left. However, if your talking about Negroes or Australids, it is total heresy to even suggest comparing skulls or racial traits. You will be burned at the politically correct stake.
Apes to Humans did surprise me. At the end of the show they point out that Caucasians in Europe came way after Negroes in Africa and that they had "155,000 years for their appearance to change." Say the show admits that Negroes are much older than Caucasians and Caucasians are more aesthetically evolved. It stops short of saying that Caucasians have a more evolved skull, because then the show would have never been allowed on the air.
I'd like to encourage everyone to check out the Council of Conservative Citizens which is fighting political correctness. http://www.cofcc.org
|
|
|
Posts:
2
Registered:
8/2/05
|
|
(2 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:05 PM
|
|
I understand why you don't believe in evolution, because it is obvious that your species has not evolved. I am contacting the national academy of sciences to let them know that Neanderthals still exist, because I just read one of their species post. Oh my fault, that's right Neanderthals brains were just as large as homo sapiens and based on the crap you just posted your brain is not that large.
|
|
|
Posts:
117
Registered:
8/2/05
|
|
(3 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:16 PM
|
> I found the show Ape to Man very interesting, even
> though I don't truly believe in evolution. However, I
> do support the basic timeline of development.
>
> What is really interesting is that every method used
> to compare the fossils can also be used to show major
> differences in existing human racial types. When you
> are talking about extinct species it is perfectly
> normal to use cranial cavity, skull thickness, facial
> angle, ect. to show that one is more advanced than
> the other.
>
> When you use the same standards and methodology to
> compare say Caucasian and Negro skulls, all the
> sudden it is "discredited pseudo-science of
> racists."
>
> Now if you take Tasmanians and Khoidsanids, it
> becomes borderline acceptable to say they are more
> primitive than other peoples. Tasmanians went
> exstinct in 1887 and there are only about 50,000
> Khoidsanids (Hottentot, Bushmen) left. However, if
> your talking about Negroes or Australids, it is total
> heresy to even suggest comparing skulls or racial
> traits. You will be burned at the politically correct
> stake.
>
> Apes to Humans did surprise me. At the end of the
> show they point out that Caucasians in Europe came
> way after Negroes in Africa and that they had
> "155,000 years for their appearance to change." Say
> the show admits that Negroes are much older than
> Caucasians and Caucasians are more aesthetically
> evolved. It stops short of saying that Caucasians
> have a more evolved skull, because then the show
> would have never been allowed on the air.
>
> I'd like to encourage everyone to check out the
> Council of Conservative Citizens which is fighting
> political correctness. http://www.cofcc.org
I'm sorry, but you have been the victim of disinformation. Paleoanthropologists use skull size and facial angle, to be sure, but not in the way that you imply. And the idea that there is such a thing as "aesthetic evolution" is false. That places undue value judgements on evolutionary changes. Species change because of environmental pressures acting on genetic changes. If a species evolves it does not magically become inherently better, but because it has to, plain and simple, if there is no pressure it does not evolve.
What you are touting is phrenology and eugenics. Both are old rascist tools used to justify some of the worst behaviour in human history.
Read these, and be better for it.
AAA Statement on Race:
http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Wikipedia article on Eugenics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenic
Wikipedia article on Phrenology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrenology
Eugenics and Phrenology are rubbish. No one except fringe scientists and white supremecist groups talk in these terms anymore.
|
|
|
Posts:
79
Registered:
8/7/05
|
|
(4 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:16 PM
|
|
this is another problem of assigning value judgements to scientific data. To report that different species have different physical characteristics, or that different groups of humans do, is perfectly scientific, and I can't imagine anyone getting up in arms, besides potentially wondering what importance the information serves. It is when people or groups (read KKK, Hitler, racist eugenics groups) use these scientifically observable (but morally neutral) phenomena and use them to further an agenda and assign them moral value that people raise eyebrows and come down hard. The reason for the potential overreaction, which seems like simple political correctness, is the absolute fear that people have of scientific knowledge "running amok," as it did in Nazi Germany or in the U.S. in the early 20th century, when we were the global leaders in exterminating the handicapped and mentally infirm. So, if anything, it is fear that motivates the reactionaries, not political correctness, but perhaps we can allow a little leeway, considering the circumstances?
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(5 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:25 PM
|
|
All you can do is hurl sophmoric names, because you have no leg to stand on.
