Evolution - are all races equally developed?

The problem with IQ tests is that you can't avoid some sort of bias according to the education/culture/environment/language of the test setter and the person taking the test. Using your example, if everyone set a test created in Israel, then the Israeli Ashkenazi Jews would probably score higher than the ones in the US and Britain.

I remember seeing an IQ test that required knowledge of American culture. Anyone who wasn't American would be at an immediate disadvantage. Even those that are more scientifically created still can't avoid some bias.

On the physical side, yes there are clearly some differences in size/strength. But who is to say which is superior or more developed. Each type of person has evolved to suit the environment they live in, therefore they are naturally the most developed for their area. Whether that is 'better' or 'worse' for another area is irrelvant, likewise whether they are bigger/smaller/stronger/more efficient at using resources/whatever is irrelevant in comparison with people evolved for another area. Is it 'more developed' to be a tall person who needs more food, or a short person who needs less food?

Peaceblinkfriend wrote:

Are we all equal? Do we all have the same level of intelligence? Do we all have the same level of phyiscal fitness? Considering the notion of evolution, are all races developed to the same stage mentally and physically?

I find a slight contradiction in the question: the phrases "levels of intelligence", "levels of physical fitness", and "development to stage X" relate to the human evaluation of phenomena, while evolutionionary theory relates to the correspondence of those phenomena to the environment.

We don't know, for instance, whether what we think of as "high intelligence" confers any evolutionary advantage; and as Nona suggests, what we think of as "physical fitness" is not necessarily always selected for.

MrP

Social scientists (which includes anthroplogists and psychologists) conduct their investigations using a rigorous methodology and always come to conclusions that support what they believed before they started.

"Race" is one of those concepts that the more you look into it the more difficult it is to pin down.

"Intelligence" is also slippery. All definitions of intelligence come down to deciding what it is you are going to measure and that is before you work out how you are going to measure it.

Whilst it is clear that physical characteristics are inherited, it is by no means certain that intelligence is inherited. If it cannot be shown that intelligence is inherited then it makes little sense to talk about one race being more intelligent than another.

The best you can say is "This group of people (defined according to some predetermined criteria) show more/less intelligence (abilities that have been chosen to be measured) than this group." And when you have done that it does not follow that the degree of intelligence depends on the chosen criteria.