Home » Evolution » The Concept of “More Evolved”: A Reply to Pumpkin Person

The Concept of “More Evolved”: A Reply to Pumpkin Person

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 72 other followers

Follow me on Twitter

JP Rushton

Richard Lynn

L:inda Gottfredson


1000 words

Recently, PumpkinPerson has been stating that one population can be ‘more evolved‘ than another which doesn’t make any biological sense. PP’s basic thesis is that since we are the last branch on the tree in comparison to the lifeforms that came before Homo Sapiens, that due to that, we are ‘more evolved’ than other organisms on the planet. I get where he’s coming from; he’s just extremely wrong.

Organisms evolve to better adapt to their environment through Natural Selection (NS). NS does select for positive traits, however, evolution is not a linear process. PP also claims that “evolution is progressive“. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Stating that evolution is “progressive” means that evolution through NS is progressing to an “endgame”. Though, we know there is no “endgame” with evolution, as evolution just happens.

Evolution is not progressive. NS may select for traits not suitable for that environment, as NS is “not all-powerful”. Selecting for one advantageous trait may change another trait for the worse. (See “Misconceptions on Evolutionary Trees“, which is what PP did, from Berkely).

PP asks “Who is most evolved?”

No organism is “more evolved” than another. NS selects for traits that are advantageous to that current environment (it selects for negative traits as well). Due to this, the word “superior”, the phrase “more evolved” is meaningless comparing human races to one another and humanity as a whole to the other lifeforms on the planet.

PP quotes Rushton as saying

One theoretical possibility is that evolution is progressive, and that some populations are more advanced than others.” J.P. Rushton, 1989

We know that evolution is not progressive, so due to this, some populations are not more advanced than others. Genetic superiority can be measured subjectively, but not objectively, as each organism has different strengths and weaknesses due to its environment.

PP then implies that bacteria are “less evolved” than we are. However, with recent breakthroughs in the HMP (Human Microbiome Project) we see the huge role that gut microbiota play when it comes to communicating with the brain, how antibiotics that kill gut microbiota also stop the growth of new brain cells, and how altered gut microbiota cause obesity. With more amazing uses and benefits we find involving gut microbiota and human health, can we really say that we’re “more evolved” than these organisms when they account for a huge amount of positive benefits for as a whole.

For another example, cows using their own genes wouldn’t be able to extract the fiber out of the food they eat. They would need special enzymes to break down the cell wall to extract the nutrients from the food. Though, evolving the genes to do this would take an extremely long time. This is where gut microbiota come in. Trillions of microbiomes live in the cows’ 4 stomachs.  The microbiomes living in the cows’ gut processes the food back and forth through the mechanical grinding of the cows’ mouth and thus, the nutrients are extracted by the microbiomes that way.

In this instance, is a cow superior to its microbiomes if a cow’s microbiomes make it possible for it to digest its food?

PP then asks “Does more evolved mean superior?”

No, it doesn’t. There is no way to quantify this, as evolution is not progressive. Furthermore, saying that one organism is “more evolved” than another doesn’t make any sense since, as noted earlier in this article, each organism is suited to the environment it evolved in through NS.

PP then says that he prefers a 3 race model, when a 5 race model makes more sense. These populations are “Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.”

I assume he would put ‘Natives’ with Asian Mongoloids, but ‘Natives’ have been genetically isolated in the Americas for so long that they formed their own distinct clade away from other populations due to no introgression between them, when other populations have admixture from other parts of the world:

Significant genetic input from outside is not noticed in Meso and South American Amerindians according to the phylogenetic analyses; while all world populations (including Africans, Europeans, Asians, Australians, Polynesians, North American Na-Dene Indians and Eskimos) are genetically related. Meso and South American Amerindians tend to remain isolated in the Neighbor-Joining, correspondence and plane genetic distance analyses.

Hence, a 5 race model makes more sense as these populations show genetic differentiation between each other.

Still, others may take the concept of “more evolved” and believe that one race is “more evolved” than another. That’s another wrong statement.

The assumption here is that populations that evolved closer to the equator had evolution “stop” for them due to “ease of lifestyle” (life is easy nowhere). That too makes no evolutionary sense. If that were so, how did Africans evolve the sickle cell trait? Evolution is a constant, ongoing process and does not ‘speed up or slow down’ based on the environments in which ancestral evolution has occurred.

Moreover, r/K selection theory does dictate fast and slow life history strategies, but it has nothing to do with ‘fast or slow evolution within human populations’.

