PRIMATES, AFRICANS, EUROPEANS, EVOLUTION IN REVERSE?

If Europeans descended from Noah and Africans did as well, what can we derive from the fact that Africans (especially those south of the Sahara) resemble Primates lower on the evolutionary tree like Gorrillas and chimpamzees? This is only an observation I have made it's not intended to be racist in any way. If it is possible for the descendents of Noah to look more and more like Primates lower on the evolutionary tree like Gorrillas and chimpamzees, than where is the cut off line? How much genetic change will a creationalist except until he crosses the line of accepting evolution or maybe evolution in reverse? Could it be possilbe for African people to continue to have more genetic change to eventually look exactly like Gorrillas or chimpanzees?
If you disagree with my assumptions, you need to take a good hard look at the faces of Europeans And Africans (especially those south of the Sahara)and if you deny that my question has merit you are brainwashed and have probably committed intellectual suicide for what you believe to be true. However, if you can rationally and logically convince me that there is a Creationalist explination for my Question, then you will help me make steps to becoming a Christian and you will entirely win my respect.
Jimmy

A study by K. L. Beals, published in Current Anthropology in 1984, reported that a survey of 20,000 skulls shows that the average size of the brain case in Asia is 1380 cc, while in Europe it is 1362 cc and in Africa 1276 cc. The asain brain case was about 8% larger then the african one and the European case was about 6% larger. You said these differences were relitively small but 8% and 6% are numbers that are huge statistically and should not be overlooked for political or religous correctness.Futhermore, there are other significant differences like onset of puberty, bone density, skeletal differences and a myriad of other physical and social differences.
I know people will debate these assertions, all I can say is read J. Philippe Rushton's book entitled, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior". One will find enough direct and circumstantial evidence therein, to force him/her to reevauate his or her beliefs.However, my desire is to understand how much genetic change a Creationalist will except, before evolution creeps into the equation.
I want to beleve in Jesus and that God created everything after "it's kind and it's likeness" like Genesis states but my observations of reality prevent me and I can't seem to figure out how to reconcile it all and believe me I do or I wouldn't be here asking all of you. If you have the answer for me please post it up. Futhermore, to all those who feel nerveous about discussing this topic, I'd like to say that the truth will never threaten God and should never make anyone afraid unless that person is afraid of the light.
Jimmy

