Also, in Power of X they make a comparison with the wolf and the sheep and what "dominant species" really means.
Mutants only need to be 10% of the Earth's population to be the dominant species because they have so many more superpower individuals.
Thanos was going to kill them, so Black Bolt released Terrigen to make more inhumans for protection. When were they classist in Inhumanity and after? Everyone was welcomed to Attilan, even mutants. They became a democracy and the story brought more diversity into Marvel comics (Moongirl, Ms. Marvel, Mosaic, almost every nuhuman). The classist part of their lore was supposed to teach readers that tradition and culture is no excuse to have a classist society and they mention it several times in their history.
"OK Boomer" is the current real-life equivalent of what Chuck said.
Inhumans were a metaphor for corporate greed and pettiness. Now, they're a metaphor for losers.
I know that this supremacist rhetoric for humans who cite this as their justification for persecuting mutants. But do mutants really have to replace humans? I know in real life evolution the successor does not always replace the predecessor organisms. Like lizards for example had organisms such as snakes and even mosasaurs evolve from them. Yet the beginning of snakes did not necessarily mean the end of lizards and the mosasaurs died out while traditional lizards carry on to this day. Evolution is a tree where new organisms branch out, not a ladder where new organisms replace old ones.
That's where your problem lies. If you can't separate one person's actions from a people, how can you make progress? If someone is from a country that doesn't allow same sex marriage, should each person be called homophobic? The US outlawed it until recently, does that mean all Americans were homophobic, or that the system was homophobic?
I suggest reading "Right of Birth" and Fantastic Four 51-54 for anyone who doesn't understand the "inhumans" concept in Marvel Comics.
1. We didn't wipe out the Neanderthals IRL. Morrison run with an hypothesis in his story but the fact is, we scarcely know what caused the disappearance of Neanderthals over time in our world.
2. It does work. Science - no matter how sketchy or accurate - being used to support this type of rhetoric happens all the time, even to this day. Typical springboard for démagogues and extremists of all kind.
3. In-universe, scientific inevitability is irrelevant, cue the reference I made to Hickman's F4 run with their look at Ben Grimm's future. I needn't go that far though, Moira's various lives already showed that, much more recently.
Charles Xavier is an intelligent man, he knows the future is not written in stone - first hand actually. So him purpoting that mutants WILL replace sapiens is both a fallacy and an assertion that their kind is obsolete compared to his, at best.
That is supremacist rhetoric. In-universe science supporting his discourse doesn't change that.
"The means are as important as the end - we have to do this right or not at all.
Anything less negates every belief we've ever had, every sacrifice we've ever made."
"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"No justice, no peace."
"That ain't a threat, it's a promise!"
I don't blind date I make the direct market vibrate
A gene implanted by giant aliens in metal suits for use as an anti-body is not evolution, no more that the kree’a failed bio weapon is.
The end result of the path of technology we’ve been on since the first caveman used a sharpened piece of wood/bone/stone to scratch himself probably had more claim to that.
It would have worked better had Marvel never tried to use the Inhumans push against the X-Men. It was a fools errand that doomed us