Genetic ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ Traced—But They Didn’t Know Each Other

Tia Ghose, Live Science, August 1, 2013

Almost every man alive can trace his origins to one man who lived about 135,000 years ago, new research suggests. And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.

The findings, detailed Thursday in the journal Science, come from the most complete analysis of the male sex chromosome, or the Y chromosome, to date. The results overturn earlier research, which suggested that men’s most recent common ancestor lived just 50,000 to 60,000 years ago.

Despite their overlap in time, ancient “Adam” and ancient “Eve” probably didn’t even live near each other, let alone mate.

{snip}

Researchers believe that modern humans left Africa between 60,000 and 200,000 years ago, and that the mother of all women likely emerged from East Africa. But beyond that, the details get fuzzy.

The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans. By contrast, DNA from the mitochondria, the energy powerhouse of the cell, is carried inside the egg, so only women pass it on to their children. The DNA hidden inside mitochondria, therefore, can reveal the maternal lineage to an ancient Eve.

But over time, the male chromosome gets bloated with duplicated, jumbled-up stretches of DNA, said study co-author Carlos Bustamante, a geneticist at Stanford University in California. As a result, piecing together fragments of DNA from gene sequencing was like trying to assemble a puzzle without the image on the box top, making thorough analysis difficult.

Bustamante and his colleagues assembled a much bigger piece of the puzzle by sequencing the entire genome of the Y chromosome for 69 men from seven global populations, from African San Bushmen to the Yakut of Siberia.

By assuming a mutation rate anchored to archaeological events (such as the migration of people across the Bering Strait), the team concluded that all males in their global sample shared a single male ancestor in Africa roughly 125,000 to 156,000 years ago.

In addition, mitochondrial DNA from the men, as well as similar samples from 24 women, revealed that all women on the planet trace back to a mitochondrial Eve, who lived in Africa between 99,000 and 148,000 years ago—almost the same time period during which the Y-chromosome Adam lived.

{snip}

But the results, though fascinating, are just part of the story, said Michael Hammer, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Arizona who was not involved in the study.

A separate study in the same issue of the journal Science found that men shared a common ancestor between 180,000 and 200,000 years ago.

And in a study detailed in March in the American Journal of Human Genetics, Hammer’s group showed that several men in Africa have unique, divergent Y chromosomes that trace back to an even more ancient man who lived between 237,000 and 581,000 years ago.

“It doesn’t even fit on the family tree that the Bustamante lab has constructed—It’s older,” Hammer told LiveScience.

Gene studies always rely on a sample of DNA and, therefore, provide an incomplete picture of human history. For instance, Hammer’s group sampled a different group of men than Bustamante’s lab did, leading to different estimates of how old common ancestors really are.

{snip}

As a follow-up, Bustamante’s lab is sequencing Y chromosomes from nearly 2,000 other men. Those data could help pinpoint precisely where in Africa these ancient humans lived.

{snip}

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • hastings88

    So, all other races diverged from blacks at least 135,000 years ago. We have 135,000 – 200,000 years of separate evolution, since long before the ancestors of Whites and Asians left Africa. I had always suspected this, since the out-of-Africa group was related to the San, who had already diverged from the Bantus. Now we have the data.

    • Hal K

      Archaic human DNA is mixed with the DNA of all races, and it is different archaic DNA for each race. It is not just a matter of having diverged from Sub-Saharan Africans. Different human lineages mixed with different archaic human populations.

  • Romulus

    The optimal word for me being diverged!! So, as move away from the serengetti, the strand diverged into the different races,seperated by tens of thousands of years. Just as i always suspected. Only the original barbarians can lay claim to europe. Sounds like good news right!? There are many pc leftists in the sciences who will most assuredly spin this evidence into some kind of african god/love aspect.
    What cracks me up, is the blatant “writing africans into european history” horse manure being passed off in movies and television over the last couple of years. Whats more, is that so many are believing it!!

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Otherwise an ok genre movie, I almost threw a brick through the screen when watching that “Thor” flick when Heimdal was played by a black. I know, comic book pop culture crap, but…really?

      • Spartacus

        I don’t think Heimdal was black in the comic book either…

        • Romulus

          No he wasn’t. I remember posting before on amren, that I was so upset at the theater, that I had an episode.

          • stewball

            What sort of episode?

          • Romulus

            Rage and indignation!! I did ,however, get a full refund but was asked to take a leave of absence from that particular theater.

          • stewball

            Why do you spell theatre like the americans? I thought you were proud to be a brit.
            France will soon turn into a muslim state. They already out number the non-Muslims.

          • Gunrunner1

            Maybe you will have an episode with a large negro…

          • stewball

            Huh?

          • stewball

            I wish I’d seen you throw a tantrum.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          He looked like a troll.

      • hastings88

        Marvel comics created by tribe members Stan Lee (Lieber) and Jack Kirby (Kirbowitz).

      • JDInSanDiego

        And who can forget Morgan Freeman as Azeem in Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood? Never saw it? Me neither.

        • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

          I saw it and was bellowing about how a Muslim would never have survived a minute in Europe then, let alone in Britain. Of course, the other lie is that Muslims then were typically black (or black at all).

      • Andy

        Or the “Merlin” TV series where Guinevere and her family are black (and peasants)?

    • Sick of it

      They tend to ignore ancient Caucasoid skeletons in order to prove their divergence theories. Oops, not supposed to know that.

      • Romulus

        This story could lend creedence to what many believe. In the time of the fertile crescent many small population groups living in an area and not necessarily the same race. For example Ramses- red haired/white
        2) Phoenicians as the ancient ancestors of the fair and red haired celts
        3) the icemans race did in fact occupy northern Africa at one time

        • Sick of it

          Yeah, middle easterners replaced the Hamitic stock of North Africa and the Levant. The Turks were central Asian in origin. Arabs brought in a ton of sub-Saharan African slaves. Look at the historical artifacts left behind by ancient kingdoms from East Africa and one will not see evidence of the modern “African.”

          If their narrative has any grounding in reality, why does the archaeological evidence show sparse numbers and little activity on the part of those from whence we supposedly sprang? Their claims are on par with the Nation of Islam’s beliefs.

        • Irishgirl

          Ramses was a redhead? Maybe we’re related!

          • Romulus

            The director of Egyptian antiquities, zahi hawass, produced a show about uncovering the DNA of Rameses 2 and as it turned out, he was found to have true red hair. The show aired one night and hasn’t been shown since.

          • stewball

            Lol

          • Sick of it

            You are his distant cousin…of course, we’re distant cousins as well ;)

        • stewball

          And they portray Jesus as a blond.

          • David Ashton

            Not at all impossible for Galileans at that time and place. Both ancient Jews and modern Nazis thought his real dad was a Roman soldier.

          • stewball

            His dad was arch angel Gabriel snigger. If you’ve ever looked at the supposed shape meant to be on the Turin ? Cloth indented is the shape, supposed to be Jesus’s face, of a very semitic looking Jesus. Good night to you my friend. May I call you that?

          • David Ashton

            The Turin cloth is not genuine. It resembles a two-dimensional back & front brass-rubbing, not a burial shroud. The scalp area and the dimensions of an arm give it away. But it is a brilliantly conceived fake and, as we now know, within the capability of medieval forgers.

          • David Ashton

            Cordiality is preferable to rancour, but this is not a personal pen-friend site.

    • blindsticks

      What cracks me up, is the blatant “writing africans into european history” horse manure being passed off in movies and television over the last couple of years. Whats more, is that so many are believing it!!

      Borrowed this from another website (with thanks to untermensch jones).

      Emmett Till, the young black who was lynched in Mississippi for allegedly touching a white waitress and whose story was retold in Mississippi Burning ( a film that was part of the huge hoax played on the UK with its Marxist message, ‘they may be of a different colour but they`re aren’t all rapists) had a father- a father who wiki deign not to speak of.His step-father is listed but Louis Till, his real father, is missing. Why ? I hear you ask.Because Till was hanged for rape and murder x2 in France after the black GI rape wave , post D-Day across Europe. Hundreds were tried and some others hanged.

      This also was the case in England but you try and find info on the subject- its been whitewashed.

      I remember an early 90`s BBC documentary on the England rapes but the program has `mysteriously disappeared` into the annuls of disinformation.

      Probably went to the same bin that the `Liberators` documentary which was compered by Denzil Washington, ended up; in which scores of ex African/US GI`s met up with Dachau survivors after they claimed they liberated the camp- only for US Army officials to release info proving not one black GI was within 200 miles of said camp at the time of liberation !

      I wonder how proud Denz is of his work, now the film has been withdrawn and banned ?

      • Romulus

        Truthfully, they don’t care! The lie is easier to accept. If one knew that their people have been in servitude their entire existence and never created a single aspect of civilization without the platform to work off of by their hated enemy (us), you’d like afro centric version.

        • stewball

          You know the Israelites were slaves in Egypt and ancient Babylon.

      • stewball

        Like wiki and the American newspapers reported the racist murders once and then they also disappeared.

      • Sick of it

        ….Look up Louis Till on Wikipedia and tell me the first sentence doesn’t contradict itself. Seriously, the dad was a known rapist, but the son was apparently an innocent angel?

  • Ed_NY

    Sounds like B.S. propaganda to me. I think this is an attempt to elevate the lower form of life that we know as negroids.

  • HJ11

    Little new here. The story of evolution is one of divergence and eventual speciation if those that diverge are isolated so that there is no gene transfer from the major group to the divergent one.

    That’s why we Whites need to not engage in miscegenation and why we need to try to become isolated–so we can evolve into a new species incapable of having children with other types of humans. And, I have no doubt that some small group of Whites will manage this while the rest die off as they are absorbed back into the earlier forms.

    The end result of evolution for any type is extinction. This means a leap is made into a new type. It is time earlier forms of humans who walk among us are allowed to go extinct by the natural forces of evolution.

    What I say is: Let it be me and mine that diverge and become the new species to replace the old one.

    • David Ashton

      Thus spake Zarathustra.

      • Romulus

        One of my all time favorites.

        • Irishgirl

          Also Sprach Zarathustra – read it in the original German. It’s even better!

          • Romulus

            Im going to give it my best shot to learn it.

        • David Ashton

          “Breeding is the means of storing up the tremendous forces of mankind so that the generations can build upon the work of their forefathers.” – Nietzsche.

          • Romulus

            O my brethren ,he who is a firstling is ever sacrificed.Now, however, are we firstlings!!