I like to preface this post by beseeching all to read my 2 previous entrys on this topic and help me reconcile my dilemma.This is a discription of the book, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by J. Philippe Rushton.Race, Evolution, and Behavior is one of the best books ever written about on race. It marshals statistics on race differences and provides a comprehensive gene-based evolutionary theory to explain them. It may startle many people to learn just how much information we have on race differences in brain size, intelligence, sexuality, personality, growth rate, life span, crime, and family stability. Also surprising to many will be the consistency with which, on all of these traits, Orientals fall at one end of the spectrum, blacks at the other end, and whites in between.On average, Orientals are slower to mature, less fertile, and less sexually active, have larger brains and higher IQ scores. Blacks are at the opposite end in each of these areas, and whites fall in the middle, often close to Orientals. This pattern is true over time and across nations and this means we cannot ignore it.Race, Evolution, and Behavior shows that Oriental children are slower to mature than white children while black children are faster to mature. This is true for the rate of bone and tooth development and the age at which a child first sits, crawls, walks, and puts on clothing.There are also racial differences in sexual activity. Orientals are the least sexually active, whether measured by age of first intercourse, intercourse frequency, or number of sexual partners. Blacks are the most active on all of these measures. Once again whites fall in between. These contrasts in sexual activity lead to differences in the rate of diseases like syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, and chlamydia. There are high levels of AIDS in Africa, black America, and the Caribbean and low levels in China and Japan. European countries again fall in between.The races differ in rate of ovulation. Not all women produce one egg during the menstrual cycle. When two or more eggs are produced at the same time, a pregnancy is more likely. So is the likelihood of producing fraternal twins (i.e., two-egg twins). The number of twins born is 16 out of every 1,000 births for blacks, 8 out of every 1,000 births for whites, and 4 or less for Orientals. Triplets and other multiple births are rarest in Orientals and highest in blacks, with whites in between.Much of Race, Evolution, and Behavior is about race and intelligence. Hundreds of studies on millions of people show a three-way pattern. IQ tests are often made to have an average score of 100, with a "normal" range from 85 to 115. Whites average from 100 to 103. Orientals in Asia and the U.S. tend to have higher scores, about 106. Blacks in the U.S., the Caribbean, Britain, Canada, and in Africa average lower IQs -- about 85. The lowest average IQs are found for sub-Saharan Africans -- from 70 to 75.Prof. Rushton also looks at brain size. Bigger brains have more brain cells and this leads to higher IQs. The races vary in brain size. Some of the reviewed studies are very large. For example, the U.S. Collaborative Perinatal Project followed more than 50,000 children from birth to age seven years. Orientals had larger brains than whites at birth, four months, one year, and seven years. Whites had larger brains than blacks at all ages. In another large study this racial ranking was confirmed in a random stratified sample of 6,325 U.S. Army personnel.Up until recently most work on race was carried out in the U.S. on differences between whites and blacks. Beginning in the 1970s, however, race research became become global. New statistics emerged on East Asians in the United States, as well as from Hong Kong and Japan. Also, more data began to come in from black populations in Africa, the Caribbean, and Britain. All the data consistently showed a 3-way pattern of race differences.In the U.S. Orientals are a "model minority." They have fewer divorces, fewer out-of- wedlock births, and fewer reports of child abuse than whites. More Orientals graduate from college and fewer go to prison. On the other hand blacks are 12 percent of the American population and make up 50 percent of the prison population. In the U.S., one out of every three black men is either in jail, on probation, or awaiting trial. That is much more than the number who graduate from college.Race, Evolution, and Behavior shows that this racial pattern in crime is found worldwide. INTERPOL Yearbooks show that violent crime rates are four times lower in Asian and Pacific Rim countries than in African and Caribbean countries. Whites in the United States and in European countries are in between.Why Are There Race Differences?Why does history show Africa trailing behind Asia and Europe? Why do whites average between Orientals and blacks in so many areas? Why do the groups with larger brains have lower rates of two-egg twinning? To know the answer, you must look at all of the traits taken together because they form a pattern. No environmental factor can explain all of them taken together. There is, however, a gene based explanation. The patterns make up what is called a "life-history." They evolved together to meet the trials of life -- survival, growth, and reproduction.Race, Evolution, and Behavior proposes a gene based "life-history theory" to explain the racial pattern in brain size, intelligence, and other traits. Evolutionary biologists call it the r-K scale of reproductive strategies. At one end of this scale are r-strategies that rely on high reproductive rates. At the other end are K-strategies that rely on high levels of parental care.On this scale, Orientals are more K-selected than whites, while whites are more K-selected than blacks. Highly K-selected women produce fewer eggs (and have bigger brains) than r-selected women. Highly K-selected men invest time and energy in their children rather than the pursuit of sexual thrills. They are "dads" rather than "cads." These race differences in reproductive strategies make sense in terms of human evolution. Modern humans are thought to have evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Africans and non-Africans then split about 100,000 years ago. Orientals and whites split about 40,000 years ago.The more north the people went "out of Africa," the harder it was to get food, gain shelter, make clothes, and raise children. So the groups that evolved into today's whites and Orientals needed larger brains, more family stability, and a longer life. But building a bigger brain takes time and energy during development. So, these changes were balanced by slower rates of growth, lower levels of sex hormones, less aggression, and less sexual activity.Why? Because Africa, Europe, and Asia had very different climates and geographies that called for different skills, resource usage, and lifestyles. Blacks evolved in a tropical climate which contrasted with the cooler climate of Europe in which whites evolved and even more so with the cold Arctic lands where Orientals evolved.Because intelligence increased the chances of survival in harsh winter environments, the groups that left Africa had to evolve greater intelligence and family stability. This called for larger brains, slower growth rates, lower hormone levels, less sexual potency, less aggression, and less impulsiveness. Advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity all increased in the non-Africans.Finally it is worth mentioning that in Chapter 4 of the unabridged edition (not covered in the abridged version) the author presents his "genetic similarity theory" to explain ethnic nationalism. It likens "races" to extended families. Prof. Rushton shows that genes influence why people tend to marry and associate with others like themselves. The important pull of genetic similarity can be felt in small groups and even large ones (national and international). The reason people like and seek genetic similarity and fear and avoid dissimilarity is to be found in the sociobiology of altruism. Altruism toward genetically similar others evolved in order to help replicate similar genes (extended kin). Xenophobia is then seen as the 'dark side' of human altruism. Because ethnic nationalism is part of human nature, the world may face an unending series of upheavals as more and more peoples rise to ethnic self-consciousness.

