The only thing that Asians and Europeans have evolved more quickly than everyone else is immunity to epidemics. Despite what you want to believe, they are not genetically superior nor do they have inherent cognitive superiority. The reason why you have this fallacious sociological view, is that you think survival of the fittest is an apt description of natural selection. This makes you a social darwinist.
Instead of trying to redefine every word I used in my argument and limit what words I am allowed to use, you should fall back to your other favorite tactics, like lying, and distorting my arguments and maybe insulting Noam Chomsky. I think that might work better for you.
Europeans seem to have a greater immunity to AIDS, maybe because Europeans were exposed the Bubonic Plague in the middle ages: the ones who did not die had a naturally occurring mutation that helped them cope with the plague, and the same mutation apparently helps against AIDS, thus succeeding generations of Europeans got that resistant genome.
Caucasians are more susceptible to Shingles than Africans. I don't know why, but it is obviously a genetic thing.
When you subject any population of living things to a mortal challenge, some will fare better than others because of the pure randomness (luck) of mutations. The resistant live, the non-resistant die: the next generation is left better able to cope. This is true of all populations, at all times.
Interesting article about the evolution of yeast in a controlled, non challenging environment. Even in this environment the natural world lives by the slogan, "onward and upward".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24588-perfection-is-a-myth-reveal-50000-yeast-generations.html
. It's a social archetype that developed from the social darwinist movement in the 1800's. genetically, we are actually all pretty much the same. the reason it says sub-saharan Africa is because there are ethnicities with common genomes that he probably shares with many people from cultures in that area. mind blown?