White flight for example would be the result of years of development in the harsh northern climates where conflict would lead to the destruction of what little you had (things to keep you warm specifically) which would result in you freezing to death. The African populations on the other hand, lived in a warm environment with plenty of food on demand and therefor the species was better suited for conflict because they could easily rebuild their survival necessities.

Well the Bible outlines the origin of the various peoples via the lines of  Shem, Japhet and Ham, and their sons, respectively:

Elam, Asshur, Arphaxad, Lud, Aram and Japhet's Gomer, Magog, Madai, Javan, Tubal, Meshech, Tiras, and the subsequent generations.

Ham generated Cush, Mizraim, Phut and Canaan.

Given the actual age of the Earth, microevolution for the Homo sapiens' various sub-categories is doubtful, as it should've been a relatively fast phenomenon, in the order of the millennia, and historiographically observable.

For instance, Alexander the Great's army alleged demographical contributions to the northern Indian populations should be undetectable after 2300 years or so, and indigenous populations in North America and Siberia should have "microevolved" to resemble their caucasian counterparts.

Let alone the racial differences do not involve merely skin colour, which is actually possibly one of the least striking differences, relatively to bone structure, cranium, genetics, etc.


Now, before I get the standard "you a idjit study a book" response, I'm not dismissing the whole evolutionary field on the basis of these raw and simple minded observations.

On the contrary, I'm saying it is so complex, and inaccessible if not to the elect few (as often is the case with sciences), what the lowly researchers let alone "amateurs" get is such an oversimplified version of the facts they might very well be steered in a particular direction on purpose.

Data is horse with many saddles.

It's a site that cloaks itself as "satirical" to give itself immunity to criticism and outrage, but its purpose is to propel to the surface the subconscious hate and resentment that non-whites and non-Christians harbor towards white Christians through many decades of "white, Christian guilt" propagated by the Jєωιѕн media and Hollywood, hence the cultural war against white, traditional, Christian patriarchal families. The intent of this site is to reenforce and evoke hate, and galvanize enough like minded people, against whites and Christians. The writers and readers of that site actually, more or less, hold the same sentiment and views.


Here, in the "flesh", is the Jew professor in his own words (interview):

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/18ZsZ2gXUGg[/youtube]


 

The Washington Times isn't satirical. link

Quote

A Harvard professor wants to abolish the white race.
Noel Ignatiev, a founder of a journal called Race Traitor and a fellow at Harvard's W.E.B. DuBois Institute, a leading black-studies department, argues in the current issue of Harvard Magazine that "abolishing the white race" is "so desirable that some may find it hard to believe" that anyone other than "committed white supremacists" would oppose it. [...]

As I said in my post, the professor at issue has made some very inflammatory (perhaps I should have used a stronger adjective) statements about the white race.  I was just pointing out that the specific interview you posted was fake.