Technically speaking, both Nietzsche and Darwin were correct when classifying Africans and evolutionary precursors of so-called European "Caucasians." It's a simple matter of examining the genome of both individuals. Every chromosome has dangling telomeres that are very often not reproduced during meiosis. After several hundred generations, parts of these coding areas are lost. The loss of pigment, the loss of lactose allergy and the loss of natural histamine immunity are all traceable to these lost telomeres. I'm not about to say one is better or higher than the other, but in terms of pure evolutionary history, blacks did come before whites.

Another topic completely, but many of the mechanisms that Darwin uses to explain natural selection have been proven false, such as limited resource competition and his population growth models. However we still preach Darwin as the evolutionary truth sayer. Hopefully in the next generation the real driving forces behind evolution will be taught to all science students, not just those in upper level biology classes at major universities. Teaching Darwin as the absolute truth is teaching old science. You want to know what the only two "driving" forces in evolution are? Heterochrony and luck.

Great post Neo, I totally agree with that.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceMessiah Darwim and Neitzche are known racists. Fredrick Neitzche's teachings are used by Neo-facist all over western europe. Where have you been the last 5 years.I'm not saying that I agree with this, but both say that europeans are superior.

Yes, ok about Nietzche, I was a bit hasty and tired when I wrote that. But I can't recall Darwing being racist except perhaps in saying that africans are a sort of ancestors of modern europeans, which is essentially true.

quote:

Egypt 525 BC what are you taking about? After conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 Egypt was permantly under foreign rule.

God, I really was sleeping when I wrote all that. It was conquered in 525BC by the Persians, and yes, it's been under foreign rule for quite a long time. But when Alexander's empire fell apart and got split between it's generals, Ptolemy's dinasty reestablished Egypt as a sovereign nation with it's own pharaohs (although greek in origin) until Romans captured it in 30BC.

quote:

Decline of Egypt was due to Nubian kingdom of Kush which conqured Egypt in 712BC, Egypt was never able to regain streght after that. Nubians were origianlly slaves of the Egyptians, but due to power gained by the Semites in politics in Egypt, Nubians were givin eqaul rights in Egypt and eventually stabbed Egypt in the back.

Through its history, Egypt has been conquered many times. It was usually because of their lousy army and internal struggles. I don't see, though, how nubians are to blame since their culture was basically identical to Egyptian. It's not that they caused the egyptian decline, they took over the country that was already severely weakened. They actually wanted to reinstate the earlier organization of Egypt, but they got screwed up by the Assyrians.

quote:

Germans were a new people they just migrated to europe from the black sea region due to flooding a few hundred years before Rome was established. Modern europeans came from the black sea region. And were also pushed west due to Nomadic Turkish invasions.

You mean the Hun invasions? Turks were at the time still in central asian steppes. Still this is not very relevant to the debate nor does it deny the fact that there were many civilizations prior to germans that posessed a much higher degree of development.

quote:

Let me ask you one question who do you think looks more like the human ancestors a sub-saharan African or a German?

Africans do look a bit mroe like our ancestors, but that again isn't evidence enough that they are racially inferior.

quote:

Oh ya and Polish and Moldavians are not the same. Moldavians are Romani notice the resemblince in flags between the two countries, they speak Romanian and are Romanian orthodox. Poland is made up of Germans, Balts and Slavs not at all close to Moldavians, and the language is hardly similar.

Heh, almost 50% of moldavians are slavs, but there are other examples if you insist. Take Kenya and Rwanda. Or Serbia and Slovenia. Or New York and North Dakota.

___________________
1+1=10

Ok so you agree that Sub-saharan Africans are a less evolved people.

Ok I'm not saying the Nubians totally took over the Egyptian civilization, I'm saying they are the reason why Egypt went into decline. Nubians had never contributed to Egypt in history only as slaves.

Read about Khendjer's rule of Egypt. He was a Jewish immigrant who was able to make the Egyptians embrace, multi-culturalism and liberal values. Negroes were then accepted into society, and they had no alligeince to Egypt and it finally fell. Kind of reminds me of todays western society.

I don't think you should seperate the Turks from the Huns, they are both Central Asian nomads.

How do you explain the blue-eyed statues of Sumeria? The fact is that Italy, Greece and Egypt all have mixed blood. During the decline of their empires, their was considerably racial-mixing with the massive slave populations.

Remember the world was alot colder than now. Germans lived in horrible conditions. They had to work twice as hard as any other people to survive, due to the harsh climate. Therefore I think they evolved faster because of their continuing work just for food and shelter.

Iceland has 0 ARABLE land explain to me how then they are able to manage high life expectancy and almost 100% literacy rate. Compared to Sub-saharan Africa which has vast amounts of resources and very feritile land, but a population of almost animal like behavoir.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceMessiah Ok so you agree that Sub-saharan Africans are a less evolved people.

In a way, yes, but the differences are miniscule.

quote:

Ok I'm not saying the Nubians totally took over the Egyptian civilization, I'm saying they are the reason why Egypt went into decline. Nubians had never contributed to Egypt in history only as slaves.

Well, they've been a sort of 2nd Egypt. Their customs and traditions were identical to Egyptian ones.

quote:

Read about Khendjer's rule of Egypt. He was a Jewish immigrant who was able to make the Egyptians embrace, multi-culturalism and liberal values. Negroes were then accepted into society, and they had no alligeince to Egypt and it finally fell. Kind of reminds me of todays western society.

Yes, except that when it fell, it reimbraced it's old customs and returned to the previous state. Besides, it wasn't the negros from the inside that ruined Egypt, it was a Nubian army from the outside.

quote:

I don't think you should seperate the Turks from the Huns, they are both Central Asian nomads.

Well, if we are to seperate Germans from Normans, then we might just as well seperate Turks from Huns. They are closer related to each other than they are to European groups, but they still aren't the same group.

quote:

How do you explain the blue-eyed statues of Sumeria?

I can't say I've seen those statues, but there are 2 possible explanations.

1) There are some blue-eyed people down there, although they are a minority.

2) Having statues doesn't mean that things depicted on them existed. I don't recall Europe being full of gargoyles in the middle ages.

quote:

The fact is that Italy, Greece and Egypt all have mixed blood. During the decline of their empires, their was considerably racial-mixing with the massive slave populations.

Mixed with who? With the slaves from conquered countries? Well it's rather hard to conquer another country and not to have people mix. Besides, lot of that racial mixing in Rome was with germanic people.

quote:

Remember the world was alot colder than now. Germans lived in horrible conditions. They had to work twice as hard as any other people to survive, due to the harsh climate. Therefore I think they evolved faster because of their continuing work just for food and shelter.

Maybe some 10000 years ago. Not at the time of the Roman Empire. Besides, if they were that smart, they would not go that far north in the first place. Still, I fail to see how those conditions were much worse from african malaria-infested jungles. On a side note, that'd make Russians more evolved than germans, because they did manage to beat a much more trained army regardless of the much harsher conditions they lived in.

quote:

Iceland has 0 ARABLE land explain to me how then they are able to manage high life expectancy and almost 100% literacy rate. Compared to Sub-saharan Africa which has vast amounts of resources and very feritile land, but a population of almost animal like behavoir.

First of all, they do have some plains and arable land, as well as very large fish reserves. Enough to feed their 300 000 people. They are able to have high life expectancy and literacy because of their more developed society which is not necessarilly related to IQ.

___________________
1+1=10