    • Randall Ward

      You know TT.

    • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

      It is interesting to consider the isolation required to develop the specific features including bone, skin tones, eye color and even biological differences. In Europe for example, the rugged geography isolated an already isolated sub-continent. Not long ago, it was possible to place a white due to their “look” to a specific geographical region that was as from one village to another. Isolated tribes had to have mated with cousins and sometimes closer in order to survive. If genetically understood, this explains how some extreme (and gloriously attractive) white beauty came to be. And as we now know, advances in inherited intelligence works the same way; through epi-genetic mutation that can occur in just three generations. This also informs of the fragility of many desirable characteristics.

      Another interesting genetic theory I have read about recently is “transgenetics.” What transgenetics is saying is that there are some cultural and practical characteristics that can only exist in true, indigenous groups. This means for example that the Japanese are right to fight miscegenation because they intuitively (at least) understand this idea. It also means that the French (government) is wrong and that Frenchness cannot be learned or passed on without a tragic loss of its foundations. Of course, this applies to every other racial/cultural group you care to apply it to.

  • David Ashton

    The origins of the present races have been and will remain subject to controversy for a long time. What we do have is evidence of their existence and different characteristics today which none can reasonably deny.

    • Sick of it

      CaptainCroMag pointed out a major clue.

    • Romulus

      Except maybe J E . I APPLAUD your eloquent prose. You always maintain your written social graces. A true Englishman. Polite almost to a fault. I’ve always admired that classic characteristic.

      • David Ashton

        Thank you.

      • David Ashton

        Thank you. J.E. does not deny the existence of “races”, but thinks one of them so totally superior to the rest of us that it has the intellectual right to general supremacy on top of a supernatural exclusive entitlement to a giant chunk of the Middle East. The IQ bell curves of “racially” defined populations “overlap” and have different shapes. He also speculates unjustifiably about the ultimate “benefits” of global amalgamation
        (long after our own grandchildren have perished).

        I would add that it is not only impolite but impolitic either to idolize an entire group or totally vilify it. It is irrational, immoral and factually indefensible, for instance, to describe every single black-skinned person as “nonhuman”. This is what opposition trolls might do on the few good race realist sites that exist, such as AmRen, to discredit their quality and undermine their persuasiveness.

        • Romulus

          One of my biggest issues with J. E., is his maddening support of the unmentionables, when any serious student of unbiased history can clearly see their impact, both positive and negative. Now that would be depend on what classifys as +/- .; who’s writing it and from whom’s point of view. As for the very people themselves, it is next to impossible to have an honest empirical discussion as it concerns them.

          • David Ashton

            O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us (Burns).

            Weininger and even Herzl came close, but post-AH I can find only Albert Lindemann, Norman Finkelstein and Gilad Atzmon among the well-known writers.

    • Bossman

      There was no separate evolution from different apes in different continents. All humans are descended from a common ancestor in Africa or Asia. This is something that all rational people can agree on.

      • David Ashton

        If so, all humans have since also evolved differently.

      • Andy

        I guess that depends on where you draw the “human” line. When we diverged from y-dna Adam, we were not certainly not the same species we are today. By that standard the different branches of “human” did evolve from different species of ape.

      • WR_the_realist

        That’s the view held by most paleoanthropologists but there are dissenters. The only thing I know for sure is that the story will keep changing as new fossil discoveries are made and new genetic analyses are done.

  • HJ11

    When they are able to trace things back far enough, they’ll find that all life on Earth evolved from a single cell of DNA that was able to evolve from so-called non-living minerals into the living minerals that we call life. This I belive.

    But, the thing to remember is that it is not the similiarities in organisms that are primarily important, but the differences. And, even very “small” differences at the gene end of things can have major changes as the entire organism is formed.

    The so-called small differences between Whites and Blacks that are touted by the the genocidist maniacs to convince Whites to miscegenate are actually very major differences and not only does race exist, but it is logical to take it up a notch and say that Whites and Blacks are different subspecies.

    • Rhialto

      That’s a key point to use in discussion. The DNA difference between humans and chimps is less than 2%, but there is a huge operational difference between most humans and other primates.

      • HJ11

        It’s a little like firing a rifle. A little flinch, hardly noticable, at the trigger end of things can send the bullet missing the target by yards. So it is with genes. Just change the order of one of the four chemicals of DNA and you can end up with a very different organism.

    • Romulus

      Yes!! Yes!! I didn’t sort out my thoughts on screen as I should’ve but you hit the nail on the head.

  • Randall Ward

    What bull; no one knows, using science, what the history of mankind is. But the religion of evolution marches on, never mind what the most up to date science says. Check out how much the malaria virus has “evolved” in more cycles that any mammal has ever experienced.

    • Sick of it

      A very careful look at the archaeological record does give clues. The Bible gives clues. The folks who participate here, above all others, should be able to recognize the truth. Everything starts from the Bible.

    • Luca

      Evolution is very real, it simply isn’t ultimately defined. As with most scientific studies the research, theories and findings continue. In time we’ll have more answers.

      Many scientific theories were accepted before they could be irrefutably proven to the world.

      Relax. Rome wasn’t built in a day and the world wasn’t built in six.

    • WR_the_realist

      Evolution is not a religion no matter how many times you say that it is. And you have a peculiar fixation on the malaria parasite, which is not a virus or a bacterium. Your knowledge of science is breathtaking.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    Is that for real? I used it as an avatar at a certain website which allows less civil discourse than this one, but the more I looked the more I wondered if it weren’t photoshopped…

    That’s amazing if it’s for real. True atavism.

    • CaptainCroMag

      Yeah, it’s real. That picture came from a news story about a Nigerian criminal and has been circulating the internet for a while because of the obvious fact that the guy so hideously ape-like.

    • stewball

      I wouldn’t like to meet him on a dark night.

  • JohnEngelman

    This does not mean that race is only a social construct. Plenty of human evolution has happened since 135,000 years ago. First, after modern humans left Africa about 60,000 years ago they encountered colder climates than the one they left in Africa. With less sunlight, most of them – the Australian Aborigines are an interesting exception – developed lighter skin to avoid rickets.

    Second, with the invention of agriculture they developed the ability to plan at least a year into the future and defer gratification. Their digestive systems evolved to handle a diet that was higher in carbohydrates and lower in protein. North American Indians and Australian Aborigines are more susceptible to type 2 diabadees.

    • Bossman

      The American continent is now a great lab for the results of cross-breeding. From what I can deduce at this time, the offsprings are generally more fertile than average and maybe even healthier in many cases. Some scientists are claiming that all humans are now so closely related that talking about hybrids is meaningless.

      • David Ashton

        Brazil is the best area, and let us see what happens there first. So far nothing very promising. Greater fertility is not necessarily a sign of health, but could be nature’s way of compensating but that is perhaps too teleological a notion for anyone who has not read what J. P. Rushton has written. Some websites have disputed “may even be healthier” but I do not have the downloads readily accessible; I shall quote from them, when they turn up and you repeat all this yet again.

        The term “hybrid” like “race” is a semantic preference, which does not alter the observable genetic facts, such as the mendelian hodge-podge of traits in crossings.

      • WR_the_realist

        I see no evidence that multiracial people are healthier than monoracial people. This has been a popular bit of pseudo scientific nonsense promoted by liberals to encourage miscegenation. It is healthy to avoid marrying your first cousin because the close degree of relatedness means you’re too likely to share a deleterious recessive gene that will be expressed in your children. But marrying an unrelated person of the same race doesn’t carry any significant risk of inbreeding. Since our genes evolve to work together it’s arguable that you’ll probably have healthier children if you marry within your own race.

        Right now the most fertile people seem to be poor Africans. While fertility may be the appropriate measure for Darwinian success it isn’t a good indicator of the qualities you’d want for a successful civilization. Using the measure of fertility an oyster is superior to us all.

  • MekongDelta69

    If NoBama had a father…

    • Romulus

      That one wins the prize this evening!! Lmfao!!

  • IKantunderstand

    Yada, yada, yada. Fascinating. Who cares? We are now talking about our very existence, in the here and now. Look, I’ll be the first to sign up for parlor talk discussing genetics, and the origins of Man, with a fine cognac and an awesome cigar. We will not have the opportunity to do that. Furthermore, any and all studies of ANYTHING will come to a screeching halt when Whites are eliminated from the planet. I don’t get the whole stick your head in the sand philosophy. Once Whites are either removed entirely, or just marginalized, there will be no more scientific inquiry, experimentation, invention, or technological advancement. The age of Endarkenment will have fully descended. Besides, you have to understand that all this scientific inquiry is now at this point directed to prove that all people are genetically equal, the same in every way, despite glaring evidence visible to scientists and dumb asses alike. Yeah, I believe everything they come up with nowadays. Everything. There is no hidden agenda, nope. Right. You can’t believe anything, anymore. They want you to believe them, not your “lying eyes”.

    • HJ11

      Our very existence depends on us understanding that miscegnation is genocide for Whites. To understand in a rational way so that we avoid it, we need to understand a little about the forces of evolution.

      An intellectual foundation for our beliefs based on true science is now necessary for our survival.

      • IKantunderstand

        Umm, excuse me, I don’t need to understand anything about miscegenation, other than to know it is wrong. A huge genetic mistake. “An Intellectual foundation for our beliefs based on true science is now necessary for our survival”. You really think that will work? Really? You think that White women who get involved with Black males, think about the genocide of the White race? You really think they care about evolution? Unless we decide to write these White women off, maybe we should consider why they hooked up with a Black in the first place? Maybe we should spend some time with poor Whites. Or are we elitist Whites? You know, we have to decide, are we including all Whites? Or, are we elitist, only including certain Whites.

        • Romulus

          In an earlier post, I made light of those that will “exodus” the liberal left in droves when it comes down to brass tax. It really annoys me when fellow whites look down on their poor rural brethren. Mostly due to the “whites” that you see filling up the bleachers on Sean hannity and hollyweird.

        • HJ11

          Without an intellectual foundation that doesn’t go against true science and reason is needed in each of us, otherwise we become easy to convince that we should not be “racists.” Think of George Wallace. Strongly for segregation, but then later he switched as the winds changed. Why? His earlier views weren’t based on a strong intellectual foundation. And, he’s just one of many examples.

          And, if I read between your lines correctly, I would add that we don’t have to be the types of intellectuals who sit around drinking tea and having polite conversations about meaningless things. We can be intellectuals and also activitsts.