Please before you read this, read my first 2 post on this subject because therein lies my main concerns.all info from American Renaissance or the book "Race, Evolution, and Behavior"Studies of brain size and weight can be difficult to replicate because researchers do not often have access to enough skulls or cadavers and may use different measuring techniques. A 1989 study overcame these difficulties by using magnetic resonance scanning to determine skull capacity. Brain size was found to have a positive correlation of about 0.3 with intelligence. Futhermonre, studies have found that the brains of American blacks are approximately eight percent lighter than those of American whites.There is probably no greater intellectual crime than to point out that the average intelligence of blacks is significantly lower than that of other races. American society punishes those who publicly state this view almost as vigorously as Islamic republics punish anyone who defames the Prophet.In the United States, what little discussion there is about racial differences revolves around intelligence. Study after study has consistently shown that the average black IQ test score is 15 to 18 points lower than the white average. It appears that the gap starts at about 15 points in childhood and widens to as much as 20 points in adulthood. The gap has remained unchanged for 70 yearsever since IQ tests were first given to large numbers of Americans. Civil rights laws, greater social equality, and affirmative action have not reduced the difference.As is clear from the diagram on this page (not shown here click on link to see in full November 1992 - American Renaissance#) cover, there is considerable overlap between more intelligent blacks and less intelligent whites; some blacks are clearly smarter than some whites. Egalitarians seize on this fact to discount the entire notion of racial differences but this is as absurd as claiming that because some women are taller than some men, the average man is no taller than the average woman.Despite overlapping intelligence distributions, only 16 percent of blacks have IQs of more than 100, the white average. Whites are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the gifted range of 135 and higher, whereas blacks are six to eight times more likely to have scores in the retarded range of 70 or lower. At the very highest, genius level IQ scores, blacks are hardly to be found at all.Not even the most reckless egalitarians can deny the differences in test scores. Instead, they claim that the scores are either meaningless or do not measure intelligence. It is true that intelligence cannot be defined to everyone's liking, but that does not mean it cannot be measured. IQ correlates almost perfectly with subjective impressions of intelligence. If you were to talk to five strangers for twenty minutes each and then rank them by intelligence, there is an excellent chance that you would give them the same rank order that an IQ test would.Less subjectively, IQ tests are the best possible way to predict whether a student will get good grades or a white-collar worker will do a good job. If a test can accurately predict how well someone will do at any number of activities that we think of as requiring intelligence, it takes a peculiar stubbornness to insist that the test is not measuring intelligence.IQ tests therefore measure what we understand to be intelligence. Blacks consistently score lower than whites on IQ tests. Are they therefore less intelligent than whites?Test BiasAt this point, the egalitarian defense claims that IQ tests are somehow biased against blacks. Common as this charge is, it is nothing more than an ex post facto explanation for results that displease the egalitarians, for no one can look through a well-designed intelligence test and explain what the bias is and where it is to be found.In fact, many modern IQ tests, such as Raven's Progressive Matrices, have no verbal or cultural content at all. They test a person's understanding of shapes and patterns, and are routinely given to people who do not even speak English. Other varieties of IQ test do involve language and inevitably have some cultural contentand these are the very tests on which the black/white gap in scores is narrowest. The more culturally specific an intelligence test is, the narrower the black/white gap becomes. The most abstract, culture-free tests show the largest gap.The theory of test bias is that unfair tests consistently underrate blacks' abilities. If that were true, blacks who got the same test scores as whites would do better than the whites at the things test scores are supposed to measure: they would get better grades and do their jobs better. This does not happen; blacks do no better than the test scores predict. This raises a larger and different issue. Both the tests and the abilities they are supposed to measure may be biased against blacks. Some egalitarians actually make this argument, but it comes dangerously close to arguing that ability and intelligence themselves are somehow biased against blacks.The cultural bias position is further weakened by the fact that newly-arrived Asian immigrants, for whom the United States really is an alien culture, outperform both blacks and whites on IQ tests. The assertion that the same tests that are culturally biased against blacks somehow favor Asians strains credibility.If blacks are as intelligent as whites, there must be some way to demonstrate this. None has ever been devised. Are we to conclude that the intelligence of blacks remains forever hidden because every method for measuring it is faulty? Believers in test bias cannot explain why it is impossible to design an intelligence testcarefully eliminating all biason which blacks score as well as whites. The explanation is that there is no bias to eliminate. Bias is an imaginary culprit.

