Are some people geneticly superior and are others less evolved?

Has anyone ever wondered if some people are more closely related to monkeys or cave men? I think maybe some people are evolving faster or diffrent from others.

I completly agree. i know a guy that is a straight neanderthal

stupid is not limited to any certain group.

Each of the major races has attributes garnered from generations of evolution within a certain region. While we are all of the same species, there is a ton of genetic diversity. Asian people tend to have a higher IQ while African's tend to be more athletic. Of course, there are always exceptions and genetic variance is always a factor. There is also evidence to support past interbreeding with Neanderthals which you can see with the naked eye every now and then.

This being said, we are barely more evolved than cavemen. We just have centuries of recorded history and technological advancements to trick us into thinking otherwise. Yes, you may be smarter than the Neanderthal looking neighbor but that is genetic variation and not a sign that you are more advanced as a human being. Evolution does not mean advancement, either. Due to genetic variation, some of us either succeed and reproduce thus passing on our genes or we die before getting a chance. It doesn't mean you're better than someone else. It just means that your genetic variation was better suited to your environment.

Twistedfunk said:

Each of the major races has attributes garnered from generations of evolution within a certain region. While we are all of the same species, there is a ton of genetic diversity. Asian people tend to have a higher IQ while African's tend to be more athletic. Of course, there are always exceptions and genetic variance is always a factor. There is also evidence to support past interbreeding with Neanderthals which you can see with the naked eye every now and then.

This being said, we are barely more evolved than cavemen. We just have centuries of recorded history and technological advancements to trick us into thinking otherwise. Yes, you may be smarter than the Neanderthal looking neighbor but that is genetic variation and not a sign that you are more advanced as a human being. Evolution does not mean advancement, either. Due to genetic variation, some of us either succeed and reproduce thus passing on our genes or we die before getting a chance. It doesn't mean you're better than someone else. It just means that your genetic variation was better suited to your environment.

Click to expand...

Nice way of putting it.

I highly agree that we have Neanderthals walking amongst us today. In fact, many seem to be in the forums handing out ill advised advice.

Wasnt this one of hitlers main propaganda things? lol

Evolve is a difficult word to use there. Technically, mutated people would be evolving faster as they would have the most genetic drift. We can't really say evolve faster without knowing the end goal/result. Many would be better off heading back towards the ape/caveman likenesses, in my opinion. Sure, folks go off genetically in all directions, but you can't say 'faster' with personal preferences being the deciding factor. That's what's commonly called racism. Adolf Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan (to name a few obvious ones) promoted the idea that certain people were genetically superior and more evolved than others based on personal preferences.

Evolution isn't something that usually happens in one or two generations. I prefer to believe that we are all close enough together that there is no major genetic superiority, as we can all still interbreed. There are some very interesting Neanderthal co-existence theories out there, and some folk go as far as to look into all the old Genesis tales about the sons of God and the sons of man as an example of racial one-upping/higher evolution levels.

So you think some people are part Neanderthal? I've met people who looked like the cave men in the Geico comercials. so you belive in interbreading...what about inbreeding or like back crossing to preserve or enhance desirable traits...like marrying cousins or an aunt if two people are exceptional

beardo said:

So you think some people are part Neanderthal? I've met people who looked like the cave men in the Geico comercials. so you belive in interbreading...what about inbreeding or like back crossing to preserve or enhance desirable traits...like marrying cousins or an aunt if two people are exceptional

Click to expand...

i don't think that turns out too well in the human genepool. you would have to do it again and again, all the while creating new deformities to overcome. the ethical concerns make it a very unlikely reality. as far as having remainders of genes from exinct "people", i think the specifics of it are beyond modern science. there's always some new mummy or something that challenges what we know about our origin and dna. i watched a documentary once about some undisturbed tribe in africa or south america that have kept their genes pure (or as close to it as science has found) for thousands of years. they are dark skinned but if you look at their individual faces there are some who look straight up asian, roman, scandanavian, ect. the peice blew my mind. if we were to find the answer to the original question we should probably start there. theres also the "driving force" in what caused the different races to evolve. somehow i doubt it was exclusively environmental.