        • HJ11

          You ask if we are including all Whites [in our "racist" belief system(?)] or are we excluding certain Whites?

          My answer is that those of us who see the truth about race, as I believe most folks on here do, should bring the good word to other Whites who have not yet awakened and that we should talk to them in whatever ways that make sense to them, and then it is up to them to decide whether they want to throw their lot in with us or not.

          I further believe and accept the notion of a so-called “racist gene” which is probably several mutated genes that gives those of us with it a survival advantage and a stronger sense of our identity and the instinctive feeling as to why we must not lose who and what we are born to be.

          I also believe that there are Whites who lack this racist gene and who can never truly understand our beliefs on a visceral level, just as there are people who have certain mutations that causes them to be unable to see certain colors such as red.

          And, I also believe that those who do have the so-called racist gene, but who don’t know it or who try to deny it, will awaken to the truth with very little prompting, and some may even have one of those “aha!” forehead slapping moments as our beliefs suddenly make sense to them and as they shake off societal conditioning and start to understand that their lives do have a purpose and a meaning–it is to make more like themselves and to consciously work for our evolution away from the darker masses of humans.

        • David Ashton

          Knowledge helps to protect us against “intellectual” encouragement of miscegenation, especially among college students. We are all whites who have made our civilization together, but we need to preserve our own elites from sterility or outcrossing.

  • HJ11

    There are examples in the literature of speciation taking place in as little as eight generations. A human generation is often pegged at around 30 years (older sources say 20 years), so if conditions were just right and if mutations occured in the right way….

    • ms_anthro

      I no longer refer to the White race. We are the White species. Think about it. Nearly identical-looking finches or fishes are classified by biologists as entirely different species. But we’re supposed to believe that Gisele Bundchen and Michelle Obama are the same species? Why, because they both wear human clothes and approximate human sounds?

      No. We are separate and distinct species. That we can create hybrids with others doesn’t negate that fact.

      • HJ11

        Interesting point. The term “species” was coined to try to describe a certain level of differentation/relationship among organisms, and the definition has relied heavily on the notion that a species is largely determined by the ability of members being able to produce viable offspring with each other.

        Many scientists now believe that the ability to produce viable offspring part of the definition isn’t valid and that different species can produce viable offspring (there are many real examples). It largely has to do with having the same number of chromosomes.

        Certainly, just on appearances one would be tempted to describe Blacks and Whites as being of different species, and if that viable offspring part of the definition is ever totally abandoned, more folks may refer to Blacks and Whites as being of different species.

        • David Ashton

          There is a still valuable discussion of the science and semantics of “species” in chapters 5 to 7 of “Race” (OUP 1974) by the late Dr John R. Baker, a distinguished biologist. Although Sir Peter Medawar compared this 625-page book to a “one-man Royal Commission”, the publishers were embarrassed by the political outcry that greeted it, and copies are now difficult to find. On p.98 Baker states that in the human case “proof of eugenesic hybridity” is lacking.

          • WR_the_realist

            I have that book. It’s one of those scholarly works that have been tossed into the memory hole by the powers that be. I’m hanging onto my copy. I have books that could get me thrown into prison in some countries.

      • Bossman

        Separate and distinct species cannot create hybrids. You cannot cross a human with a gorilla.

        • ms_anthro

          So a horse and a donkey are the same species? Or are mules imaginary creatures?

          Polar bears and grizzly bears can create living offspring. So can lions and tigers. You are patently wrong or just dishonest.

          • Bossman

            A donkey is a subspecies of the horse family and yet will produce an infertile mule when mated with a horse. If polar bears and grizzly bears can produce viable and fertile offspring, it means that they are of the same species. Both are called bears; that alone should tell you that they are of the same species.

          • ms_anthro

            Dishonest it is, then. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

          • WR_the_realist

            In fact polar bears and grizzlies have recently been found to have interbred in the wild, and produced fertile offspring. So by your high school textbook definition, polar bears and grizzlies are the same species. But real life biologists don’t feel constrained by some legalistic definition found in a high school textbook, and in fact continue to classify polar bears and grizzlies as distinct species. By the way, there are lots of different kinds of animals called “bears”. That doesn’t make them all the same species. There are also lots of different kinds of animals called “monkeys”. That doesn’t make them all the same species either. Every now and then some lonely wolf breeds with a coyote, and the resulting offspring are fertile. So again, by you high school definition, you must regard wolves and coyotes as the same species. And again, professional biologists persist in classifying wolves and coyotes as distinct species. The real world is always messier and fuzzier than what you find in high school textbooks. Evolutionary theory predicts that species that have recently diverged from a common ancestor should on occasion be able to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, but precisely because they are separate species this is something that would happen rarely in nature. As time goes on and the species diverge further, there would be a point where they are no longer capable of interbreeding.

        • Andy

          Scientists have changed the definition of species to reflect genetic difference. By the standard that is now applied to all other creatures, humans are several different sub-species.

        • Romulus

          Did you not see the picture above on this thread or to you willfully choose to remain ignorant??!!!

  • Evette Coutier

    In only a couple thousand years the modern dog diverged from the wolf. Wolf’s can mate with modern dogs. To say, therefore, a Chihuahua is thus the same thing as a wolf is about the same as saying whites and blacks are the same.

    • Funruffian

      Don’t forget that a donkey and a Thoroughbred racehorse can also produce offspring together which would create a mule. Donkeys and horses are a different species as well.

      • Bossman

        But the mule is generally an infertile creature. Humans, on the other hand, are variants of the same species.

        • WR_the_realist

          True enough about mules. But dogs, wolves, and coyotes can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, despite being classified as distinct species. So the fact that whites can interbreed with blacks and produce fertile offspring doesn’t in itself prove that we’re any more closely related than wolves and coyotes.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    One ancestor ? It’s beyond ridiculous.

    • Ron Strong

      No one is claiming just one male or female ancestor. Just one ancestor for a particular strand of DNA.
      I’d suggest you read Dawkins “The Ancestor’s Tale” if you want to find out why it is your understanding of genetics that is wanting.

      • Extropico

        “The Y chromosome is passed down identically from father to son, so mutations, or point changes, in the male sex chromosome can trace the male line back to the father of all humans. ”

        “And that ancient man likely shared the planet with the mother of all women.”

        That article makes exactly the claims you abnegate. Your reading skills need improving.

        • Ron Strong

          Yes, not perfectly worded – better would be “and that ancient man likely shared the planet with “”A”” mother of all women’. But anyone a little familiar with the genetics involved in tracking Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA would understand what is being said.
          All men alive today share, as one of their many thousands of male ancestors from that time, the same Y Adam. Likewise, all persons alive today share, as one of their many thousands of female ancestors from that time, the same mitochondrial Eve.
          I have no love of the typical quality of science reporting, but no where did this article make the claim made by Bardon.

    • libertarian1234

      I agree.
      Didn’t we just read about the very real possibility that humanity originated in Asia?
      And there’s also a serious study underway that raises the possibility that mankind was created in five different locales on earth.
      I know the people who study this are going to cite the impossibility of such theories, but I’m so disillusioned with the turn toward radical leftist politics in the sciences I don’t believe they can come up with any theory that they might perceive to be politically incorrect.
      Look at what happened with Dr. Watson. He slipped and told the truth about blacks not being up to average, then recanted later on after the demonization machine went to work on him.
      They’ve been wrong too many times for me to take their findings without question.
      I prefer to wait to see what might evolve in the next few years.

      • Sick of it

        The usual suspects had to control all information regarding human origins early on to keep the plan going without interruption. Look at the history of anthropology and you’ll find a ton of socialist types involved from the beginning. Disinformation built upon disinformation.

        • HaroldWesterling

          Excellent point…one that Carleton Putnam discusses in depth in Race and Reality (the sequel to Race and Reason). I would suggest anyone interested in the Leftist domination of particular academic disciplines to read this excellent book.

        • David Ashton

          The Marx-Darwin correspondence is a controversial issue (see e.g. Francis Wheen, “Karl Marx” [London 1999] pp.363-9) and a separate one. Boas, and his proteges and followers. were the main original offenders, and the problem has become worse because of Hitler. Some “racists” and “eugenicists” have been socialists.

          • Sick of it

            And some of those “racist” eugenicists founded things like Planned Parenthood which has been used to kill little white babies for decades. Every group which flirted with the left seemed to end up going in their direction against us (unless they were completely marginalized of course).

          • David Ashton

            I am against (ex)termination of all viable and sentient unborn babies but support positive eugenics for white couples and especially clever ones. It is sheer hypocrisy for liberal-left harridans, who welcome abortion of healthy white babies and euthanasia “pathways” for elderly hospital patients, to compare painless humanitarian eugenics with alleged Nazi “medical experiments” and mass-murder.

      • David Ashton

        These “theories” about human evolution change all the time, and are often presented within or even prompted by politically correct parameters. The biological data on existing human populations is a somewhat different matter.

      • HJ11

        Concerning whether or not [modern] humanity originated in several different places, we have to be careful of the semantics and the reality that animals (including humans and proto-humans) are mobile and move about. Some of those who left Africa, may have returned in the form of their descendants and then left again in a different direction, and some may have been almost human and then evolved into humans in different locations.

        In all of this, one must understand that on a bedrock level of certainty that all life that we know about on Earth (with the possible exception of some viruses) has exactly the same DNA–it is just the order of the DNA that is different. As a result of the sameness of the DNA, you’ll often see reports about how humans are 50 per cent the same as bananas or a certain per cent the same as some other organism. This shouldn’t seem too amazing, because if you go even deeper, we can say that all life is composed of the same minerals.

        The point I’m making here is that when looking at life, and White life (us) in particular, we need to realize that our identity, as the distinct people that we are, does not come because we are some sort of separate and markedly different creation from other organisms on a very basic level, but that we have evolved and diverged from other organisms, including other human types, and that we are now at a fragile point in our evolution where we can be drawn back into the dark mass of humanity if we do not avoid miscegenation and if we do not reproduce more than we are now or we can continue to diverge.

        My view is that with the mass immigration to formerly all White lands, our once stable environment has now been upset and we Whites are now facing evolutionary pressures that may lead to some of us diverging and evolving faster–while many others of us will essentially devolve back to Africa (in a metaphorical sense).