Peter, you said that most Creationalists accept speciation. According to (Speciation - Wikipedia) most Creationalist do not accept speciation. Futhermore, speciation is the foundation of evolution which is counter to the Creationalist's belief that god created everything after it's likeness and it's kind like Genesis proclaims.Below are a list of differences of Blacks and Whites. These cannot be disputed, they are facts which can be verified scientifically. However,I know matters of intelligence are harder to verify due to the intangible, non physical nature of the mind. The two best books on the matter, pro and con are, "Race, Evolution, and Behavior" by J.Philippe Rushton and "The Miseasure of man by Steven" J. Goould. "The Bell Curve" is also a stellar work on this subject.Two Separate Articles Listing Racial Differences Between Blacks and Whites1. Some Physical Differences Between Blacks and WhitesCompiled by J. R. Colson---Blacks have:-Longer shin bone (tibia) than Whites, making the muscle longer as well, resulting in Black women not having as shapely legs as Whites;
-Longer arms/legs in general (proportionately speaking);
-Heel bone (calcaneus) longer than Whites;
-Hips (Ilium) narrower than Whites;
-Center of gravity located lower than in Whites;
-More muscle, less fat than Whites (overall);
-Muscle fiber make-up different (ratio of fast twitch/slow twitch muscle fibers different than in Whites, giving Blacks more speed);
-Teeth somewhat different (e. g. molars have more cusps [points]);
-More high-blood pressure, diabetes and other diseases, per capita;
-Lower IQ (cognitive ability) on any IQ test, regardless of who gives/writes the test;
-Quicker pulse during activity than Whites;
-Sicle-cell anemia/sicle-cell trait (Whites rarely get it);
-Larger gluteus maximus muscle (bigger asses) than Whites;
-Broader shoulders than Whites;
-Smaller chest cavity than Whites;
-Reaction to various medication more, or less, severe than in Whites;
-Various bones heavier and thicker (e. g., eyebrow, jaw) than in Whites;
-Eye/nostril openings larger than in Whites;
-Hair different than Whites (triangular cross-section when viewed under microscope);Some of the above information comes from J. Philippe Rushton's 2000 book Race, Evolution and Behavior; some comes from Jon Entine's 2000 book Taboo.------------------------------------------------2. Outtakes from the essay "Whites & Blacks, 100 Facts (and One Lie)"by Roger RootsFACT #24: The Negro skull, in addition to having a smaller brain volume and thicker cranial bones than that of the White, is prognathous; i.e., the lower face projects forward, rather in the manner of an animal's muzzle. In consequence, the Negro jaw is substantially longer, relative to its width, than the White jaw. A feature of the Negro lower jaw is its retention of a vestige of the "simian shelf," a bony region immediately behind the incisors. The simian shelf is a distinguishing characteristic of apes, and it is absent in Whites. (9) (12) (39)FACT #25: The skin of the Negro is thicker and possibly superior to the White's in the way it impedes the penetration of germs and in its protection from the ultraviolet rays of the sun. (39) (14)FACT #26: The dark color of the Negro is due to melanin pigment which is spread through every layer of the skin and is found even in the muscles and brain. (9) (27)FACT #27: An African dentist can tell a Negro's tooth from a white man's at a glance. (14)FACT #28: Negroes have arms which are longer, relative to body height, than those of Whites. This feature, together with their much thicker cranial bones, gives Black athletes an advantage over Whites in boxing. The skeletal and muscular peculiarities of Negroes' lower limbs have given them considerable success as sprinters, but have left them relative undistinguished as distance runners. (39) (27)FACT #29: ADDITIONAL DIFFERENCESThe hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.The Negro has a shorter trunk the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.FACT #30: Blood group studies made during WWII suggest the American Negro gene pool is about 28% white. --This despite all manner of institutional discrimination, social segregation, etc. Keep in mind that the results of test from true Black Africans would show even bigger differences from Whites. (32) (14)

