Dominant genes vs natural selection

I often hear that blacks and Arabs have dominant genes. The common assumption made by Mudsharks and Camelfuckers is that their genes are stronger, superior to those of white people, hypocritically covering their abnormal sexual affinities.

Dominance in biology means that a gene overrun another statistically. Just like putting shit on you makes you very likely to smell like shit, mixing with blacks or Arabs makes white people like them (physically and personality wise – due to genetic impact of brain constitution). But does it mean that the result is more adapted from a natural selection point of view?

To find the answer, I refer to the past. Between 50000 and 25000 years ago the Homo Sapiens came in Europe and mixed with the Neanderthal. The homo sapiens was 100% black, as Africans are today. Nonetheless, Europeans are white, and if Camelfuckers hadn’t mixed them throughout extensive conquest and women slavery/rape, they would still be white from the north to the south, and the west to east.

What does it tell us exactly? It tells us that naturally, the white color and white European biological constitution emerged as the only evolution, disqualifying black color and African customs. This also draws a line between statistics and evolution.

Genes transmission are statistical while evolution is selective. Anyone can reproduce, but the most adapted survives, and that is a big difference.

Leave a Reply