The best answer is “NO YOU !!!!” simple in the evolution model we don’t have  a will or motive and in the words of Christians “Every thing is randomness and chance” however in creationism you must believe god made blacks different and you must be a racist for more information’s look at Mormonism.  

You can twist the argument around saying “YES we are racist we believe the weight race is genetically inferior to the glorious blacks “ since our  bodies  are scared buy dysgenics and  can’t stand intensive sun and get easily burned buy it.

If this is the argument, then the correct answer is, "Learn about evolution before saying any more stupid shit, ok?"

Humans have evolved precious little since the discovery of agriculture.  We've had a few hundred generations.  Any natural selection event that would make one race significantly better than another in any meaningful way would take thousands of generations.  Skin pigment is something that can change in a few generations, and is superficial, as is hair texture, height, etc...  A fundamental change in the brain across a whole race would take thousands of generations of genetic isolation.  Note that the races are not genetically isolated.

If one were to say that the races are older than agriculture, there's still not much to it.  First, before agriculture, we were a very small population in a very small geographic area, so there's no reason to suppose there would be enough selective pressure to create races, or enough social organization to create a barrier.  Second, unless you go back to pre-human ancestors, you still don't get enough generations for anything significant.

It's a stupid argument.

Oh, and technical advancement has nothing to do with the ability of the brain to advance technically.  As you have said, if there are resources and sufficient free time, people will advance.  If it's all about surviving day to day, you're not going to advance as much.  Plain and simple, all humans have had the same brain for at least 10,000 years.  Period.

That's more social Darwinism, a kind of bastard child of Darwinian theory. The idea goes that whatever "race" of people (ie those with similar characteristics or historical geographical origin) is doing the best at conquering right now is the race that should be conquering. I'm sure you see the circular nature of the argument, and the reason it was so popular. Conquering "races" or nations have always wanted intellectual justification - social Darwinism was just a pseudo-scientific way to express the same thing the Romans thought they were doing.

First of all, I'm half Nahuatl amerindian and half European white. My mother born of Nahuatl amerindians in Mexico and my father, born in Mexico, of white parents from Spain.

I've read a little on this subject and people fail to realize that science is no racist, sexist, or prejudicial. However, there is a lot of debate of whether some "races" of humans are differently adapted. For instance, we all can see the different skin pigmentations, height, etc. But there exist even deeper, less obvious, physiological differences between us; from muscle/fat ratio, propensity to disease, and the most forbidden and taboo of all this: intelligence. The issue is touchy for obvious reasons, however, it is somewhat illogical to think that even though we differ between races in so many physical and physiological ways, that somehow, intelligence would be the one property that has been spared any discrepancy or difference. Having said that, the differences in tested intellect are minor and subjective in that there is no true, objective way to test intelligence, yet. While some people are great with numbers, they might have terrible spatial awareness. Others excel at arts but cannot remember what they had for lunch.

So, while there may me some differences in intelligence, people have to understand that most scientists do not have a racist agenda and that they simply want to know more. Also, now with more and more interbreeding between the "races" (like myself), I think the "racial" differences are blurring more and more each day.

I kept using quotation marks when using the word "races" because biologically we are not different races or species.

 Evolution deals with and explains, 'survival of the fittest'  NOT  I repeat NOT who has the best Cadilac, evolution is to survive by sending your genes onto the next generation.  NOT repeat NOT who has the best clothes, who has the biggest house!!!!!!!! ADAPT to your enviroment, and pass the adaptation onto the next generation.  i.e. Holding your breath untill daddy gives in and buys you a car may work in Beverly Hills but is completely useless on the Serengetti Plain. ADAPT  to your surroundings  and  you  can survive, Season tickets to the Blue Jays (very expensive) are worthless to raindeer hearders in Finland,  exploiting nearby resources for survival is EVOLUTION, driving to Mac D's is CULTURE! Does this help?

*human evolution enthusiast slips through the door*

What're you guys talking about?

Ooooh, human evolution?

Ok, first and foremost.  The idea that evolution says anything about one ethnic group of humans being "more evolved" than the other is utter nonsense.  Nothing is more evolved that anything else.  That's a retarded idea.  A bacterium is just as evolved as a human.  It just evolved in different directions.  Nonsense.  Irks me as bad as the ID creation of macro versus micro evolution.  No such thing.  It's just evolution.  Period.  Anyways, there is more genetic diversity within ethnic groups than between them.  Humans are all one very closely related species.

However, we are not at an evolutionary standstill right now.  We used to believe that until quite recently.  New studies now suggest the exact opposite is occuring.

