There is always a superior section within all species, it's how evolution works. During the evolution of humans, there have been many variants which have disappeared by extinction, mainly through integration. This allows the species to evolve using the best aspects of each different variant. That's what I understood the author of the thread to be talking about from the very start, nothing to do with the bizarre creationist babble or the elitist values of some varieties of humans being superior. In a few thousand years if humanity survives, science may well be trying to figure out how the current indigenous sections of humanity disappeared so quickly and may also be looking for a missing link. However I believe if humans survive the next 10 years, we will have evolved beyond the primitive god and creationist delusions.

For the first time more Australian indigenous are in relationships with non Aboriginals, meaning in a few generations they as a separate section of humanity will disappear. Is the Aryan race more superior then others, no but some sections of it may be more evolved, or using better words, equipped to evolve the race into the future. Whilst others, stay trapped in their ideological pasts. In all sections of the human race, you will find superior understanding, those who reject it and those who make up the numbers. It's a balance, which allows species to determine which path forward will actually enhance the specie and which will stagnate it into oblivion. We are at the point now and it probably began with Darwin and is now at it's peak. Those rejecting evolution cling desperately to their dying past, whilst the evolving desperately seek answers for our self created dilemma's and the numbers fuel the fires of both camps.

God and it's belief is a primitive superstition, fuelled by deception and a desperate fear of unfolding understanding which leads to evolutionary jumps.

What I get from the article is, you can have superior understanding, but you must have equality of life and not the other way round. Something creationists and other ideologists can't abide.

stormbay, you make the common mistake of assuming that evolution works by selecting a "superior" section within species. What is meant by "survival of the fittest" is that some individuals will be better adapted to their environment, and thus more likely to survive and reproduce.

It has nothing to do with any supposed "superiority". Indeed, as environments change, traits that were previously advantageous may no longer be. Conversely, previously disadvantageous traits may now assist the individual to survive.

To take the classic, high-school biology example of the Pepper Moth, as Industrial-Era soot darkened tree trunks, the darker moths, who had beforehand stood out more obviously against pale tree trunks, were suddenly better camouflaged, and began to rapidly out-survive their paler cousins.

Another case in point: Are bacteria superior to hominids? If you were to define evolutionary superiority by longevity (ie of a species/genus/family) and population numbers, bacteria are the clear winners. After all, they're the ones who've been here for billions of years, and populated pretty much every environment on the planet.

As for "indigenous sections of humanity": an Australian Aboriginal is exactly the same species as a French European, and both are exactly the same species as an ancient Sumerian.

We're all members of the species Homo Sapiens.

[b]Clownfish[/b], please read what I write, before assuming I have said something when I had not. My post relates to a superior understanding of the world, a mental aspect of humanity. Just as there are superior biological or physical sections of humanity at any one time, which I was not talking about. A superior mind does not necessarily go with a superior body, in fact we may find if you've got a good brain, you may have a weak body. However I should have been more specific, so some don't try to manipulate my words or misunderstand. I probably have a good idea of evolutionary biology, as I've undertaken tertiary studies in cultural anthropology and psychology.

As one who carries both Palawa and Koori in my genetics, I am well aware of human status and how ideologists view evolution. The Australian indigenous are far superior to Aryans when it come to many understandings in life and physical prowess. The first Aryans who came here had more technological understanding and force, but they lacked the superior life and ecological understanding of the inhabitants and still do. Now the indigenous have both the physical and mental understanding, so who is actually the most evolved, those who destroy, or those who support life. It is the mind which makes the difference in the end, as it forces change and so, evolution.

Superior understanding or ability, only relates to outcomes. You can only define an event as an evolutionary step, by the outcome. For humanity to evolve, we need a balance of equality of life and accept we may all be at different levels of evolution, but in the same time scale. They are all important to us and in a future without the variations, we would all be the same and very vulnerable to extinction. Nothing is good or bad, just evolving. The only thing which doesn't evolve is god and creationism, as we see by the outcomes, they will become extinct, as have all previous fear based superstitious ideologies. That will be a real mental evolution and a big step forward.

what a w(profanity deleted)er.

Yes, but by similar criteria, Caton's article is a w(profanity deleted)k.

However, you have to concede that they're both interesting versions thereof :D

Democritus,
I feel that you have missed Romany’s point. You focus on the meaning of the word endorse. I think Romany appreciates this word, but the question is exactly what did Darwin endorse. Romany interpreted Caton as saying that Darwin did not endorse the practice of eugenics. So it appears to me that you are arguing with someone with whom you are in agreement.

Earlier you made an aside that Darwin, had he been alive today, would see Caton sued for libel for his allegations of Darwin endorsing eugenics. Is this another example of time travel ethics, where Darwin would have been angered enough to sue Caton because of what we think of eugenics under today’s social sensibilities? In the late 19th Century there were quite a few in influential spheres who didn’t think eugenics was such a bad idea.

Would Darwin have sued for being associated with a practice for which his own cousin is credited as being primary advocate? Who knows?

Some argue that if Lance Armstrong was born a horse he would have won a lot of Kentucky Derbies.