Firstly, Chavalon, you have narrowly interpreted the word "shapely" as having an intent of bias but it can mean, "1. Having a distinct shape." You can find this at, Shapely Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Furthermore, concerning the Administrator's comments, if you want to scare people away by using the race card that is your decision but it is my belief that whether someone is racist or not ultimately should not matter, only the merits of the argument should matter, the scientific validity, and the level of scrutiny invested in the assertions.Moreover, I do not consider myself to be racist, only a person who thinks that the differences in race are trivialized and reduced to red neck bigotry talk in most main stream media outlets.
The unmalicious debate of race that I'm discussing here should not be reduced to this level of scare tatics and ad hominum attacks. It can only be healthy to allow people to voice their opinions and concerns about matters they feel are important. Defeat me on the merits and all who read will benefit from your wisdom and knowledge. If anyone finds unscientific claims in the remarks I have posted then point them out but do not silence a debate with the race card. Lastly, I come here with only pure intentions of seeking truth and I would not intentionally mislead anyone and do not desire to demean or hurt any human being.Jimmy

Moose, thankyou for expressing your feelings without insinuating that I am a racist. Furthermore, I'd like to state, the reason I am not a racist is because I do not believe one race is superior to another race, only different.I found this document in entitled, "Two Seperarate Articles Listing Differences Between Blacks And Whites" on the web while doing research on this topic. I was already familiar with Dr. Rushton's work and of Jon Entine's work as well. From their books (cited on the document) the first half of differences were compiled. The second half of the document consisted of outtakes,(as cited) from Roger Roots of whom I was not at all familiar.
I was also unfamiliar with J. R. Colson the compiler of the document.
Of the four individuals associated with this document, I know Phillippe Rushton and Jon Entine are people of high caliber and respectable credentials. The other two I can not vouch for.
Therefore, it is only the second grouping of differences complied from Roger Roots that may have (in my opinion) been formulated with biased motives. Whatever J.R. Colson's feelings toward race are, they should be irrelevant here because he only complied the material he did not express his views directly.
However, all this being stated, I still feel that the entirety of this document, should be scrutinized unbiasedly, with an objective analysis. It shouldn't matter where these differences came from in my opinion, a foundation in truth will either be verifed or denied by the investigation of other objective people. Prove the assertions wrong on the merits.Jimmy

J. Philippe Rushton is a Professor University of Western Ontario. Rushton holds two doctorates from the Unversity of London, is a fellow of the Guggenheim Foundation, and of the American, British, and Canadian Psychological Associations. He is the author of six books, and hundreds of scholarly articles. Between 1986 and 1990, he was the 11th most cited psychologist in the world. He is undoubtedly the world's foremost authority on racial differences--and what does Quetzal (Author of message 27) say about him? That he got his start on "Geraldo". A distortion as crude as this can only be deliberate, as a visit to Prof. Rushton's http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org will demonstrate.
Furthermore, I must admit that when I stated this comment about "Two Seperate Articles Listing Racial Differences Between Whites And Blacks" in a previous post, "These cannot be disputed, they are facts which can be verified scientifically" I was refering to Philippe Rushton and Jon Entine's Books, not to Roger Roots, who I'm not familiar with, as I stated in my last post. That was an unitentional error. If any of you question Dr. Rushton's intellectual honesty, scientific methodology, or "diagnostic" methods, techniques, or tests, please give him the an objective consideration you would give anyone with his credentials before you accept Douglas Wahlsten's review (suggested by Quetzal) as complete, unerroneous testimony.Jimmy

Harry Lathlyn started the Pioneer Fund before the second World War. As to rumors of Wickliffe Draper, I'm sorry but there are many rumors about alot of things and this one seems to be false. Moreover, I strongly abhor the tatics used by Hitler and the Nazis as does Rushton so, don't try to tarnish Rushton's science which stands indepently and is open for critism to all who want to take part in the scientific process. Futhermore, why don't you tell everyone what your really doing? You're attacking the character of this man to devalue his message with scare tatics, character assinations, and ad hominum accusations. How about confronting Rushton's facts and proving them wrong instead of citing rumors and trying to scare people away from objectively considering his assessments of race? Maybe you just are afraid however, purely dealing with the facts is like the light that blinds the eyes of those who spend their life in the dark.Jimmy