You can play stupid all you want. You know you put words into my mouth. It's that or you are the king of missing the point time and again. Take your pick.
Looking back at my life, I miss the point other people are making all the time. I never deliberately claim them to have said words they did not say (although I will deliberately draw implications from their words they did not draw, and have through missing the point or misunderstanding accidentally attributed to them thins they did not mean to say). So, I'll go with "king of missing the point time and again". I apologize for my apparent inability to get your point. If you try again, I will make an effort to be more careful.
We have this tradition of not having to prove, quote, source or Sitation things that are widely known and understood. In other words, common sense. If it's such a radical notion then it's your job to disprove it, not the generations of scientists, psychologists, statisticians, and sociologists who've formulated the foundation. And again, I wasn't trying to prove it. You either missed the point entirely, where others can easily understand, or you're being intellectually dishonest. Take your pick.
The tradition of common sense has led us down at least as many wrong roads as correct roads. Much of the scientific revolution of the 16th century, and following, was initiated by the idea that experiementation, not common sense, would led to correct results. Many current mathematical and physical results defy common sense (Banach-Tarski paradox, Ladder paradox). So for the scientists and statisticians, at least, invoking common sense as a proof is a bad justification. I suspects many psychologists and sociologists make more use of it, because their fields are so much more complex, but that's a dependency, not a testimonial. Common sense is not a reliable justification for a position.
You're arguing definitions to avoid the point?
I apologize if it came across that way. I was really interested in what you meant.
If you really care about the tangent, look into adaptive radiation (new, advantageous trait leads to a quick rise of many new species from one common ancestor).
I have read up on adaptive radiation, and combined with even just sexual selection, the opportunity to occupy broad new ecological niches could certaihly lead to speciaiton. I don't see the connection to racism. Are you saying racism is just sexual selection? I would strongly disagree. Although sexual exclusion is certainly a factor in racism, there are many other, non-evolutionary components.
I've wasted enough time with something that doesn't really matter all that much.
As you wish. My loss.