Do YOU think some races or groups of people born in other geographical

>>2227434
>Why can't we put that same logic to humans?

Because its unethical and racist.

>>2227444
I don't think you answered my question. Do you think that the theory of evolution applies to us? Do you think that over time groups of people in different environments develop advantages and disadvantages?

>>2227434
Yes the fact that white people in just 300 years are able to easily thrive in Africa and Australia makes them superior designs to African blacks and Abos who took millenia to do so.

>>2227490
It does apply but you're in no position to interpret it the way you seem to want to interpret it.

>>2227444

You can apply the same kind of reasoning to humans. The problem is what happens to you after you do that: usually, you get watsoned.

Yes I certainly do, I believe tribal people from the Congo are more capable of surviving in the Congo than whites, and that Chinese people are more capable of surviving in China, and etc etc. Their is simple adaptation that humans have based off the location in which they geographically originated from that benefits them in the area in which they are from, but based off modern day society it doesn't really matter about race or geographical location, because we are capable of making things to help benefit us besides just genetics, such as vaccines and tools

If you're serious about this question, it's worth realizing that it's completely unscientific to assign value (like better) to adaptations in general. Evolution isn't a guided process working towards a goal where things get better. You're also mixing up biological and cultural adaptations. Animals tend to change biologically to fit different environments; humans don't, they use culture to adapt.

If you actually want to read about this, read up on neoevolutionary theory in anthropology and processual archaeology. Steward, White, Service, Sahlins, and Binford are the key names to look for. Be aware that this is outdated theory, though. A long time ago, anthropologists realized this kind of thinking was overly simplistic, not productive in a lot of cases, and moved on to models that give better understanding of different cultural traits.

>>2227434
yes

>>2227434
Yes, though better is not correct. There is no "better" in evolution. It's adaptation by elimination of unsuccessful mutations when it comes to specific environments. So what is "good" for one population makes no sense for another.

Different human population do have biological differences, that is, at least, genetically, morphologically and medically safe to say.

The quality of said differences is entirely dependent on where one would want to apply them. If group X exhibits great stamina due to mutation 1, they'll make great athletes while group Y is not easily susceptible to a certain disease. Totally unrelated.
>I would assume that after a few thousand years into future (if we're still alive) some humans would have some sort of change right?

No, we are working towards a global living standard and it would take much more than thousands of years of complete isolation from civilization for a certain group to have any drastic variation from the rest of the human species.

tl:dr Yes, different "races" are biologically different in certain aspects, but that hardly means anything.

File: we-re-all-too-fragile-for-this-world.png (159KB, 500x1186px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 500x1186px

>>2227434
no, it's retarded.
Outside of pic related(inb4 >satw) thousands of years are fucking irrelevant outside of that's in the pic.