If they teach evolution in schools why is it wrong to believe in genetic superiority? How can man be created equal if they evolve differently?

Whites as a whole are not smarter than Africans though.

I think you mean whites are smarter on average. There are white people with intelligence below that of the average african, and there are africans with intelligence above that of the average white.

I think you mean whites are smarter on average. There are white people with intelligence below that of the average african, and there are africans with intelligence above that of the average white.

Skepticism is at the heart of science. Rigidly adhering to THEORY is not. Don't be so quick to judge others...

I know someone (an American) who is half African and brilliant, and there are many stories about Africans from Africa who are intelligent AND high-achieving (not the same thing). One also ought to figure how that intelligence is expressed (engineering, dancing, etc.). For the very intelligent, like the African-American person I know, intelligence manifests in many areas.

However, statistics show that although there are generally more men in prison AND more male geniuses than women, who cluster more towards the mean (narrower bell curve, true across all groups, meaning the average woman is smarter than the average man), the black IQ distribution is shifted to the left, lower than white, East Asian, and Jewish (the highest scorers). The flattened bell curve of men, and particularly white men, explains the greater number of white male geniuses.

That said, everyone ought to be given an equal chance and support when they need it.

whites as a whole are smarter than africans because they evolved to plan for a very cold and hostile winter, survival in this climate was dependent on the ability of the mind to think and construct tools to live threw and store food in the winter. In africa life was not dependent on the intelligence to make cloths or fire or shelter. you had to only be fast to outrun the wide veriaty of plains predators. there i said it evo tards fact simply exists independent to your bleeding heart views of it.

1 - Being skeptic is not being stubborn and simply disagree with everything. You can be skeptical about anything, but when shown reasons contrary to what you think, skepticism is no more.

2 - Theory, in scientific terms has a different meaning than that to a layman. Theory, in science, means that there are several tests and evidence to support it as the closest of reality as possible. Its not like a hunch or a simple idea. It starts like this, an observation, which is tested all the ways possible and the results must match, must be possible to be reproduced with the same results under the same conditions.

1) Being a skeptic means not necessarily believing things that are not proven, aka, remaining open to other theories.

2) There are numerous examples of competing theories. Theory does not by definition elevate an idea to the exclusion of all others.

Thanks though for the considered response.

1 - Being skeptic is not being stubborn and simply disagree with everything. You can be skeptical about anything, but when shown reasons contrary to what you think, skepticism is no more.

2 - Theory, in scientific terms has a different meaning than that to a layman. Theory, in science, means that there are several tests and evidence to support it as the closest of reality as possible. Its not like a hunch or a simple idea. It starts like this, an observation, which is tested all the ways possible and the results must match, must be possible to be reproduced with the same results under the same conditions.

You don't understand evolution. I'm sure you would assume humans are genetically "superior" to fish. But if I drop you in the middle of the pacific ocean suddenly who is superior? I'll let that sink in for ya.

What's the problem?

We'll evolve flippers then and we'll adapt to life in the ocean.

Your evotardism is lacking peppy.

How does a scientist test millions of years of evotardism exactly?

I'm all ears for science sonny, but evotardism is not science. If evotardism would be true, the countless animal experiments on countless generations would have proven this by now. The exact opposite happened showing only neutral or negative mutations occur and not one beneficial mutation arising.

Furthermore, a theory can be wrong, you are aware of this? You are aware that this has happened many times in our shared history?

One thing I do know, is that evotards in general aren't skeptic. Sheeptic is a better word.

1 - The simple fact that you say "theory" as in having the same meaning as a hunch, is indication that you don't know what science is. A theory in scientific "jargon" means something that has been tested and verified many times, in many different ways and all results point for it to be correct.

2 - Where do you think your meat comes from? Breeding farms, where evolution plays the main role. The best animals to the purpose desired are selected and bred. The more fat pigs, the more healthy cows and so on. This is evolution at its core. There are thousands of evidence showing positive changes. And they all are evidence of evolution.

3 - Again, being skeptic is not being stubborn. You can be skeptic about whatever you want, but when shown evidence to the contrary, if skepticism is not gone, then its just stubbornness.

1 - Except for all the countless experiments on countless generations of different organisms, which show the flaws of your belief, its just stubbornness.

2 - Small pig, big pig, stupid pig, smart pig, they are all pigs and they remain pig but that's just stubbornness.

3 - What about all the contrary evidence on evotardism? See 1 and 2.

The teats tell more than evolution of man theory science does, at least to me any way.
This is the normal count not including the defected ones.
Woman has 2 and so does the man that came from her.
Female cat has 6 and so does the male cat that came from her.
If man evolves so would the animals.
They have not changed and neither has the man.
That does not include the species of animals that went into extinction due to the enviroment changing.
For as many ancient remains we have intact enough to see the man they have not changed and neither had the cats.
If we get a new different cat it is a breed made by breeding some change to its coat and such, not to its basic necessity reguired to bring forth off spring, such as a hairless rex has 6 teats. If there is a change there is is by defect and not counted as the norm and can be passed on to its off spring.
If a people are uncomfortable with the defected ones to the point they send or set them off from them, they would multiply if can, among those set off with them and like them their own selves. In time and compounding defect upon defect they can become overwhelmed by their own limitations by defects alone and cease to be able to multiply their selves becoming extinct.
This is seen in the animals as well a mother deer abandons her fawn when its color is blanc. The same it would be with man in harsher ages and enviroment with their own.
Not evolution at all it is basic necessities commanding our order before we were born and perpetuly does so until no more are born.
No ape to man exists.

I do not believe in evolution. I believe in the curse of cultures who did not and do not accept God and his Son Jesus Christ - who is himself also God in the flesh.

But it seems to me illogical to believe in and promote evolution and then claim there is something wrong with other people who also believe the same thing but are realistic and practical about their approach to their belief and are outspoken about it. Why are these people, who are people of ALL RACES, called "racist" or "supremacists" as if it is a wrong thing? What IS wrong is hatred, what is not wrong (even though I as a bible-believing Christian believe it is wrong) is believing that their race is factually superior to another. These people should be considered "factists" who seem to hate it when other people hate the truth. I don't see why that is not plausible until further information that might suggest a "factist" wants to maybe perhaps enslvae or kill other races because of their ideology then their hatred to opposition to what they believe to be true has spread onto people themselves, then of course that is an unacceptable problem is a problem.

There are supremacists, or factists, in every race. But there is one truth - and I will remind everyone that there is no macro evolution of humankind and there is only 1 race and nurture determines whether a white, black, or asian child will grow up to be well from having moral parents or unwell from having immoral parents no matter what race the parents are.

Because liberalism is as experiment designed to see how many contradictions can be simultaniously held in the minds of fools.

1 - Quote one
2 - You didn't understood what I said and neither understands what evolution is.
3 - See 2

This I agree with. The question in my mind has always been..."well then, why are we still evolving"? ...which we are not.

1 - Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [the fruit fly] usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact, lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown.” Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man

2 - What's not to understand? Fish result in more fish, pigs result in more pigs, birds in birds, sure there's a huge variety, but they all remain the same. The opposite has never been proven.

3 - See 1, 2 and