>the truth is rude
>ill be rude back
Im not even a conservative. Im close to it, but i dont formally endorse any ideology.
I only endrose evidence, without ascribing certain needs to it first.
>>I agree with artificial selection and dispute genetic diversity even though it's what makes natural selection work.
Where do i say i agree with artificial selection?
Im afraid your understanding of evolution is dead wrong, and probably enforced by some ideology.
Everything requires an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS), the only criteria for success is the ESS. NOT mixing genes. IF you already have an ESS, mixing with other genes carries with it the danger of dilution, the genes that are usefull to the ESS dont simply get picked out of the genome and activated, evolution doesnt work that way.
A simple example is this, if everyone has a gene for cancer and you have a gene for, lets say, IQ, if you mix with them you wont end up with just the desirable gene for IQ, you'll have the gene for cancer too.
Furthermore, if you have both genes and you survive because of your IQ, that doesnt mean IQ has been preserved, the caner gene has also been preserved.
So you see you have to be very careful about what you call genetic diversity, there are bad genes aswell as good ones. This is why i call your position homogonist ideology.
But i am not a white supremacist.