If man evolved from monkeys,.....

[LuisDantas]

Which is my point, Metis. If we do evolve in our own way, then the Australian Aborigine, over the tens of millennia, would evolve differently,

They do. As does everyone else.

or more progressively or less progressively than others

This may well be the root of your confusion. Biological evolution (far as I know) does not have support for that kind of value judgement. When comparing native people from several places with each other and with modern westerners, there is no way of saying whether any is "more progressed" than any other.

You could establish a timeline, I suppose. But that establishes nothing beyond chronological advancement. It does not really make sense to even say that Homo Sapiens is more advanced than Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons; we just descend from them and have adapted a bit further for our specific environments.

and thus, would not be as intelligent or more intelligent than another group in a different environment which is the basis of racism.

There may well be people presenting such an idea, but I don't think that has any support from the Theory of Evolution as known in biology.

Intelligence is just one of many attributes involved in primate evolution. As such, it is not even necessarily advantageous in each and every situation. It takes considerable resources to develop and maintain primate intelligence, and at some turns it may have turned out to have been a less advantageous adaptation than the other alternatives present at the time.

Also, I don't think that there is even enough time for intelligence to develop noticeably differently in the timeframe of human history.

 

[metis]

Which is my point, Metis. If we do evolve in our own way, then the Australian Aborigine, over the tens of millennia, would evolve differently, or more progressively or less progressively than others and thus, would not be as intelligent or more intelligent than another group in a different environment which is the basis of racism.

That's not how it works. Personally, we are not all alike, which should be of some relief to you, and the same applies to human groups in general. That doesn't make it "racism"-- just "reality". So, what I'm referring to are averages, not individuals.

Even though we're all a product of nature and nurture, we simply are not all the same. But what we have to be careful of is to conflate the two together to the point whereas we confuse one with the other. Humans are very malleable both genetically and through socialization, neither of which are constants.

Gotta cut this short as we have company coming over soon.

Take care, my friend, and don't forget to eat your banana before it spoils. Oh, wait a minute! Your wife says-- er, I think I'd better stop now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which is my point, Metis. If we do evolve in our own way, then the Australian Aborigine, over the tens of millennia, would evolve differently, or more progressively or less progressively than others and thus, would not be as intelligent or more intelligent than another group in a different environment which is the basis of racism.

But evolution is a fact that is independent of what people do with those facts. Racism is not a property of matter or natural systems. That is a condition of human behavior. Behavior may have a genetic component, but racism is learned, so the behavior can be managed out.

We do not know all the components that go into intelligence, and for all I know, Australian Aborigines may be superior in many traits. That does not mean they are more evolved. There is no scale of evolutionary development except that living things are adapting to the environment they exist in.

What was done in the past was based on belief using scientific facts and not on some property inherent in those facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

They do. As does everyone else.



This may well be the root of your confusion. Biological evolution (far as I know) does not have support for that kind of value judgement. When comparing native people from several places with each other and with modern westerners, there is no way of saying whether any is "more progressed" than any other.

You could establish a timeline, I suppose. But that establishes nothing beyond chronological advancement. It does not really make sense to even say that Homo Sapiens is more advanced than Neanderthals or Cro-Magnons; we just descend from them and have adapted a bit further for our specific environments.



There may well be people presenting such an idea, but I don't think that has any support from the Theory of Evolution as known in biology.

Intelligence is just one of many attributes involved in primate evolution. As such, it is not even necessarily advantageous in each and every situation. It takes considerable resources to develop and maintain primate intelligence, and at some turns it may have turned out to have been a less advantageous adaptation than the other alternatives present at the time.

Also, I don't think that there is even enough time for intelligence to develop noticeably differently in the timeframe of human history.

I agree with what you are saying here. It seems Ken's view of evolution is erroneous and anachronistic, similar to the defunct great chain of being or the old ladder model. Evolution is not toward a goal and there is no scale of more or less evolved.

Considering the harsh conditions of Australia, Aborigines may have been selected for higher levels of intelligence just to survive there. I do not know. They are still humans regardless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In today's hyperventilated political climate, kind
of hard to find anything that is not racist.

I hope the day is coming, and soon, when people
will look back at this generation and shake
their heads at all the stupidity in the used to be.

Unfortunately. It just baffles me when someone labels an unintelligent natural process or an object as racist as if racism were some sort of physical or chemical property of matter or biology.

I hope that the future is kinder to our ignorance, but I would be surprised if there is not a lot of laughing or head shaking as they look back.

 

[Audie]

Unfortunately. It just baffles me when someone labels an unintelligent natural process or an object as racist as if racism were some sort of physical or chemical property of matter or biology.

I hope that the future is kinder to our ignorance, but I would be surprised if there is not a lot of laughing or head shaking as they look back.

We do it for our ancestors, however much we
honour them as individuals. If a person had to
go back to a hundred years before they were born
(I specify "before born" as some like our Haggis
Eater would just say, "yah, I remember all this"
if it were just " a hundred years ago")..