        Not all Whites are going to make it into the future. Many White family lines are going to turn brown, black and yellow. These are the weak seeds among us, who will commit their family lines’ suicide/genocide either through miscegenation or by not having enough children.

        But, I believe some Whites are going to make it and will be the progenitors of a new species of human-a new White human–incapable of bearing children with earlier forms. And, I further believe that these new Whites will have some survival advantages that propel them into ascendancy. And, these new White ones will still have DNA that differs in its order from our present order of DNA by only a few letters (but that’s all it takes).

        What do I base the above on? Belief. Yes, even though you’ll see in my posts a rejection of traditional religious beliefs, these beliefs of mine fill the void and are thus essentially religious or spiritual in nature. N’est-ce pas?

        • Irishgirl

          J’espere que c’est vrai!

    • MBlanc46

      No, thousands of ancestors. But one in common for all men.

      • Bardon Kaldian

        This too is beyond ridiculous. Like, say, that all redheads have come from a single genetic mutation. Preposterous. No wonder biology is considered not much of a science among us physicists. It took Schroedinger to lay theoretical foundations for this discipline, but biologists botched it, as expected.

        • MBlanc46

          Not ridiculous at all. Look at a family tree. You can find one male that every male in your family is descended from.

  • Spartacus

    We’re all the same…

    • Nick Gherz

      I understand his street name is Critter.

    • China_Rising

      We are all one race… the Great Ape race.

      Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Humans…. it makes no difference. We all bleed red.

      • ShermanTMcCoy

        Methinks Thou doth jest.

        • China_Rising

          LOL!

          It appears some don’t understand sarcasm.

          • Frans

            Sometimes, sarcasm is just too painful to contemplate.

      • stewball

        I love chimps.

  • Stentorian_Commentator

    Can I now claim to be African-American?

  • Sick of it

    That was started in the Ultimate universe. Still weird to me.

  • Romulus

    < homo sapien. This guy looks like the nightmare hiding in a kids closet.

  • Spartan24708

    Holy freaking crap! A gorilla might be more handsome!

  • Harry

    According to the Biblical book of Genesis, everything was perfect in the Garden of Eden. But God himself created the forbidden Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Then God created a talking snake to tempt Adam and Eve from eating from it. Then Adam and Eve were expelled from Eden for the problem God created in the first place.

    Therefore, I think a team of lawyers should be assembled to sue God in court for this unethical act of entrapment!

  • Nathanwartooth

    “As a result, piecing together fragments of DNA from gene sequencing was like trying to assemble a puzzle without the image on the box top, making thorough analysis difficult.”

    This is pretty typical of a science story in the media.

    They make some analogy like I am watching an episode of Star Trek.

  • Bossman

    What you’re saying is just pure myth. It is only in the last 500 years that white people have been able to extend themselves to many parts of the globe.

    • Sick of it

      Man you really ignore the archaeological record don’t you?

    • Andy

      That’s true if you’re talking about people descended from Europeans proper. Northern Africa (excluding Egypt) and western Asia used to be a lot more “white” than they are today. Invasions by Arabs and Turks/Mongols changed the racial make-up of these areas.

      It’s a nice thing to bring up when liberals comment that whites have no right to be in the Americas. By that logic, we certainly should drive the Arabs from North Africa and force Turkish peoples back to Mongolia.

      • Sick of it

        Even in America, he ignored the Viking settlements as well as the earlier Solutrean settlers. This is pretty basic stuff for anyone not limited to high school ‘history’.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      Bossman:

      You are wrong. What are they teaching you elementary kids these days?
      Didn’t you get the memo about White mummies found in ancient Egypt and China? Then there’s that unexplainable European-only DNA found in Indians — Native Americans:

      It’s been all over the Internet:

      First there are those pesky mummies in Egypt. Looks like the Egyptians are trying to cover up the WHITE DNA results:

      Recently-leaked DNA test results prove ancient Egyptian royal Pharaoh Tutankhamen, aka King Tut, is 99.6% Western European.

      The results were mistakenly leaked in the American cable television show Royal Blood: King Tut Unwrapped. The tests were conducted to find out if a newly-discovered mummy was the boy king’s father.

      The Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, Zahi Hawass, had previously stated that he would never reveal the DNA results of King Tut, whose racial make-up has been a source of dispute for many.

      source: www dot therightperspective dog org /2010/06/06/king-tut-dna-99-6-western-european/#sthash dot 9vOGMAsE dot dpuf

      And here: Red and Blond- Haired Mummies of Egypt:

      www dot burlingtonnews dot net/redhairedmummiesegyptbufo dot html

      Daily Telegraph:

      Stone-age Europeans ‘were the first to set foot on North America’

      Stone-age Europeans were the first to set foot on North America, beating American Indians by some 10,000 years, new archaeological evidence suggests.

      www dot telegraph dot co dot uk/new…

      Daily Mail:

      Across six locations on the U.S. east coast, several dozen stone tools have been found.

      After close analysis it was discovered that they were between 19,000 and 26,000 years old and were a European-style of tool.

      The discovery suggests that the owners of the tools arrived 10,000 years before the ancestors of the American Indians set foot in the New World, reported The Independent.

      www dot dailymail dot co dot uk/sci…

      Then there are those 4,000 year old mummies in China showing WHITE DNA:

      The Tarim mummies are a series of mummies discovered in the Tarim Basin in present-day Xinjiang, China, which date from 1800 BCE to 200 CE. Victor H. Mair’s team concluded that the mummies are basically Europoid, likely speakers of Indo-European languages

      wikipedia dot org/wiki/Tarim_mummies

      www dot whitecivilrights dot com/?p=5029

      The discovery of 3,000 year old European mummies in China raises the question of how much influence Europeans may have had on early Chinese civilization.“In the late 1980′s, perfectly preserved 3000-year-old mummies began appearing in a remote Chinese desert. They had long reddish-blond hair, European features and didn’t appear to be the ancestors of modern-day Chinese people.

      But then you’re the one that tried to tell me that your guru, the profoundly stupid Sheila Jackson Lee, “talks well” and is “intelligent.”

      “I stand here as a Freed Slave!!
      LOL!!

      Bon

      • Sick of it

        Re: blonde mummies in Libya, one of the sources I studied from ancient Egypt related a story of blond invaders (Sea Peoples?) from what we now call Libya during one of the unstable periods. Anyway one looks at it, the population of North Africa was once completely different.

        Also re: King Tut’s genetics – The basic genetic stock of Western Europeans is Celtic stock. Some of that Celtic stock was derived from North African immigrants from around 4,000 years ago or more.

  • David Ashton

    Especially as Guinevere actually means “white” and “soft”.
    She had no black ancestors.
    Also, “Merlin agreed that she was above all women in beauty and fairness” (Mike Dixon-Kennedy, “Arthurian Myth & Legend” [1998] p.140).

    “British” TV also remade one of Robin Hood’s merry men as a black man, Friar Tuck if I remember correctly, an odd choice for this rarely celibate people; the gag was that they had the initial letters of each word round the wrong way (sorry, Moderator).

    • NeanderthalDNA

      I mean…if you look, really look, there HAS been a steady trickle of non-Aryan/White/whatever genetics trickling into fair Europa and Europa Magna (the Americas, Australia, etc.) for a VERY long time.

      Even before colonialism and exploration – European ascendancy – arguably-to-obviously non-White DNA has contributed to the overall DNA mixture of that poorly defined subset of the set known as Man, White people.

      The Ancient Middle East was almost certainly much whiter, a mélange of Aryan tribes, often specifically described as fair haired and skinned, competing with vibrant mix of pre Africanized Semites and groups neither Aryan nor Semite in language, perhaps not in genetics either, the two being closely though not assuredly linked.

      All Aryan populations, I assert, are descendants genetically and culturally (the two inseparable in the big view – spirit?) of a population that lived around what now is the Black Sea when it was a freshwater lake the surface of which was located considerably below sea level…

      The planet has been warming up for some time and although modern change may well be affected by billions of filthy, clever, shaved apes, apparently within the last 10,000 plus years things have warmed up in aggregate so much that large parts of the world once above water are now submerged. The Sea of Azov was once a fertile riverine delta, as was the entire Persian Gulf.
      Kind of makes me wonder if both early Aryan and Semite may represent refugee populations from their very earliest.

      Regardless, no matter where the Aryans went they encountered aboriginal populations of homo sapiens (or whatever?) of various capacity and genetic make-up. Perhaps some were early offshoots of themselves (like the Liwan (Hittites) whose language appears to represent an “antediluvian” offshoot of Proto-Indo-European (PIE, ancient Aryan) rather than an unrelated linguistic isolate.

      How about the Cretans? I think it hard to abnegate the high level of material and apparent cultural achievement those dark haired, olive skinned, fit, life loving folks evinced by their remnants. I believe they truly are “Atlantis”, a civilization of God-know-who-or-what that developed genetically in some kind of mini-Japanlike golden isolation, flourished for a very long time at a very impressive level of technology to the point that they had practically no defenses until something bad happened…like, too late perhaps? Aryan? I don’t think so. Semite? Uh…nah… What? Black? HA HA HA HA!!!!!

      Well, eventually after Atlantis fell somehow, probably a victim of geology and success, her colonists and descendants were encountered by the encroaching evil Witeys of the day, the Aryan tribes of Myceneans, and later Dorians and Ionics and a bewildering variety of others.

      The Aryans basically took over but it wasn’t a completely awful horrible conquest sort of thing. Sometimes it was, but even then the conquered weeps, the conqueror is undone, and it seems many early Aryans happily interbred with these olive skinned refugees of Atlantis they called the “Pelasgians”.

      And who can blame them? So this “Pelasgian” strain of apparently very successful non-Aryan DNA is then grafted into the overall weave, the quilt so to speak, of Aryan, or White identity and genetics.

      I just use that as a very early example which was repeated over and over in slightly different circumstances throughout the White homelands of the world – Europa, Eurasia, and Magna Europa. Everywhere the Aryan took his herds and his lactose tolerant genetics (which he shares with the Semite), he encountered an earlier population and one way or another accounted for that population. Sometimes he conquered and enslaved, sometimes he conquered by peacefully intermarrying and genetically absorbing. Seldom, I think, did he outright exterminate the natives, though the norm is indeed punctuated by the exceptional in nearly everything. Regardless of the specific nature of the interaction between arriving Aryan and already existing other, the genetics of the other became the genetics of the local population of Aryans, which did indeed thereby become “new men”, of course.

