No, but not goldfinches choosing the brightest plummage either. These were people with language and social structure. Not animals.
Printable View
Since the term "natural selection" was coined by Darwin to describe the process by which animals and other organisms choose mates better adapted to their environment thus tending to survive and produce more offspring, I don't believe that it applies to humans who make conscious choices unrelated hunting and escaping, or even fecundity, but instead to status and popularity.
Natural selection is not about choosing mates, it's about a population's statistical survival rates of offspring in a changing environment.
Natural selection isn't selection of mates.
I remembered late last night where I've heard you theories before. It was Progressives in the late 1800s, early 1900s, who thought science had advanced enough to re-engineer society by getting rid of undesirables theough sterilization, marriage laws, and other "scientific" methods. Hitler and the Nazi like the Progressive "science" enough to adopt it in creating a master race and eliminating Jews. It's the same basic argument Progressives use today to defend abortion on unwanted babies.
So you're in good company, Dr Who.
You're right, Who. Outcasts from dark skinned tribes teamed up across a vast and sparsely populated expanse and formed tribes to defend themselves. They followed the "trade routes" (before the existed, apparently) and they knew where to go because, you know, the word spread along the trade routes. The outcasts just packed lunch and followed the trade routes. That's a plausible theory.