The stark reality of racial differences should be a primary part of public policy.
by W.P. Rayburn
Trick Question: Which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Why, the egg, obviously. Why? As per evolutionary theory, species are always in a constant state of change. So our newly hatched chicken is ever so slightly different from his parents and from all other chickens that have ever existed. Perhaps over a sufficient time span our chicken’s ancestors will look completely different from their progenitor whom we examine today. So to answer the age old conundrum, the egg always precedes the chicken that, once hatched, is a slightly different species than his parents. That change is always occurring within all species is a fundamental axiom of evolutionary theory. This force of nature applies as equally to chickens as it does to humans
Evolutionary theory is almost universally accepted by modern science. In recent decades, however, the theory of evolution has been used as a political battering ram against Christians who believe in a strict interpretation of the creation story in the bible. Although I don’t wish to weigh in on subject of people’s beliefs, I do believe in the theory of evolution. I can also say that I am a Christian in as much as I attend a Christian church and feel that the ethics espoused by Jesus are indispensable on an intra-group basis. I, however, fail to see the point of trying to undermine anyone’s beliefs, unless you are, of course trying to re-engineer society as a whole. From an epistemological standpoint, why would anyone care what anyone believed? Live and let live, right?
Unfortunately, live and let live is no longer a cherished American principle.
And those who seem bent on a crusade to undermine other people’s faith, using evolutionary theory, are indeed intolerant social engineers. But here’s what is funny. These same people, who wield evolution like a club, completely abandon all of the most fundamental tenets of evolutionary theory when it comes to the different subspecies of humans. Yes, subspecies, not races. Race is an amorphous way to describe what are taxonomically distinct sub-species. I will use the term “race” to denote sub-species only because “race” has become such an integral part of our common vernacular.
Only in America (and the entire West for that matter) are we so scientifically oriented, yet willing to shamelessly abandon scientific principles when it comes to political agendas. In reality this is nothing new in the Western world. In the middle ages scientists were ruthlessly suppressed by the power structure of their day: The Church. After all, if a medieval researcher discovered that germs and not evil spirits actually caused illness, then the Church would be out of a lot of power and money as parishioners would no longer need to pay the church to intercede on the behalf of a sick loved one. Today, things are not much different, except the new power structure is a bit more secular.
The West is currently in the midst of an intellectual glaciation. And until the ice starts to thaw we are doomed to continue on with failed policy after failed policy, simply because we will not acknowledge established scientific facts about the fundamental differences that exist among genetically different human populations.
THE FACTS:
The differential evolution of human populations is scientifically well established. According to the data, modern humans or Homo sapiens first appeared in northeast Africa somewhere between 200,000 and 150,000 years before the present. By about 100,000 years ago Homo sapiens began to migrate out of northeast Africa into what is currently the near east. By 45,000 b.p. modern humans were well established in Europe (the Don River settlement,) east Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. What was once a single species had migrated into markedly different environments, each with its own unique demands and completely isolated from one another. It is at this point that the differential development of the three main racial groups (European, Asian, and sub-Saharan African) began to take shape.
The areas of Europe and east-Asia were far more challenging than sub-Saharan Africa. At about 45,000 years b.p. these areas were climatically similar to today, temperate to sub-arctic, whereas most sub-Saharan African populations were clustered in areas of Africa that were tropical to sub-tropical. Europe and north-east Asia, or Eurasia (for the sake of simplicity) were far more cognitively demanding environments than the perennial lush jungles of sub-Saharan Africa. Selection pressures against those with low overall intelligence were severe in Eurasia and those with low intelligence were quickly eliminated from the population, leaving only the smartest to reproduce. Sub-Saharan African populations were not faced with the same pressures as those in Eurasia. The comparatively warm climate in sub-Saharan Africa simply didn’t exert the same selection pressures of the colder Eurasian climate. Although high intelligence would naturally be favored, low intelligence would not be culled from the gene pool as severely in an environment where food was readily available year round and shelter was not always an imperative for survival.
The pressures exerted on human populations in a colder climate are numerous. In cold climates, humans faced daily life and death challenges. Gathering food was only possible for a few months out of the year, thereby necessitating hunting to eat. This would require high levels of technical proficiency in weapons making and the ability to cooperate and efficiently communicate with other members of the hunting party. Storing food in the winter months would also require advanced planning. Those who were not intellectually capable simply died. Other necessities of colder climates, such as making clothing and shelter, required greater intelligence than an environment where the temperatures were generally warm. Once again, those without the requisite intelligence to meet these daily challenges simply died, leaving behind only the most intelligent members of the population to reproduce.
As you can see, the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection operated differentially on Eurasian and sub-Saharan African populations. Humans across Eurasia, over time became consistently more intelligent and much faster than their sub-Saharan African counterparts. The last ice age, or the Wurm Glaciation, from 28,000 b.p. until 10,000 b.p. was most likely the seminal climatic event that solidified the divergence of the three main racial groups into the distinct human sub-species we see today. Indeed, the evolutionary gap in intelligence between the European and east-Asian populations; and all other human groups, most likely came to fruition during the Wurm Glaciation. The severity of the cold weather during the last ice age existed solely in the northern latitudes of Eurasia. The last ice age put inordinate selection pressure on early Europeans and east-Asians. Those endowed with higher intelligence had a pronounced advantage over those without high intelligence. Their numbers would have exponentially multiplied, forcing their dimmer brethren into oblivion and creating the high intelligence populations that inhabit Europe and east-Asia to this day.
THE IMPLICATIONS:
Science has no conscience. It is simply our best approximation of truth. No matter how badly we would like to think that humans are “all the same under the skin,” the scientific reality is that human differential evolution has produced distinct sub-species of humans. The stark reality of racial differences should be a primary part of public policy. Alas, it is not. Instead of basing our national policies on scientific knowledge, we continue to squander our time, money, and sanity on chasing the ever elusive opiate of “equality.” For some it is simply too painful to acknowledge the harsh reality that, some people, no matter how hard they try, or how guilty we feel when they fail, will simply NEVER be able to compete in a modern, first world society. The evolutionary gap in intelligence between Europeans, east-Asians and say, sub-Saharan Africans, is completely unbridgeable.
CONCLUSIONS:
Those who espouse the “brotherhood of man” or that we are all a “blank slate” upon birth, or that racial differences are a “social construct” are ill informed at best. At worst, those who deny fundamental differences among racial groups are disingenuous propagandists for an ill-fated social experiment. Always go with facts over rhetoric. Those who wield evolution as a tool to marginalize Christians are utterly hypocritical when they don’t apply evolutionary theory to human group differences. Yet this is how the left operates.
Until we break free from the intellectual shackles that have been placed upon us, we will continue to reap failure and misery in many of our policies. From integration and affirmative action to third world immigration, all such policies will wreak disaster upon the peoples of first world nations who fail to take into account the scientific principles of evolution and the differential effects of evolution on the various human races. Hopefully science and reason will triumph over emotion before it is too late.