      Sometimes darkies did indeed make their way northward one way or another, as did Asiatics moving westward. There are specific examples. Not enough, until perhaps Islamic Africanization, to make populations of Europe, Eurasia, and the Middle East non-White. But certainly it happened, and if the genes survived, they became White in a sense and must serve some purpose if they persist.

      In terms of “Magna Europa”, the areas most thoroughly colonized by Europeans, more non-Aryan, non-White has seeped into the genetics than even Europe until recently. Certainly London was the home to hundreds, perhaps thousands of stranded Indian and even African sailors as far back as the 1700′s who fathered many children by Anglo-Saxon White women way back when. Many of these blended into the population I would suspect and their descendants are very White.

      In the New World and Oceania, there has been more such “dilution”, a term I use often but consider negative. Some “dilution” of bloodline is INEVITABLE and thence likely desirable in the BIG picture. The American White is a new man, as is the Hispanic White, as is the Aussie or Kiwi or that especially endangered specimen, the Afrikaaner White. All include non-Aryan/White DNA, sometimes recombinant once lost Aryan-White DNA, to some degree or another.

      I mean, in our modern world, I think it’s perfectly OK for a person to be a passionate race realist and “proud” White/Europan advocate and be perfectly OK with a LITTLE to some (inevitable) non-Aryan/White mixture. If somebody get all hot over an occasional Aryan “mixing” with an attractive, capable, and productive “other” from time to time and that “other” then passing its genetics on to the future White race, I don’t think they understand genetics. Does my maybe 1/128 or 1/256 Sephardic “Jewishness” from my English/Scottish/Gallic mother’s side combined with my perhaps similar mixture of northeastern American Indian some Pennsylvania Quaker hooked up with make me non-White? Would finding something else in my (pretty well researched by the way) woodpile make me non-White? I have almost black eyes and dark brown hair, freckled skin that burns. Swedes and Frenchies on my dad’s side, who I resemble most. Darkie Aryans from long ago, Vandals, Goths, borderers and pioneers…

      I’m OK with that.

      • David Ashton

        There seems a bit of imaginative fantasy mixed up with history in your account. There are rival fantasies as well as rival historical explanations of “Aryan” origins, including yet another theory to challenge the general position upheld by J.P. Mallory, one of the foremost experts on Indo-European studies. I have recently been interested in the mytheme of the Divine Hero in combat with the Evil Reptile, which appears in both “Aryan” and “Semitic” traditions.

        I do not think a little amount of foreign “genes” especially from related ethnic groups matters that much, and may have some advantages in due course, but it depends who is crossed, and large-scale crossing with very different population could well produce maladaptations and outbreeding depression; and turning western Caucasids largely into a “mulatto mish-mash” by widespread crossing with Negrids would amount to a “bloodless” genocide.

        Some Vikings were raven-haired. My Devonshire father whose ancestry was completely indigenous to these islands had bright blue eyes, pink skin and black hair.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          It’s my opinion/theory/belief subject to change at the introduction of plausible evidence.

          I’m a great admirer of the unknown. Unfortunately much of the good scientific research required to uncover the Truth (science) is taboo because of the possible implications to our existing social-ideological order.

          Who knows, eh? I’ve kept pretty well abreast of developing discoveries, have a pretty solid basis of knowledge of history and that’s the best I can piece together from what I’ve learned.
          I’m pretty positive some is wrong, and certainly anosognosic.
          Yeah, the Bantu-Congoid genetics is the most suspect by far. Even the very low IQ Australoid seems to have a recessive genetics that results in astonishingly quick assimilation of mixes with the White dominant. Weird. But the Bantu-Congoid DNA is powerful, parasitic, and insidious. I’ve ranted often about it here, call it the genetic Trojan horse that has already destroyed at least two major civilizations, the Egyptian and early Muslim, and is creeping ever northward.

          Nonetheless even that genetic hellhole occasionally must statistically speaking spit out an outlier that can be absorbed by another population up to a point…

          “Some Vikings were raven-haired. My Devonshire father whose ancestry was completely indigenous to these islands had bright blue eyes, pink skin and black hair.”

          It would indeed stand to reason that if fair hair and eye color developed from dark that the dark would indeed remain behind regardless of outside mixture. Touche.

      • Gunrunner1

        Funny, that is not what the Europeans remember.

        “Saartjie “Sarah” Baartman (before 1790 – 29 December 1815)[1] (also spelled Bartman, Bartmann, Baartmen) was the most famous of at least two[2] Khoikhoi women who were exhibited as freak show attractions in 19th-century Europe under the name Hottentot Venus—”Hottentot” as the then-current name for the Khoi people, now considered an offensive term,[3] and “Venus” in reference to the Roman goddess of love.

        Negros were almost unknown in Europe. Sadly that is no longer the case.

        • NeanderthalDNA

          Oh sure, hardly ever happened in old days. Jeez…

        • David Ashton

          Her lower frontal view may have been discreetly doctored. It is now considered degrading to exhibit other living humans to public gaze like zoo animals or circus freaks.

  • logwarrior

    I thought I was the only one. I actually purchased the first season DVD set because I was deploying and can’t stream in the sandy. I watched the first episode and chucked it out when I saw the rainbow coalition cast. I had better luck with Game of Thrones. Surprisingly monochromatic.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      So many decent things get ruined by liblefty PC BS. Again with the superhero genre…the Captain America thing – pretty solid actually, good looking chiseled Aryan hero, goody two shoes to a fault…

      Movie not so bad in a hokey dokey fun way…but what the hell are there all these retropainted negros doing running around in mixed race units? I mean really? They couldn’t have had an historically…plausible…unit of magical darkies positively portraying their race in a…plausible…manner? Instead they had to make it look like 2013 Iraq.

      It’s not that I don’t get painting one’s own time onto the past. The spear shaker and all the greats do it/have done it but…I treasure the past and I treasure the Truth, whatever it is, and that silly, avoidable, “blackwashing” kinda stuck in my craw too.

      Not as bad as black #$*^*#$*# Heimdal, however…

      • logwarrior

        Speaking of the integrated units in WWII, the number that always stuns me is that fewer than 10% of the soldiers in the European campaign were black but they managed to make up more than 80% of the war crime rapes against the white females of Europe.

        • David Ashton

          The concern, especially for delicate Italian girls in an era which then valued virginity before marriage and fidelity within it, shown by Pope Pius XII over this, was recently condemned in the (London) Times Literary Supplement as proof of his groundlessy prejudiced “racism”.

          • stewball

            Pope pius Xll. Turned his back to Hitler and let him get on with it.

      • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

        Just saw that a private company is taking reservation applications from the world over to organize an actual attempt at a Mars colony within 10 years. I bet they’ll set it up for failure due to the racial/ethnic mix they’re likely to select.

    • Romulus

      Right! I can’t see why I pay 120 a month for non stop groid/white love TV. The same with sports. I’ve all but given up watching watching bantuball (basket), jungleskin,(pigskin), and cubanaball (baseball). Just my opinion, but even though I love golf, I refuse to pay respect to an oil spiller who defile a beautiful nordic princess. I don’t think much of her either. The bear and the shark will always be my two of my favorites!

      • logwarrior

        I’ve taken up watching rugby and hockey. Wish I would have played them. For television entertainment, all the shows that show people working “Dirty Jobs”, “Deadliest Catch” are great shows and groid free.

      • http://countenance.wordpress.com/ Question Diversity

        Nicklaus: 18 wins in majors, 19 second place finishes in majors. Combined that’s almost a full decade of either winning or placing in majors. If I had to bet my life on match play of Jack in his prime vs Tiger in his prime, I’d pick Jack. Mainly because Tiger has the propensity to fall apart mentally.

        • Romulus

          Yes, I’ve seen him have course meltdowns, to my great satisfaction.

          • Irishgirl

            Like Arthur Ashe on the tennis court.

          • Romulus

            I think he was also a “shiny HAPPY person”,if im not mistaken.

  • Alexandra1973

    We are all descended from Adam and Eve, but our most *recent* common ancestor is Noah.
    Blacks are the way they are because of the actions of their ancestor Ham.
    Evolution is nonsense.

    • Fr. John+

      And, NO, we are NOT all descended from Adam and Eve of Biblical fame. Jewish scholars don’t believe this, historic Christianity didn’t believe this, and it was only Caesaro-Papal Rome that confused Empire with Ecumene. Christianity has always been a Euro-centric, and Caucophilic Faith. “Europe is the Faith; the Faith, Europe.” – Hilaire Belloc

      • Sick of it

        What you just said actually proves the biblical narrative, you’re just not thinking outside of the box. Stop believing the lies taught in school by liberals with an agenda. We are more different than what most people will accept. Sorry for the vagueness, but I’m being moderated when I get straight to the point.

      • ed

        I’m sorry, but Christianity is a foreign faith to Europe, not a native one.

        • WR_the_realist

          How long does a practice or belief have to persist in an area or among a people before you stop calling it foreign? Europeans were practicing Christianity long before anyone was speaking modern English. So is English a foreign language to Europeans?

          • HJ11

            The reason it is foreign is that it came from the desert regions of the planet and is based on the beliefs of the ancient Hebrews. It is no less foreign because it has been in Europe for centuries.

          • WR_the_realist

            Well, frankly, worshiping Thor or Odin seems mighty foreign to this white American.

          • ed

            It can seem as foreign to you as you like. Your ancestors for tens of thousands of years expressed their understanding of the metaphysical through the worship of those gods. It is in your blood and bone.

          • WR_the_realist

            There have been lots of white groups kicking around Europe for the past several thousand years, and only a small subset of them worshiped Thor or Odin. The Romans and Greeks never did. Since before we declared independence from Great Britain the European settlement in North America has been predominately Christian. That’s as close to a native born religion as we’ve got in this country.

          • ed

            It isn’t the particulars, the names and stories that are important, it is the shared European understanding of metaphysical reality. In Germania, Tacitus uses Roman names to identify Germanic gods. European gods are concepts like Wisdom and Justice. Understanding that is key to understanding European spiritual tradition.

            Calling Christianity native born to North American whites is even more ridiculous than calling it native to Europe. Don’t use weasel phrasing like “as close to” to try and pass an idea by. It is foreign. Absolutely and completely foreign.

          • Sick of it

            Some folks also do not realize that the modern heathen pseudo religions are not based upon the pre-Christian religions of Europe, but rather what certain groups believed the pre-Christian religions of Europe to be. And that includes some of the bunk written down by Christians at the time. The neo-pagan movement is a part of the general New Age movement.

