There is no race.

You haven't really defined race here. In fact, you're using the word in the definition, which isn't very helpful.

I believe there are competing theories about this. This point is, though, that it wasn't neanderthals. While, as fazstp pointed out, there is evidence that homo sapiens may have interbred with them to some extent, but the two were separate branches of the tree.

Well, neanderthals had evolved quite a ways from homo erectus in that sense. And there's apparently some evidence to suggest they actually had bigger brains than homo sapiens, which brings us back to why you think lack of similarity to neanderthals would mean a group is "more evolved".

Actually, I did. Distinguishing physical characteristics perpetual to a certain population group that has a common geographic ancestor population.


It really doesn't matter, modern humans that followed the interbreeding now have neanderthal DNA in them, thus making the neanderthals an ancestor. It's really not something up for debate.

What relevance does bigger brains have? For the second time, I'm saying that certain groups seem further evolved based on their appearance, namely neoteny. This has been a trend as "Homo Sapiens are more neotenized than Homo Erectus, Homo Erectus was more neotenized than Australopithicus, Great Apes are more neotenized than Old World monkeys and Old World monkeys are more neotenized than New World monkeys."

Actually, you didn't unless you are arguing that there are thousands and thousands of human races.

It does matter, because of what you were saying in the post I was initially responding to. You implied that the "less neanderthal" a group is, the "more evolved" they are. The problem with this, as I said earlier, is that neanderthals were cousins of modern humans, not their predecessors. What this means is that there are humans alive today who do not have neanderthal DNA in them. This is not because these groups evolved "further" than anybody else, but rather because their ancestors never mated with neanderthals.

Let me answer your question with a question: Who has a bigger brain to body ratio, adults or kids?

Why do I smell nothing but racism behind the entire purpose of this thread? People of all colors and all looks have varying degrees of intelligence. There are both brilliant and less than brilliant in all peoples. Evolution is equal among all.

Don't jump to conclusions. He's not racist, he's curious.

It depends on how specific you want to get. Look, I gave you my definition of race for this thread, as you asked. You are basically telling me that my definition of race is wrong. Maybe next time rather than asking a question of me that you would accept no answer for, you should save me the time and dictionary.com it. :thumb:

Ok first of all you are getting way too attached to my use of the word neanderthal. I'm sorry if I may have used it incorrectly in the first place. How about substituting "homo erectus" in for it from here on out.


http://www.nhm.ac.uk/resources-rx/im...k_106361_1.jpg
This just better illustrates my point anyways. The homo erectus is on the left, neanderthal in the middle, sapien on the right. One can clearly see the evolution away from the homo erectus here, and the movement towards more neotenous traits.


Kids I believe?


Anyways, it kind of disappoints me that this has (inevitably) moved from a discussion to an internet debate.

No, it's not. And life isn't fair. If evolution was equal, you wouldn't see people with different skin colors. Or disparities in height among different countries. My point is that if there's height differences, why not intelligence differences necessarily? Probably because, if true, it would bother a lot of people (again understandably).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_h...ound_the_world

A more important question; if you recognize the relationship between evolutionary necessity and the influence that social relations and environment have on the developing human mind, why are you still trying to judge books by their covers?

How is it racist to ask questions?

That said, intelligence is unquantifiable.