To state that evolution ‘is faster or slower’ in certain populations of humans is like saying ‘evolution has slowed for man since 50kya’ as anti-human-evolutionists have said:

“Something must have happened to weaken the selective pressure drastically. We cannot escape the conclusion that man’s evolution towards manness has suddenly come to a halt.” – Ernst Mayr

“There’s been no biological change in humans in 40,000 or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we’ve built with the same body and brain.” – Stephen Jay Gould

Stating that evolution occurs faster in certain populations is on the complete opposite of the “evolution stopped for humans 50kya” camp, which we know is not true and evolution has sped up in the last 10kya.

To say that one organism, or population for that matter, is more evolved than another makes no biological sense. Each organism is suited to its own environment and where it evolved. Even then, different organisms evolve different traits depending on what they have to do in that ecosystem to survive. Darwin’s finches are a perfect example of that.



  1. Mike says:

    “PP then asks ‘Does more evolved mean superior?'”

    I think you’re dragging yourself down by responding to this Halloween Nightmare. Cernovich, Molyneux, Day, etc., maintain an audience of millions; yet present highly complex, often esoteric, information. If you managed a larger social media following, I’d be surprised if a book you authored wasn’t high in the Amazon rankings.

    Your audience is probably 1 SD above the mean European IQ. We are the disparate perpetrators of philosophy of FreedomainRadio, the vociferous nationalists of the Alt-Right, the #rabidpuppies of Vox Popoli. Give us something to chew on.

    -Why the religious so invariably birth more children than their atheist critics, i.e., the genetics of religion.

    -The facial structure of an SJW, and other neo-Puritans that so firmly believe that “all sex is rape.” AKA, can we predict an SJW from their genetics?

    -Changes in mentality and motivation with regular exercise; not just the obvious release of endorphins but changes in brain activity, horomone levels, etc.

    -The science of interracial marriage, i.e., why more educated/higher IQ women date interracially the most yet simultaneously have one of the lowest birthrates. Or, more broadly, are the races mixing, or separating as per the “10,000 year explosion” in human evolution.

    -The genetics behind what makes a man Alpha, Beta, Sigma, Delta, Gamma, Omega. Looks are looks, but how much weight does environment have on your place, not necessarily in the socio-sexual hierarchy, but in your standing amongst those of your same gender.

    -What changes, if any, in human evolution have occurred since the industrial revolution, and especially, since the rise of the internet if there is any data recent enough. E.g., that women with more media exposure to mothers with fewer children have fewer children themselves.


    • RaceRealist says:

      I think you’re dragging yourself down by responding to this Halloween Nightmare. Cernovich, Molyneux, Day, etc., maintain an audience of millions; yet present highly complex, often esoteric, information. If you managed a larger social media following, I’d be surprised if a book you authored wasn’t high in the Amazon rankings.

      Thanks for the compliment!

      I like PP, just saying an organism is “more evolved” or “superior” is not based in reality.

      I’ve thought about writing a book on race realism or something related to that.

      Those are great things to write about. Thanks for the suggestions. I’m always down for suggestions on what to write.

      Religion is interesting with birth rates. Conservatives have more kids than liberals. This goes with how conservatives have lower IQs and liberals have higher IQs which reflect in their birth rates (JayMan has a post on that).

      Facial structure is good too. Beauty is correlated with the Golden ratio, facial symmetry.

      Rushton has a paper speaking about something like that, I’ll link an article I talked about it below.

      The Science of exercise is interesting as well. There is a genetic basis for motivated exercise, and exercising is especially great for obese and nonobese people. With healthy eating and exercise, obese people can be just as healthy as thing people. Weight is a non-factor. I know that’s hard for people to understand, but kcal in and out is irrelevant to human physiology.

      Why the First Law of Thermodynamics is Irrelevant

      The Inanity of Overeating

      Why We Get Fat: The Diet/Weight Relationship: An Alternative Hypothesis

      On interracial marriage. I spoke about that in regards to genetic similarity. People who marry outside their race still match on heritable traits.

      I’m actually reading The 10000 Year Explosion right now so I’ll give my thoughts when I’m done with it.

      I’ll make a post on alphas and betas too. There’s a cool show on Nat Geo called “Going Ape” that talks about that.

      Quick changes for human evolution since the industrial revolution mostly is IQ, height and weight. With better nutrition height is now 80 percent heritable in first world countries, the same heritability as BMI in first world countries (!!) and IQ raised as well.

      I spoke about how to ameliorate the effects of having fewer children as well. Rushton gave an AmRen talk on that.

      Thanks for the suggestions and compliments, I’m always down for other suggestions on what to write on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Please keep comments on topic.

Charles Murray

Arthur Jensen

Blog Stats

  • 128,229 hits
Follow NotPoliticallyCorrect on

suggestions, praises, criticisms

If you have any suggestions for future posts, criticisms or praises for me, email me at
%d bloggers like this: