I've seen many people post questions on online forums that ask if black people are more closely related to Apes then are other races of people
#facepalm Humans (whether they'd be white, black, yellow, brown, red or any combination of the above) are apes. That's like asking if rats are more closely related to mammals than other species of rodents or if Ohio is closer to the US than other parts of the US.
Now many would argue that black people are less evolved then white people and share more in common with other species of apes and even Darwin believed that (a point which I'll adress later). But t'aint no such thing as a more or less "evolved" organism within the same timeframe because all organisms on Earth are equally "evolved" because they've all been evolving for 4 billion years. Nor are there more "primitive" or "advanced" organisms because "advanced" implies an advancement towards an ultimate goal as opposed to an entirley temporal one of adaptation. Now there are more basal and more derrived organisms meaning more and less similar to the common ancestor of both but one or the other won't necessarily imply a survival advantage. Darwin may well have believed that black people were more basal than other races (which has no evidence backing) but that's not to say that he thought they were "inferior". So even if someone were to measure the skulls and facial features of a population of Africans and compared it to other populations and ran it through a statistical analysis and proved beyond a reasonable doubt that black people had more in common wiht apes than other races of people, you've still got all of your work ahead of you before you show that they are somehow "inferior" to other races of people.
Most Helpful Girl
Most Helpful Guy
Well, the fact is that Nature does not give a rat's ass about political correctness. Indeed, there are differences between the races that make some races better than others in various ways. If you don't believe that Nature can be racist, ask yourself how come Sickle Cell Anemia is dominant in blacks or how come most far-east Asians have epicanthic folds or how come blue eyes, ginger hair, and skin cancer is more prevalent in caucasians (whites)?
Each of us has genetic distinctiveness and the distinctiveness of ethnic groups is due to evolutionary pressures. For instance, in Europe, white people are white because they lived in northern latitudes which get less sunlight than in equatorial latitudes. And notice that the more north you go, the whiter the native ethnic group gets. This is because the body needs vitamin D and for the body to make vitamin D, it needs sunlight. The further south you go, the darker people become and there's a reason for this: those people get enough sunlight to manufacture vitamin D, but they need more melanin to avoid skin cancer and melanin is what causes skin to become dark. This is why white people are more susceptible to skin cancer - they have much less melanin.
The point in all of this is that Nature definitely is "racist". As to a race or ethnicity being better than a different race or ethnicity, that may actually be so, but that depends on what "better means". Many African men are tall so they'd make good basketball players, but many Latin American men are rather short and they make better horse racing jockeys. So which race is better?0