          • ed

            I’m not sure. When will rap/hip-hop become European?

            Time has nothing to do with origin; origin is origin. It’s pretty straight forward. If it doesn’t have a western origin, then it’s foreign.

  • ravitchn

    Our religion tells us we are all descended from the SAME PARENTS, POSSIBLY ADAM AND EVE.
    The evidence of our senses causes us to disbelieve this.
    This strengthens the theology that the REAL WORLD (IN PLATONIC TERMS) and the world of sense perception are entirely different.

  • Formerly_Known_as_Whiteplight

    I actually killed my satellite subscription and went to air. There are many old tv series to see there. You can’t escape the insulting commercials and sometimes films are proto-PC, but it’s much better and you don’t pay for it. I also connected a computer to my tv and I have found there is a huge amount of old films, surprising films. The storylines in many old films are superior to the junk out there now. I just found “Phone Call from a Stranger,” and found it a wonderful uplifting film with some really great, fun actin from Shelly Winters. And if you haven’t seen the original “Manchurian Candidate,” you’re missing something that is truly thought provoking. Released in 1962, it predicts a presidential assassination. This is not to mention all the great Film Noir out there. One of my favorite films of all time has to be the silent film, “The Last Command.” There’s plenty out there if you want it and Netflix is a good avenue as well.

    • David Ashton

      Nothing to do with human evolution, but one of my favorite old US films was “Seven Days in May” with my cinema-audience sympathies on the wrong (i.e. anti-communist) side.

      Can we now look forward to Ben Stiller as Captain America?

  • Randall Ward

    Folks if you believe this tripe, you need to get caught up on the latest science concerning evolution. Your college textbook on biology is part propoganda and part science. There are things in many “modern” textbooks that were disproved more than thirty years ago. Evolution as we were taught is simply not true, right now everything is in flux and real scientists are looking but not finding any answers. As we learn more about the workings of the cell, things will probably become more clear.
    The cell is the most complicated thing in the universe and the cell is the one item that is necessary for life, just think about that. The cell came first and it is the most complicated thing in the universe. How does that fit with neo-darwin evolution?

    • Evette Coutier

      You should reconsider this. A introductory college textbook is a brief overview of genetics. If you do a more advanced study of genetics, you learn how factual genetic evolution is. A good book for you to read as a non-scientist is the violinists thumb. It explains genetics in terms that are reachable for the laymen. I am not trolling or engaging in debate. What you might find interesting about the book is how much Christian scientists contributes to the understanding of genetics. In fact genetic scientists are finding answers, and those answers that confirm evolution.

      Evolution is difficult for many folks because they feel it conflicts with their religions. I would offer to you that given the context of our forum here at amren, modern genetics, when spoken factually, entirely supports the narrative of racial division. Evolution is a simple matter of survival of the fittest. White genetic strategy vs black genetic strategy is our underlying debate. Is their genetic strategy of low intelligence, low impulse control, and group think prove more or less successful than higher intelligence, self control,, and individualism. That is a simplification but captures the essence of our situation.

      • Randall Ward

        You can go to Amazon and go to the two star reviews of “The Violinist’s Thumb” and in the third paragraph of the review by
        Ron Schoolcraft read a short version of what is wrong with the V.T.
        I have studied this for forty years and have no problem understanding the complex.
        I started as an atheist that believed in evolution and after studying came
        to understand that evolution, as understood today, is false, and there is no
        proof at all that it is a true theory. I am now Catholic.
        To understand why evolution is false, here are three simple books to start with; “The Devils Delusion” by David Berlinski, “Icons of Evolution” by Johnathan Wells, “Darwins Doubt” by Stephen C. Meyer. Go to the Discovery Institute website for more info.
        God Bless You

        • Evette Coutier

          I will read these books you suggest. The two star review of the violinist thumb is likely in part due to its rather slow paced writing style. However, I have a fairly strong background in this area, and the evidence is solid. Adaptive evolution and survival of the fittest is fact. That there are areas where the knowledge is incomplete or speculative is certainly true. But this simply means the theory is not complete, not incorrect. But before I say more, I will read your suggested books and give them every fair consideration.

          • Randall Ward

            If you have a strong background, Darwins Doubt, might be the best for you. It is the newest also.

        • Nathanwartooth

          No, you can’t just say “Evolution is false!!” then don’t supply another theory.

          That would be like me saying that gravity is false and then not saying a word after that. You can’t do that.

          A theory stays in place until another one comes along that is better to replace it. What is this better theory???

        • David Ashton

          There are problems with evolutionary theories.

          But our immediate concern is the nature of the significant differences between human populations today. How and when did these arise? On Christian religious theory, before or since the universal deluge of Noah, or the division of languages at Babel? If either of the latter, according to scriptural chronology, the diversification from a single ancestral group into populations as genetically diverse as the west African Negrids, the Australids, the Sanids, the Mongolids and the north-western Europids must have occurred only a few thousand years ago. This implies either an evolutionary rate of selective adaptation far more rapid than evolutionists imagine for other mammalian life-forms, or the direct creation of each race, in which case one might suppose that miscegenation is contrary to divine intention.

          • Randall Ward

            I haven’t studied what you are talking about and know nothing about it.
            When I was young I read about the people discovered in the Neandertal valley in Germany. The scientist claimed they were alive at the same time as modern humans but were primitive people. I looked at a map of europe at the dots of Neandertal people and thought that it was not possible for two very different people to live so close to each other.
            Sure enough Neandertal man turned out to be a modern man and their dna is in lots of modern people.
            The fact that scientists made a big mistake was not talked about much.
            From what I have read; modern men are about four million years old, at least. All the apes and chimps claimed to be forerunners of modern man are just apes and chimps.
            Louis Leakey’s daughter said lately that she doesn’t think we will ever find out the proper sequence of man.

          • David Ashton

            The origins of Homo sapiens, and existing racial variations, will be matters of vigorous and fluid controversy for a long time, but hopefully DNA research and fossil evidence will in due course clarify some problems of timescale, migrations and relationships. Investigation into the genes specific to west African Negrid populations have moved science further on than Leakey’s 1961 study, but his observation of biopsychological differences between modern “white” and “black” populations have not been thereby undermined.

            What cannot be sustained is a literal interpretation of parts of ancient Hebrew scripture as an exclusive or primary basis for such research (e.g. Grady McMurtry, “The Origin of the ‘Races’”). Some Christians, Marxists and Liberals alike import strkingly similar preconceived values into the interpretation of available facts. So a still useful study like Dr J. C. Carothers, “The Mind of Man in Africa” (London 1972 rev.ed.), if rescued from the PC memory-hole, is almost certain to be dismissed out of hand as a “racist” justification for British colonialist oppression in Kenya.

    • WR_the_realist

      Cells fit in perfectly well with neo-Darwinian evolution. I don’t see what your point is. Believe it or not, every neo-Darwinian theorist is well aware of the fact that organisms are made up of cells. Evolution is now about as well established as the heliocentric theory. As for the article, it certainly suggests that there has been ample time (at least 100,000 years) for different human groups to evolve away from each other. A lot can happen in 5,000 generations.

      • Randall Ward

        actually, not much happens in 5,000 generations. Marlaria has not evolved in millions and millions of generations, except for a few non important items. No mamal has as many generations in its entire history as marlaria has in ten years, yet no evolution is seen in marlaria. See the books I recommend below.

        • WR_the_realist

          Once an organism is well adapted to its environment it has little selection pressure to make it change. So if malaria is well adapted to its hosts (and it is) there is no reason why it would change. By contrast, a hominid that evolved on the African savannah would have powerful selection pressures to change as it moved into temperate, arctic, or desert environments. There is ample evidence that measurable changes in characteristics can happen in plants and animals in a small number of generations if there is a reason for it. Insects evolve resistance to pesticides in less than a hundred generations. Which is why many pesticides become less and less useful after they’ve been used for a few decades. The 15 point IQ gap between blacks and whites could arise with an average increase in the gap of only 0.003 IQ points per generation. This is such a slow rate that after 100 generations the increase would still be immeasurable as a practical matter. It is well within the rates of change that have been observed in nature for other characteristics.

          • Randall Ward

            if an organism dies and reproduces, it has pressure to change, according to Darwin. No one argues that organisms can change within species. No one knows if the changes are already built in the organism or not. But darwin claimed that new species developed from species. There is absolutely no proof of this happening.

          • WR_the_realist

            Evolution simply predicts that if a mutation is beneficial it will spread through a population. If a species has evolved to a local optimum in an unchanging environment it could be that no more beneficial mutations come along and it doesn’t evolve. We have many examples of organisms that stayed essentially the same for millions of years. And we have examples of other organisms that have changed drastically in tens of thousands of years. Taxonomists are well aware that the distinction between species and subspecies is often arbitrary and a matter of opinion. If subspecies can evolve (and they do) then species can evolve as well. Polar bears and brown bears are different species of bears. They look different, live in different habitats, have different hunting habits, and are universally classified as distinct species The two species diverged from a common ancestor relatively recently, perhaps one or two million years ago. But they’re still close enough genetically that they can mate and produce fertile offspring, and this has happened recently in the wild, so that meets the high school textbook definition of being the same species. If the two species stay separate long enough they will no doubt diverge to the point where they can no longer interbreed. In short, nature is precisely the way evolutionary theory predicts it should be. with rather fuzzy boundaries between closely related species.

            The fossil record is fully consistent with evolution. Through the fossil record we can see how the specialized bones of the inner ear evolved from more generalized bones of the jaw. We can see how birds evolved from feathered dinosaurs. We can see how reptiles evolved from a certain line of amphibians and how amphibians evolved from a certain line of fish. Trust me, paleontologists would be flabbergasted to hear that the fossil record doesn’t support evolution.

            There are many features of our own bodies that make no sense except in the context of evolution. Our retinas are wired backwards, with the light sensitive side of retinal cells pointing into the brain and the side connected to the nerves in the front. This necessitates the nerves bundling together and plunging through a hole in the retina to get to the brain. and is the cause of a large blind spot in each eye that we all have in our vision. Also, photons have to go through a bunch of nerves and capillaries to get to the photoreceptors. This makes ours eyes less efficient than they could be. Some animals compensate for this somewhat by having a reflective layer behind the retina that gives the photons a second chance at being detected. That’s why cats’ eyes shine in the dark. But we primates don’t even have that. Another consequence of this design is that the retina is rather weakly attached to the back of the eye, which makes us prone to retinal detachment.