Here's a question... Say there were 2 sets of life styles, A) the evolved, intelligent, quick, athletic etc divide of the worlds population, and B) The thickest most retarded, slow etc divide... and only the group A's could have sex and pro create, And only the B's could have sex and pro create, but an A) could not pro create with a B) and vice verser, everyone else (the mediums) were left out, would the B) divide be permanently retarded getting more and more pre- today, and more caveman like? And would the group A's become hyper intelligent and more evolved than we are today with advanced brain capabilities? just a thought - STELTHY

stelthy said:

Here's a question... Say there were 2 sets of life styles, A) the evolved, intelligent, quick, athletic etc divide of the worlds population, and B) The thickest most retarded, slow etc divide... and only the group A's could have sex and pro create, And only the B's could have sex and pro create, but an A) could not pro create with a B) and vice verser, everyone else (the mediums) were left out, would the B) divide be permanently retarded getting more and more pre- today, and more caveman like? And would the group A's become hyper intelligent and more evolved than we are today with advanced brain capabilities? just a thought - STELTHY

Click to expand...

too many factors to consider. are both groups in identical environments with the same access to similar food sources? do they live someplace where athleticism is REQUIRED to acces food? maybe the dumb people are better looking or smell nice, and this would have an effect on how they choose to breed. no one can accurately speculate on what would drive their breeding choices and mate selection. maybe among the smart group it is most desireable to smell bad and be dumb. no one can know for sure.

when you start throwing around words like "superior" you sound like a pretty bad guy

Genetically "superior"? No. Economically/Politically/Geographically "superior"? Sadly, yes.

Theres the two classes. imho

The well to do (1st worlders)with all this new fab technology and useless commodities that "enhances" our lives. Along with all the medicine and best treatments available to mankind.

Then there is, of course, the 2nd (being devoloped) and 3rd (under-developed) worlds. And all the people living within these boundaries. Without all these advancements..



In THAT sense i think yes there are people "less evolved". But, that is in direct result of our stupid concentration of wealth. And our inability to share it.

Keenly2 said:

when you start throwing around words like "superior" you sound like a pretty bad guy

Click to expand...

I dont want to sound like a bad guy but it is pretty obvious that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger is superior to most people. The worlds elite familys have been inter marrying and inbreeding for generations to promote intelegence strength and preserve and create wealth.

hasn't he admitted to using steroids?

beardo said:

I dont want to sound like a bad guy but it is pretty obvious that someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger is superior to most people. The worlds elite familys have been inter marrying and inbreeding for generations to promote intelegence strength and preserve and create wealth.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between sociological and genetic superiority. Arnold has big muscles and is ambitious. In our society that will get him babes and influence. In a society where food is scarce, he would be completely undesirable. In some societies, being ambitious gets you ostracized (or shot).

Genetic superiority just means that you can exist long enough to procreate successfully in your environment over competing individuals and species. One of the most successful species is in the sea urchin family (Diadema setosum). That species is 7-14 million years old, vs. the 3-4 million year old Homo sapiens. So for right here right now, you may consider Arnold superior-- but breeding a bunch of Arnold's would just set us up for disaster once the environment (social, climatic, economic, etc.) changes. True superiority is in adaptability and diversity.

I was watching a show on nat geo or one of those channels recently that actually made a pretty good case for our own species and neandrthals breeding at least very rarely at some point in our history.

Arnold is a world class idiot of the Elitist Class. He is far from superior. If the world's elite families are inbreeding then they will likely kill their own line when they all pop out deformed. Most of the elite caste marriage setups were to continue royal blood without inbreeding but that's just "royal blood". They never had enough understanding of genetics to breed certain traits for a certain purpose in people. It was borderline mysticism. I don't see how having generations of inbreeding people that have an average reasoning ability could be considered genetic superiority. It would only work in a vacuum anyway since there is too much genetic variation and people can be unpredictable with whom they choose to mate with.

Hitler thought a lot about genetic superiority but failed in basic reasoning. Answers to your questions about genetics and evolution can be found on other more reputable and informative sites. Nature is the best proof though. There are plenty of instances on our planet where a known organism has been stuck in a very different environment than what would be "normal" and entire new ecosystems and species have evolved as a result.

Our world is constantly changing and with it so are our perceptions of what is "superior".

Haze: If you are suggesting that everyone has the same ability for athleticism as Brock Lesnar, then you are probably deluding your self. If the switch isn't turned on in your genetic make-up, it simply isn't possible for you. That's like saying someone who is 5ft tall can easily become 7ft tall if they just work hard enough.