Not at all I wouldn't say Africans are less evolved. I don't know why he might say that, I mean typically they don't have lower IQ's, they're not any closer to apes than we are or anything else like that. Though I wouldn't say your professor is racist. Just ignorant! I am sure he didn't say those things to be hurtful, he just has his facts wrong.

"Less evolved" is a meaningless phrase. Bacteria are no less evolved than we are, rather they have the sufficient amount of evolutionary adaptations required to survive in a given environment. Bacteria can survive pretty much anywhere, we can't. We can build rocket ships, they can't. One is not more evolved than the other, but we both have sufficient adaptations to thrive in our selected environment.

The same applies to caucasians and negroids. Aside from the fact that they are the same species, rendering the whole notion of "more evolved" pointless, they both have different adaptations to survive in a given environment. Caucasians have fair skin, Negroids have black skin, for one easy example. There are many other differences, showing that as they have evolved in different environments, they have developed an equal number of differences.

In short, your teacher isn't racist, just wrong.

Tiers of evolution, in my opinion, would be described as how high a species is on a food chain in relation to the scale of where they relevantly live. On Earth, I'd say all of humanity is the most evolved species, simply because of what our adaptations have produced for us; civilization, prosperity, surplus, benevolence, etc.

With that said, Africans are not less evolved then the rest of humanity. Adaptation does lead to evolving, but it doesn't necessarily. Adaptation leads to survival and progression of the species in a given environment, the former being prime importance before the later. To be less-evolved then humanity would require you be incapable of accomplishing the things that human adaptations allow humans to accomplish.

Since Africans can accomplish the same things any other human can accomplish, they are not less evolved, or lesser then other humans. Caucasians, Asians, Aboriginals, Native Americans... they are all simply the same species as Africans, just subsets that are adapted to suit different climates, not adapted to be able to accomplish more then Africans.

And before some fool disputes me, let me stop you in your tracks. An absence of advanced African civilizations has nothing to do with the genetics of the negro subspecies. African civilizations were never prevalent because they live(d) in a freaking desert, you racist git. Portions of humanity migrated out of Africa BECAUSE Africa is a desert and is practically inhospitable! And it's the inhospitable and hostile quality of Africa that made cultural progression there slow... unfortunately, slow enough for Africans to be taken advantage of by other human races, many millennium later. The ultimate point, therefore, is that a lack of African civilization is due to their environment, and has nothing to do with genetics, because their genetics do not differentiate them from other human subspecies to the point of them being unable to accomplish what other human subspecies can accomplish.

Check, and, mate.

Every generation of human is born with it's unique set of mutations that either thrive or die out, and it is not substantial to claim that Africa would have the least diverse genetic pool after such a time; in fact it could be a counterpoint to claim that this only makes it more likely that the population of Africa is then more evolved. This isn't true, though, because proper evolution requires a larger gene pool than what is really provided in Africa's mostly sparse hubs.

-

Honestly, how evolved some organism is isn't a very proper way to convey the notion you assume the professor was suggesting here; that being that Africans are 'lesser' in having evolved less. Consider the idyllic creature, with genes so well suited for it's habitat, it never needs to evolve. In several thousands of years, it'd remain the same; and perhaps in said time, other spin-off creatures from this superior creature are successful enough and generate other species in other locales... is it fair to compare the multitudes of spin-off species with the original organism when each has met a idyllic evolutionary point for their separate locales? No, they are unrelated in this way.

It depends on how you want to look at it. Technically, yes. We've evolved over the years to support the lac of heat and sunlight. But, on a more popular-meaning of the term, then no. Generally, people would assume that not as evolved would make them more stupid. But, really they're not.

I don't think your professor is necessarily a racist; just poorly educated. This would be a college professor? Not an actual post-PhD. level professor?

While his observations about Africans might be correct in terms in intelligence levels. Psychometric testing, inc. IQ testing, is subject to a number of variables which your professor probably hasn't accounted for. Much of the African population is subject to poverty and episodic famine. During fetal development, poor maternal nutrition can have an adverse effect on inter-uterine neurological development. After the baby is born, poor maternal nutrition can also impact both the quality and quantity of breast milk. And throughout childhood, nutrition continues to play an important role in neurological development. So, there are environmental factors at work which can have an adverse effect on brain development and these environmental influences are far more prevalent in Africa than they are in Western countries. If you exposed an anglo-saxon mother and child to the same carbohydrate deficient diet, you'd very likely end up with very similar neurological problems.

Another feature to be considered is the effect of childhood trauma. Much of Africa is prone of periodic civil and sectarian violence. There are a range of studies which demonstrate the effects of traumatic exposure on a young child in terms of neuroplastic development. Neuroplasticity refers to the degree of inter-connectedness between neuronal pathways in the brain. A child who is exposed to high levels of violence and trauma forms more efficient neuronal pathways for survival mechanism than they do for academic/cognitive functions. We see this also among anglo-saxon children who have been exposed to repeated sexual trauma.

One also needs to consider the quality of educational service providers in Africa. Many of these countries are relatively poor with third-world teaching facilities and third-world standard teachers. Most teachers can only be expected to teach up to the level of their own knowledge and not beyond.

Another factor related the third-world economics concerns parental or familial expectations and values. Often the children in African countries will have to go to work in a family business or elsewhere as soon as they come home from school and this could entail them working long hours. As such, there are few opportunities for these children to engage in study or complete homework activities.

Evolution would imply an improvement over time and so far all I have seen are changes over time. I would say no. I agree that there have been mutations but evolving....not so much

Physicaly and mentaly no. But they are none the less behind. Many African nations are in civil wars and just have many issues. They did not get the same modern revolutions that we did. So they are a little behind.