            In short, the design of the eye is a botch. An engineer who came up with the idea of pointing the retinal cells backwards would get fired. OTOH, our eye does a pretty good job of locally optimizing around this fundamentally bad design. That’s just what we would expect from blind evolution.

            Many of our nerves take strange and circuitous routes. This design makes sense when you realize that the paths were a lot simpler back when we were fish, and the basic design has been retained since then. An intelligent designer would be a global optimizer, evolution is a local optimizer. The evidence we have is for a lot of local optimization.

          • Randall Ward

            I guess you know where the explosion of life in the Cambrian came from? You need to tell the world because no one else knows. Complex life appeared all at once with no gradual evolution as predicted by Darwin. In fact Darwin himself said that if the Cambrian explosion was not solved that his theories would be in grave doubt. Well no one has solved the problem for Darwin. Let me know if you have the answer.

          • WR_the_realist

            We know in a general sense where the Cambrian fauna come from — from earlier metazoans that by and large didn’t produce hard parts that fossilized. There is evidence for eukaryotes going back at least one billion years (much earlier than the Cambrian) and prokaryotes go further back than that. As for why most of the existing phyla suddenly appeared at the start of the Cambrian, I don’t have an explanation for that. I don’t know what changes in the environment or in the gene pool brought it about. So what? If that means we have to throw out all of evolution then our failure to understand the nature of dark matter means we have to throw out all of physics. In all sciences you can find things we don’t currently know, they are usually the areas of active research for that very reason.

          • Randall Ward

            WR, this is absolutely not true. Soft animals are found all the time. Look at the photos of the Chinese Cambrian discovery.
            You hit on the problem, there is such an emotional attachment to Darwin that it is hard to let it go, even though it has been proved untrue. The future will lead to wonderful discoveries that we know nothing about now. The USA is the only country in the world that is glued to Darwin, the rest have moved on; thats because scientists mixed up faith and science. They had faith in Darwin.

          • WR_the_realist

            Soft animals are found on occasion. But hardly all the time. The Burgess shale and the similar discovery in China are remarkable precisely because they are among the few early fossil formations that do preserve soft body parts. Whatever the Cambrian fauna evolved from were probably both very small (microscopic or near microscopic) and had few if any hard body parts. So we can not expect much of a fossil record. There is the Ediacaran fauna that predates the Cambrian. It’s connection to Cambrian fauna is unknown, but it does prove that there were metazoans predating the Cambrian. Certain types of amoebas create vase shaped shells called testes. Fossil testes have been found in rocks over 700 million years old, well before the Cambrian. But we have no fossil evidence of ancient amoebas that didn’t produce testes, even though common sense tells us they probably existed when their teste producing cousins did. There’s a lot of capriciousness in the fossil record.

            Actually, the U.S. is unique among modern industrialized nations for its extraordinary high percentage of adults who cling to some form of Biblical literalism and reject evolution. Our European cousins consider us to be very backward in this respect. So far as I can tell the Japanese and Chinese have no problems with evolution either.

          • Sick of it

            Our European cousins embrace centralized government and their own replacement by foreigners.

          • WR_the_realist

            Which has no relevance to the truth of evolution. And it is their government overlords who support their replacement by foreigners, just as our overlords do. The ordinary people of Europe did not asked to be replaced by foreigners any more than we did.

          • Nathanwartooth

            So if evolution isn’t the answer, then what is?

            What is this other theory that you could be speaking of?

            Please, oh please don’t let it be that the earth and everything on it was created by magic 6,000 years ago.

          • HJ11

            One of the errors you are making is that you conflate Darwin with evolution. Darwin’s theories of evolution are not the only theories extant. I suspect we’re going to find some new things about the processes of evolution that may involve the mechanisms of animal/plant mimicry along with a renewed look at Lamarckism and a deeper look at the way viruses and prions can insert genes in organisms.

            Evolution is a reality. Arguing against it is like arguing that the Earth is flat.

          • Randall Ward

            While we are waiting on your proof and all the new things to come, you don’t mind if we don’t count your theories as fact, do you?
            Have we become a nation that treats science as religion; ie, we have faith, we “know” this is true, even though we don’t have any proof.
            That is really what it comes down to; as you said “evolution is a reality”.

          • HJ11

            Of course my theories are not fact. That’s why they’re called theories.

            You rely on the fact that science doesn’t have aboslute answers to everything as “proof” that your religious views are right.

            Now, you can believe anything you want. You can even worship an old tennis shoe in your back yard as god because it rained when you threw it out there and you had prayed for rain, but filling in blanks by using religious myths and beliefs is the stuff of cargo cults and human sacrifices to appease angry gods or to get favor from gods.

          • Randall Ward

            I have not said one word about religion, except the religion of darwinism. I rely on science for scientific things.
            I am a Christian because I am a sinful person and without the Lord I would be lost to sin.
            But I don’t mix science and religion.God made everything in the way He saw best, I don’t have a cell phone connection to God.
            I used to read Scientific American, back when it was still fairly good. One of the parts I always enjoyed was a small section that listed the false ideas of science in the past, all the mistaken ideas. It was good to read that part because most scientific theories turn out to be wrong.
            But the scientific community has a lot invested in evolution, and a lot of money is riding on evolution for research. So they don’t want to let it go. But eventually they will have to.

          • HJ11

            Actually, and contrary to your assertion that you have not said one word about religion, your comments are full of implied religious dogma.

            And, your above comment just confirms this.

            I would say that true science and true religion are one and do not contradict each other, and if they do, then the one to believe is the one that can be proven, not the one that must be accepted on belief alone.

            But, let’s not dance around the bushes. You reject evolution. So, do you believe in Creationism, i.e. that a God created everything all at once? And, when do you think the earth was created–5,000 years ago? How about dinosaurs–do you believe they didn’t exist or that they existed at the same time as humans in that one time creation that you may believe in?

          • Randall Ward

            You just can’t get over the fact that science does not support darwin’s evolutionary theory. So you make up supposed facts about me. I don’t guess you can see you do the same thing with evolutionary “facts”.

          • HJ11

            I haven’t made up anything about you at all. I’ve just made logical inferences from what you’ve written including this: “I am a Christian because I am a sinful person and without the Lord I would be lost to sin.”

            What you’ve done is reject true science and in its place you’ve accepted religious beliefs.

            I simply asked you a few questions which you apparently don’t want to answer.

            And, here’s another question: Most of us on here, I presume, have a level of White consciousness that wants us to help White people survive, improve and expand. Does this also describe you? And, if it does, what is the foundational belief system or views that justify this in your mind? For example, in my mind, the foundation for my White beliefs is evolution.

          • Randall Ward

            I am white and the white race has developed a culture that is unique in the world, there is nothing to match it, as the results of our civilization has proved. What made us the way we are is a mystery that is yet to be resolved. I just finished reading “White Identity”, great book. Being white, I have to go by science for the physical things of this universe. There are two kinds of non believers of evolution; the ignorant and the educated. I am educated in some things but have a large degree of education in a few things. Evolution is something I have studied all my life. I am just an observer, not a scientist, but I can understand what is being said by scientists and can judge it by my experience and intelligence.

          • HJ11

            You wrote: “What made us the way we are is a mystery that is yet to be resolved.”

            No, what has made us the way we are is our particular DNA code (read genes), along with some “accidents” of history and environment. It is the same with all organisms.

          • WR_the_realist

            You can just not get over the fact that the overwhelming majority of paleontologists, geneticists, and taxonomists accept the theory of evolution as being as well established as the theory of gravity. Tell me, why did God wire your retina backwards? Is He stupid, or just perverse? I can find crank literature “proving” that the theory of relativity is false or that the earth is hollow. I don’t waste my time with it, any more than I do with the junk on the Discovery Institute’s web site.

          • [Guest]

            The creationist and the evolutionist would both say that all organic matter sprang from inorganic matter, correct? It’s just that the creationist would attribute that event to supernatural forces, whereas the evolutionist would say that there will one day be a scientific explanation—devoid of any implication of religious dogma—for life coming from nonlife.

          • WR_the_realist

            It is a fact that amphibians evolved from fish. It is a fact that reptiles evolved from amphibians. It is a fact that we evolved from a primate ancestor that also gave rise to the chimpanzees. The fact that we don’t currently have an explanation for the Cambrian explosion does not negate the facts we do know.

          • WR_the_realist

            All versions of evolution that don’t require miracles are essentially Darwinism. Sure, viruses can move some genes around, and bacteria share genes all the time. There’s no reason these facts can’t be incorporated into Darwinian evolution.

          • HJ11

            I have to disagree. Lamarckism is an alternate theory of evolution. it was once widely discredited, but now some folks (from Harvard and elsewhere) belief that some parts of it may be valid.

          • WR_the_realist

            Lamarckism plays only a tiny role in evolution, if any at all. For Lamarckism to work there has to be a feedback mechanism from changes in the phenotype to the genes, and in most cases that feedback mechanism is lacking. In his Origin of the Species Darwin came up with a good counterexample to Lamarckism. Some ants develop complex castes, with minor workers that take care of the grubs, medium workers that go out and gather food, and extra large major workers that have huge jaws and defend the nest. A Lamarckian would say that the huge jaws in the majors are a result of them practicing their martial skills and passing the results to their young. The problem is that all worker castes are infertile. The only reproducing member of the colony is the queen, lurking deep within the nest. So, no, changes in the major worker’s phenotype can’t be passed on to future generations. But if a mutation in the queen’s egg cells causes more effective majors to be produced, that nest will survive better and the genes will be passed on to future generations, through future queens.

          • HJ11

            Actually, I’m not defending Lamarckism–I simply mentioned that as an example of a view that differs from Darwin’s views. That there are questions in the exact DNA/reproductive mechanisms that cause ants and bees and hundreds of other organisms to produce the castes, and apparently in about the right proportions of each, is, as far as I know, not known. But this has nothing to do with either support for or against Lamarckism. It’s something on a different track and probably has to do with sperm and/or egg variations based on external group pressures in the hive causing, for example, temperature differences or hormone secretions that cause the eggs to produce variations of the type.

          • HJ11

            Huh? Give us the quotation from Darwin for your opening line statement.