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
8/8/05
|
|
(6 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:26 PM
|
|
More politically correst witchburning. You don't like someth9ing so you call it names like "Nazi KKK."
|
|
|
Posts:
79
Registered:
8/7/05
|
|
(7 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:33 PM
|
|
Excuse me? I didnt call anyone names, and I didnt call anything Nazi or KKK. I simply referred to a practice of those groups, which was the distortion or outright manufacture of scientific information to further their agenda. I wasnt saying that you or anyone like you was doing the same, I was simply trying to explain why people tend to be extremely sensitive (due to agregious historical incidents) when it comes to this subject. I wasn't even saying they were right to react how they do, I was simply giving a possible justification, besides just being a bunch of liberal pansies, which I'm sure is a reason you would be much more content with. Say something calm and meaningful, and read my post before you react.
|
|
|
Posts:
13
Registered:
8/7/05
|
|
(8 of 11)
Aug 8, 2005 1:39 PM
|
|
Other that the poster who called you a Neanderthal, Kyle, who's hurling sophomoric names? (While you're pondering the answer, you might note the correct spelling of "sophomoric.")
|
|
|
Posts:
3
Registered:
8/10/05
|
|
(9 of 11)
Aug 11, 2005 12:07 AM
|
You must be joking. I sincerely hope that this was written simply to provoke people, because any rational person would be outraged by the naivete evident in such statements.
To put it simply, biologically, races DO NOT EXIST. There are more differences within any so-called racial groups than between them. Any experiment that you might wish to cite would be one that drew only from extremely large caucasian skulls (more of the neanderthal size) and smaller skulls from other "races" (and these studies, might I add, were discredited in the 1920s).
Races exist socially and culturally, because such racist categories are used only to hold power over others, to subjugate them, and to make oneself feel superior, as you apparently do. The only reason such terms and categories exist is because they persist in social, historical and cultural circles.
Furthermore, any notable differences in skull size or shape have nothing to do with intelligence. "Aesthetic" evolution has nothing to do with it. On the contrary, skull shape has much to do with an adaptation to the local environments (such as a large nose in colder environments, to heat air before it enters the body; or smaller stature in colder areas as an adaptation for the body to retain as much body heat as possible). Brain size has nothing to do with intelligence. It's all in how the brain is organized and how it's used. The recent finding of Homo floresiensis is a perfect example, so I recommend looking it up. MRI scans show us that even though they had small brains (only 1/3 the size of ours), they were smart, could communicate, could speak, could hear, could plan head, and could create.
|
|
|
Posts:
1
From:
Texas
Registered:
9/16/07
|
|
(10 of 11)
Sep 16, 2007 3:51 PM
|
I've never doubted the effect relative skull characteristics (less pronounced prognathism, sharper features) have on the intelligence of a particular animal of a species.
I say this as a black male--one of relative high intelligence. Although I do exhibit slight progathism, my features are sharper and more chiseled, as are both my parents. Actually, my nose is classic Caucasian--I exhibit a strong nasal bridge and such a pronounced nasal tip, people often ask me about it. This is a direct result of Caucasian interbreeding throughout the years, as my family is quite mixed.
My personal theory is that most blacks are naturally substandard in intelligence--this is because while other races migrated out of Africa, blacks stayed put. Moving northward and eastward, those who left Africa develped larger cranial capacity due to the circumstances they faced and dealt with, and also formed specific characteristics that helped themm adapt to their environment (non-related to intelligence).
Yes, there are some highly intelligent "pure" blacks out there, however, I don't doubt that the racial bell curve hypothesis is a flawed one--on average blacks are less intelligent than any other race.
Also incredibly interesting is the fact that even blacks themselves realize the more attractive faces of Europeans--the flat facial profile and chiseled features. I'm not going to lie--I think a flat profile is beautiful and seek out black (usually racially mixed) women with those features, along with other prototypically Caucasian charactertistics--thinner noses, lips, etc.
I realize this is a controversial topic, however, I don't think we can keep ignoring facts. I suppose what really irritates me is when people are surprised to come across intelligent, "articulate", and/or wealthy blacks--yes, we are out there.
It's just that most (not all) blacks do not have the capacities to ascertain these privileges.
--
Edited by neverfollow at 09/16/2007 3:55 PM
|
|
|
Posts:
2,904
Registered:
9/11/08
|
|
(11 of 11)
Jan 1, 2009 12:51 AM
|
|
That is the problem with evolution . People believe it is a racist theory.Darwin was not one.He hated slavery and was against it. Many hae used his theory to support it like they did with the Bible.Many atheists have used it to support their disbelief in the divine. They have also used Gaileo and Newton all believers in God.Newton wrote books about theology than Science. Gaileo said math is how God created the universe. Math is also problem in evolution since it doesn't add up sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