When people start talking about transitionary creatures things get all muddled.  Now it's true if one species eventually will evolve into another species then technically that was a transitional creature.  However, there are two different types of "transitional" animals.  One kind stays stable for a long period of time.  This occurs when no big change is going on.  However the much more rare type of transitional animal is the kind that is going through a rapid evolutionary change to adapt to changing evolutionary pressures.  These creatures don't hang around for very long.  They transition rapidly into a new species that then becomes stable.  And guess what?

We are actively going through a rapid evolutionary change right now.  Super fast.

Until very recently it seemed that nothing much was going on with us humans on an evolutionary perspective.  Everything very cut and dry, and well...frankly boring.  Thankfully, that ain't so.  We used to think that we weren't evolving for tens of thousands of years.  However, think about this for a few moments.  Our world has changed a lot since we started agriculture.  Logically it would make sense that we would be evolving to adapt to higher densities of humans and cities and whatnot.  And it's true.

Neat huh?  Also the idea that our brains have been the same for the past 10,000 years or so is also untrue.  In the past 8,000 years the brain of the Homo Sapiens has increased around 10%.

Now while there currently is very little difference in genetics between ethnic groups today, who knows if it will stay that way.  Are we interbreeding enough?  Maybe instead of people looking bad at interracial families, we should instead encourage it so we all stay together as one species.

Fascinating stuff.  I love studying it.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/12/humans-evolving.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187203,00.html

http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=120607-1

Interesting stuff.  It raises some questions that are going to give sociobiologists fits.  It's also going to make for some really silly coffee shop philosophy debates.  What comes to mind immediately, of course, is the assertion that our moral sense is ancient and instinctual.  How much of our sense is ancient, and how much has been learned recently?  Since our moral sense is primarily tied to interactions with other individuals and the group as a whole, has there been much selection pressure in that direction?  I mean, we still live in societies and still have basically the same needs -- don't kill me and don't take my shit, including my mate.  Hopefully we'll have something more than news articles to read soon.  [EDIT: pfft... found the link to the study.  Use brain... open mouth...  not the other way...]

My first impression is that the most selective pressure would be exerted on instincts dealing with close tribal unity.  Since we haven't lived in groups of 20 to 100 in quite a while, we encounter people with different sets of smells and pheromones all the time.  I'm just talking out of my ass here, but it wouldn't be hard to speculate that if anything, evolution was making racism less natural to humans.  Practically everybody lives in close proximity (relatively speaking) to someone who is a long way away on the family tree.  This would have only happened in the last few thousand years.  Have people in particularly integrated and populated areas experienced a genetic change based on the selection pressure of living among 'others' their whole life?

I just read the Hawkes, Wang, et al, paper ( http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/52/20753 ).  That's pretty convincing stuff.  Of course, this is me, not deludedgod or someone who specializes in this kind of thing.

What strikes me immediately is that it's going to be very hard for social scientists to weed through behavior patterns historically.  Should the relative distribution of racist authority structures be considered evidence of an evolutionary tendency towards or away from racism?  In other words, since there are far less racist governments, organizations, etc, than say, five hundred years ago, can we say that human evolution has altered our brains slightly, or was the adaptive ability to cope with integration already there, having evolved from some other selection pressure?

Before we can even begin to address questions like that, I suppose we need to know more about how our instincts drive our morality.  There's some really interesting MRI stuff about what parts of the brain fire when we experience certain stimuli.  For instance, the same region of the brain fires for OCD and infatuation.  It's my opinion that this kind of research can tell us a lot about what our sense of morality actually is.  You can't lie to the MRI.  (Oooh... that's a good line.  I need to use that somewhere.)

I keep returning to morality because it seems to me that racism is ultimately a question of morality.  What I suspect is that most middle class non-racist white Americans are non-racist in practice, not feeling.  In other words, if you hook them up to the MRI and show them pictures, including mixed-marriage couples, images of black sports stars, and other racially charged images, they would show a different set of brain activity than when they are shown all white group photos, Steve Garvey, and good looking WASP families.  These are the same people who would answer surveys as if they are not racist.  The question then becomes, if they feel differently to other races, but strive to act equally, are they racist?  A corollary question:  If someone thinks about having an affair all the time, but never does, is he faithful, or is he a cheater?

In other words, I suspect that the most a lot of people can do is not act racist.  The question is whether these reactions are evolutionary or cultural.  Identical twin studies would be a good measure of that.  Surely there are enough separated twins to do a study of all white areas vs. integrated areas.

And remember that natural selection does not necessarily lead to a superior trait. It could be argued that the pudgy, soft, Europeans whose pale skin is more prone to cancer and wrinkles, whose blue eyes are more prone to macular degeneration, are actually inferior to the more athletically built dark-skinned, dark-eyed races.

...I, of course, meant to write "George Wallace," and not "George McGovern."

That's what I get for trying to do everything from memory....

Conor