Anyway, we'd be appalled by the behaviour
we would encounter.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We do it for our ancestors, however much we
honour them as individuals. If a person had to
go back to a hundred years before they were born
(I specify "before born" as some like our Haggis
Eater would just say, "yah, I remember all this"
if it were just " a hundred years ago")..

Anyway, we'd be appalled by the behaviour
we would encounter.

I agree. I love history, but it is one thing to read about it and another to experience it as it happened. Whether it is William Wallace of 750 years ago or Russia 150 years ago, it was a bloody mess compared to my life today.

I can imagine I would find the behavior appalling compared to what I am used to.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which is my point, Metis. If we do evolve in our own way, then the Australian Aborigine, over the tens of millennia, would evolve differently, or more progressively or less progressively than others and thus, would not be as intelligent or more intelligent than another group in a different environment which is the basis of racism.

No, that is NOT correct. They are problem solvers as much as any other human group on the planet. But they've had to solve different problems...not the least of which, by the way, was how to get to Australia so long ago!

Further, since you could quite easily mate with an Australian aborigine and produce viable offspring, what you are talking about here is not evolution, but a much narrower view of a species already evolved, solving different problems. I put it to you that you, if left to your own devices in some of the more inhospitable areas of Australia, would probably die of thirst or starvation, while an aboriginal could easily teach you all the tricks of survival where he lives.

You also conveniently ignore culture, which is a hugely important determiner in what sorts of solutions problem solvers tackle, and how they arrive at solutions. Culture is not evolution, not even close.

I hate to have to break it to you, but your thinking is actually quite racist, in exactly the way that others who believed in things like "master races" and so on, are.

There's so much more to say on a topic like this, that one hardly knows where to begin.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Which is my point, Metis. If we do evolve in our own way, then the Australian Aborigine, over the tens of millennia, would evolve differently, or more progressively or less progressively than others and thus, would not be as intelligent or more intelligent than another group in a different environment which is the basis of racism.

No two people are the same in terms of intelligence anyway.
Best to take people on their merits and afford equal opportunity to them. Then their actual ability and work ethic can come into play.

We (Australia) are a long way away from equality in education and access, so whether one race has a fractional IQ advantage on average seems less than informative, even were I to think 'race' had any real meaning.

 

[Audie]

No, that is NOT correct. They are problem solvers as much as any other human group on the planet. But they've had to solve different problems...not the least of which, by the way, was how to get to Australia so long ago!

Further, since you could quite easily mate with an Australian aborigine and produce viable offspring, what you are talking about here is not evolution, but a much narrower view of a species already evolved, solving different problems. I put it to you that you, if left to your own devices in some of the more inhospitable areas of Australia, would probably die of thirst or starvation, while an aboriginal could easily teach you all the tricks of survival where he lives.

You also conveniently ignore culture, which is a hugely important determiner in what sorts of solutions problem solvers tackle, and how they arrive at solutions. Culture is not evolution, not even close.

I hate to have to break it to you, but your thinking is actually quite racist, in exactly the way that others who believed in things like "master races" and so on, are.

There's so much more to say on a topic like this, that one hardly knows where to begin.

I would have gotten too annoyed to have written that.

 

[metis]

Considering the harsh conditions of Australia, Aborigines may have been selected for higher levels of intelligence just to survive there.

"Intelligence" is relative to adjusting to one's environment.

One of the groups I'm familiar with are the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert in Africa, and even though I know some things about what they have do to do to adjust to that harsh environment, I would be "ignorant" compared to them.

OTOH, if they came to my place here in Michigan whereas it is now -14 F., they'd be "ignorant".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"Intelligence" is relative to adjusting to one's environment.

One of the groups I'm familiar with are the Bushmen of the Kalahari Desert in Africa, and even though I know some things about what they have do to do to adjust to that harsh environment, I would be "ignorant" compared to them.

OTOH, if they came to my place here in Michigan whereas it is now -14 F., they'd be "ignorant".

I watched some documentary--I watch so many I cannot remember which--but they used the Bushmen example of acquiring water from roots to show survival in an extreme climate. Thanks to their knowledge, I might make it out of the bush if I am ever stranded there. As long as there are no venomous snakes or large predators to fend off. That was not covered in the documentary.

I think people confuse the development and possession of modern technology with intelligence. This ignores the comparative historic levels of technology achieved by many non-white cultures of the past. Muslims were observing cancer and the stars while my ancestors were grubbing in the dirt. Asians had silk and gun powder long before first. Several cultures in South America were highly advanced long before contact with Europe. Some of these fell for reasons unknown or completely unrelated to the general level of intelligence of their populations.

Development of technology does require intelligence, but lack of it could be for many reasons outside of intelligence and possessing it and using it does not require high intelligence.

It is a similar fallacy to that of the acquisition and possession of large sums of money indicating greater intelligence by the accumulator.

They would probably have a similar problem with Missouri right now too. I hear it is going to warm up soon.