            Also, since you mention Darwin a lot, and since you want proof (evidence, really) that evolution can lead to speciation, simply look at Darwin’s finches.

            In most of your comments you seem to make sweeping generalizations and offer no citations, and these sweeping generalizations then serve as your premise as though they are accepted scientific facts that you want others to accept and which you then use to support your secondary conclusions.

            Evolution is a reality. Evolution is change.

    • HJ11

      What is your source for saying that “the cell is the most complicated thing in the universe.” I don’t know anyone who has seen evrything in the universe, but perhaps you know someone who has, so a citation to your authority might be informative.

  • Luca

    I’ve been reading some interesting stuff about genealogy. NatGeo has a Genographic project studying DNA from people around the world. They define their findings by 9 regions. They are: Northeast Asian, Mediterranean, Southern African, Southwest Asian, Oceanian, Southeast Asian, Native American, Northern European and Sub-Saharan African.

    Using a sample of your DNA they can pretty well tell you your ethnic background based on the percentages you have from any of the nine groups. All I can say is it is clear that we have evolved and left most of our African DNA so far behind, it would take a genetic scientist to find it. On the other hand, those with large amounts of African DNA are probably closer to what the human race may have looked like 150,000 years ago. I believe the other groups represent steps up the evolutionary ladder. Place them in any order you like.

    As a side note, Ashkenazi Jews appear to have evolved about 1000 years ago in the Rhine valley of Germany. Obviously they also have older origins in the Mediterranean and Southwest Asian DNA regions as well.

    • Randall Ward

      Do yourself a favor and stop reading the liberal funny book- National Geographic. A big tipoff should be the large percentage of photos. Fifty years ago it was a good publication.
      Think of NG as the continuation of “life” magazine.

  • Randall Ward

    To understand why evolution is false, here are three simple books to start with; “The Devils Delusion” by David Berlinski, “Icons of Evolution” by Johnathan Wells, “Darwins Doubt” by Stephen C. Meyer. Go to the Discovery Institute website for more info.

    • Antipodean WN

      Sorry. Evolution is a fact —and supports the position of race realism.
      Religious egalitarian baloney is what got us into this mess in the first place.

      I have not time for idiots who try and deny evolution —-it seems this is an American phenomenon. In Australia, Britain, and Europe, deniers of evolution are typically seen as kooks.

    • HJ11

      Evolution is not false. At its most basic, evolution simply means change. And, we can see many examples of change in organisms. So, why do they change? Well, in the first instance, one of the primary ways is that individual organisms are born with mutations. If the mutations give the individuals a survival advantage, natural selection, over time will have that mutation spread in the species.

      One of the easiest to see examples of evolution at work is still the classic: Darwin’s finches.

      • Luca

        Empirical evidence of evolution on a minor scale: wolf + time + selective breeding = poodle.

        I’ve always noticed the correlation between otters and seals as a subtle indicator of evolution at work. I am sure there are many other examples. The presence of evolution as a fact does not disprove God, but certainly it disproves the Bible. Apparently the evidence offends some people. We’ve seen this before with people who refute the Bell Curve.

    • Nathanwartooth

      You can believe in evolution and God, they are not mutually exclusive.

      Evolution is all around you. “Super germs” are a great modern example.

    • IstvanIN

      This is for everyone who has responded and made these very interesting and intelligent “evolution vs the Bible” posts. I have two hopefully not too simplistic views on the matter:
      1) The Bible is written in simple terms that the average man, especially the man of 2-3000 years ago, could understand.
      2) Evolution is how God changes things. It is the engine of change He put in motion.

      That is why I truly believe the Bible and science will eventually converge.

      • Background Noise

        :-D

      • Luca

        Nice to hear some common sense theories rather than angry “know-it-all’s” informing of us of the right way to think about everything in the universe.

      • Bardon Kaldian

        This is theistic evolution- Bergson, Teilhard de Chardin, theosophists,…

        • IstvanIN

          I figured I wasn’t the only one.

    • Evette Coutier

      Dear RW, I look through Meyer’s writings. The reading is interesting. However, the discussion between evolution and special creation is really beyond the scope of this forum. Regardless of where you side on this debate, I think we are fairly reasonable people here and enjoy some very common ground and fundamental understandings. What is clear from genetic, historical, an demographic evidence is that there are racial differences. It is also clear that those differences are the basis for cultural and social incompatibilities. It is also evident that the various racial groups are in a struggle for resources,power, and survival. Our common ground here is much greater than our minor differences. You may think that it is a huge issue,but it I s really not. It is an issue that over time will be resolved one way or the other.

      Even if there is a fundamental disagreement on how the world came about, over 95 percent of our values and principles that guide our lives are essential the same. Our understanding of social, legal, and civic issues share much in common as does our understanding of what will solve those issues.

      We need not get side tracked and divided. In the final analysis our cause needs us to see the greater mission, the preservation of us. I really don’t want to go the way of the dodo bird.

      • David Ashton

        Very sensible.

        “The differences between the various branches of the human family are so great that the fusion of races is not in any way desirable.” – Quotation from the pre-Vatican II “Code of International Ethics” by Rev Dr Leslie Rumble MSC STD in “Questions People Ask” (Kensington, N.S.W. 1972) and granted the Roman Catholic Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur in 1971.

  • Romulus

    Busman suffers from a heavily PC education. A classic lesson in western logic would be an improvement.

  • stewball

    Don’t forget her brother.

  • VapidVienna

    I think you have this wrong. The Neanderthal genes that Europeans carry but Africans don’t is due to inter-breeding between humans and Neanderthals that happened after we walked out of Africa.

    I don’t get your idea that human and chimp DNA differs by 3% while European and African DNA differs by 3-4%. These are clearly measuring different things. A little thought would show you that our genome must be closer to that of Africans, given that our split with the Common Ancestor of chimps and humans happened 6 million years ago.

    • Gunrunner1

      Let me expound.
      negros are a separate subspecies of human, far more distant genetically to us than other Subspecies, say between Wolf and dog. In a scientific world, We would be Homo Sapiens and negros would be Homo Africanus.

      • VapidVienna

        I think the current scientific consensus is that there are two main groups of Africans. We are almost as closely related to one group as we are to other races. The other group has been separate from the other races for much longer. However, your brush is a little too broad. Most black people in America and the Caribbean have a certain amount of white DNA mixed in due to the slave trade, which makes them much closer to us genetically than say, African bushmen. We may even have more DNA in common with them than with say, Polynesians. I don’t think that dragging in the terms sub-species or parallels with wolves and dogs makes anything any clearer. Who are the main species and who are the sub-species? If we can interbreed then talk of separate species is unnecessary. Are we the wolves or the dogs?

      • Jack Burton

        .

  • Sick of it

    Some folks haven’t figured out yet that intelligence is not often passed down with aggression. That the most aggressive, least moral, and in many cases unintelligent people have a good share of the wealth today. We don’t live in a natural world or society anymore.

  • Luca

    Anyone taking bets on this guy’s IQ being greater than his shoe size?

  • HJ11

    Since, as often happens, this thread has become fragmented and because not everyone wants to follow all the backs and forths, let me state very clearly why I believe the reality of evolution is important to those of us who are interested in White survival, expansion and improvement:

    Evolution and its various elements and processes serve as the unshakable, scientific and rational bedrock foundation as to why we Whites must not miscegenate and why we must have more children and why we must stay separate from other types of humans.

    Speaking for myself, I can say that I came to my beliefs about race, not out of hatred or mindless prejudice, but because of an understanding of evolution and how we White people evolved and what will happen to us if we blend back in with other forms of humans (doing that means our genocide and eventual extinction).

    And, as my beliefs are based this way, you’ll never hear of me pulling a George Wallace and suddently changing views because social views have changed. In other words, my views are not based on social views, but on evolutionary realities. Or, and perhaps I’m just piling on here, I can no sooner change my views on race than I can change my views on other natural aspects of reality such as gravity or the fact that the earth is round, not flat.

    Without evolution, we have very weak glue holding us to our beliefs about race.

    • Evette Coutier

      Bingo!!!

    • NeanderthalDNA

      Regardless of what I said in my big windy rambling below or above I agree. Don’t think my beliefs and your assertions are incompatible or opposed at all.

    • Romulus

      We’ll put!!! True fragmentation on this thread with the back and girths occurs as more become awake. New commentators knowledge base might not be as broad as others because of the dumbing down and cultural inertia of our people. We should all cut each other some slack and remember that the shared knowledge we possess will help to enlighten all and help ensure our survival.

  • WR_the_realist

    My great nightmare. Transmigration of souls turns out to be true, and one day I wake up, look in the mirror, and see that.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    Yeah – ur right. All hail the Truth!

  • Bossman

    Well then why were they so stupid?

    • IstvanIN

      They weren’t stupid, they were around for quite sometime, just that someone smarter showed up.

  • VapidVienna

    A Windaus,

    Not for a second do I think that the races differ only in pigmentation. I get all my info about such things from J.P. Rushton and John Derbyshire so I think you are falsely assuming that I don’t believe in races.

    One of us isn’t understanding the other and I’m not sure which one of us it is. It could be me. I believe that the 4% of Neanderthal in Europeans. DNA comes from relatively recent interbreeding with Neanderthals, say 30,000 years ago. Do you mean that 30,000 years is a long time to become divergent?

    I’m sure that you have misunderstood not only my second paragraph but the science. Yes, our DNA differs from that of chimps by 2% or so, depending on what you are counting. However, there are statistics that say that male and female DNA differs by more than 2%, and your DNA differs from mine by more than 2%, even though we are both white. But this does not mean that males are closer to chimps than they are to human females, or that I am closer to chimps than I am to you. Scientists are counting different things and the percentages refer to different things.

  • saxonsun

    Doesn’t look real.

  • SFLBIB

    Well, at least this is more credible than a 1-million year-old jaw bone here, a 2.5-million year-old leg bone there, and a 3-million year-old skull cap yonder put together to form a picture of what ancient humans were like.

  • WR_the_realist

    I presume those statistics are for the U.S. Army only, You are right about the Red Army.

  • Frans

    Is this photo real or Photoshopped?

  • Look_A_Squirrel

    If the scientists are correct we are all African Americans. Therefore, we should claim this and apply for special set asides, affirmative action and entitlements. Our DNA will support it.

  • stewball

    Oh for goodness sake. And King David had red hair. So who was his daddy? A Viking?

  • stewball

    @unperson! That is so obviously a typo.