Right on Target: New Era of Fast Genetic Engineering

Colin Barras, New Scientist, January 28, 2014

Sequencing genomes has become easy. Understanding them remains incredibly hard. While the trickle of sequence information has turned into a raging torrent, our knowledge isn’t keeping up. We still have very little understanding of what, if anything, all our DNA does.

This is not a problem that can be solved by computers. Ultimately, there is only one way to be sure what a particular bit of DNA does–you have to alter it in real, living cells to see what happens. But genetic engineering is very difficult and expensive.

At least, it used to be. Last month, two groups announced that they had performed a mind-boggling feat. They targeted and disabled nearly every one of our genes in cells growing in a dish. They didn’t knock out all the genes in each cell at once, of course, but one gene at a time. That is, they individually modified a staggering 20,000 genes. “It’s truly remarkable,” says Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, who led one of the studies. “This is transformative.”

To put it into perspective, in 2007 an international project was launched to target and “knock out” each of the 20,000 genes a mouse possesses. It took the collective effort of numerous labs around the world more than five years to complete, and it cost $100 million. Now two small teams have each done something similar in a fraction of the time and cost. The secret: a simple and powerful new way of editing genomes. The term breakthrough is overused, but this undoubtedly is one. “It’s a game-changer,” says Feng Zhang, also at the Broad Institute, who led the other study.

The technique, unveiled just a year ago, is generating tremendous excitement as its potential becomes clear. It is already starting to accelerate the pace of research–Lander and Zhang used it to find out which genes help cancer cells resist a drug, for instance. In years to come, it is likely to be used in gene therapy, and to create a new generation of genetically engineered organisms with extensive but precise changes to their genomes. And if we ever do decide to genetically modify people, this is the tool to do it with.


[Editor’s Note: Extensive details about how this new method works can be found at the original article link below.]

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.
  • The next arms race: Who can genetically engineer a new species of higher intelligence orders of magnitude greater than our own. China isn’t constrained by the ridiculous PC notions on race that the West is, therefore they’re probably already light years ahead of us.

    • D.B. Cooper

      No, they are decades behind us. WE only publicize our inventions when they become obsolete. I’m sure we cloned humans over 50 years ago.

      • refocus

        What do you mean by “we”.

        They do not let us have anything. What little we can scratch together gets neutralized in the vaccine process.

      • Karolina

        Lol, this kind-of technology will be banned in the West due to the psychological pain inflicted on Blacks. We are stuck with them, while the Chinese firm BGI Genomics (look them up; they are going to start embryo selection services soon) is beginning wide-scale IQ testing to track-down the genes responsible for most behaviors that can be categorized.

        They received $1 BILLION in funding from none other than the Chinese government.

        • Edruezzi

          Remember when people were buying genetic company stocks in the 80s. What happened? Then Celera Genomics’ stock shot through the roof around the time it helped to decipher the human genome. Today most of these companies are small subsidiaries of big pharma companies and some are still losing money. What we’ve got from the genomics revolution is long-lasting apples and Flavr Saver Tomatoes and so on. About half the US corn crop is genetically modified. Does your corn flakes taste any different? I mean, do you notice?
          If these wonderful Chinese companies produce anything it’ll be some deformed fruit fly and although the Chinese have no concept of ethics they definitely understand shame. They’ll bury the results and that’ll be it.
          Nature started the genetic engineering business 3.5 billion years ago. Its results have been underwhelming. Man will do no better.

          • Karolina

            You’re quite arrogant to be so sure of yourself.

            Nature does not progress as fast as technology; I disagree with almost everything you said.

            And if you really think that evolving from single-celled organisms to what we are today is “underwhelming”, then I’ve got nothing much else to say to you….

          • Edruezzi

            On the upside, since this breakthrough reduces genetics to something we can tinker with, the mystery is gone. We can finally engineer ourselves so the race problem goes away. We’ll all be the same race. There is no doubt that it will work.

          • Karolina

            There is a huge difference between embryo selection for certain behavioral traits (very easy) and genetically changing an adult into a person of a different race (practically impossible for the foreseeable future).

          • Edruezzi

            Actually, even now we cannot engineer behavioral traits. We still do not know the full influences on behavioral traits. Some of the traits could be pleitropic, and so on.
            If there is such a difference as the one you have mentioned then it is only a difference having to do with the handling of more genes. In principle, it would be possible to target the loci where Euros differ from Bantus and then replace the components at those sites. We could literally engineer the races away. Wouldn’t we be so much happier?

          • Karolina

            I didn’t say we can; I said embryo selection.

          • Edruezzi

            Presumably, since even the most degraded Bantu starts as an embryo, a fact that grade school science indicates, embryo selection should work on them too.

          • Karolina

            Embryo selection for specific behavioral traits is very different from changing the entire race of a being.

            They would still have negro ancestors; something which would make them less White than natural-born Whites. AND REMEMBER, I never agreed with embryo-selection for Negroes in the first place.

          • Edruezzi

            If I take a gene out of where it’s been for the past billion years and replace it with something else ancestry becomes irrelevant. You’re not seeing the big picture here.

          • Edruezzi

            Maybe I am arrogant, but does your corn flakes taste different? How many fortunes did Flavr Savr produce? Are you eager to buy stock in a genomics firm?
            Human ingenuity can trump nature, but, really after 3.5 billion years, can we do better than nature, and if we can, what will these beings look like? Using the pruning effect and also the creative effect of selection nature has produced organisms that are groups of communities of cooperating genes. I’d argue that all the spectacular advances have been tried, by natural, and sexual, selection. Will we gain from engineering Einsteins or from educating people better, building better facilities like the Large Hadron Collider, etc?
            Note that I said selection has had a creative effect. Selection not only produces bell curves, ie statistical distributions of traits. It shapes traits into complexes. There may have been beasts ancestral to beavers that showed differing affinities to water, and differing skills at building nests, and these affinities and skills would have had their bell curves. Selection shaped all that into the elaborate instincts of beavers to build their dams. What this means is that nature has tried most of the workable genetic experiments, a fact demonstrated by the propensity of human genetic tinkerers to use genes collected from existing organisms for their genetic tinkering as opposed to creating new ones.
            As for my underwhelming comment, any scientist who is worth his salt and knows the business knows that a bacterial cell is actually more sophisticated in its architecture and metabolism than our eucaryotic cells are. Biology is tedium.

          • Karolina

            I’m sorry but I’m no longer going to read these.

            Have a nice day.

          • Edruezzi

            No problem.

    • jeffaral

      Countries like China promotes Eugenics; the West, thanks to cultural Marxism and Crazianity, promotes dysgenics: The fatter, the dumber, the darker, the better.

      • Edruezzi

        A regime that dictates how many children its subjects can have could do anything in the genetics area.

  • Spartacus

    I’d love to see the demographics in those genetic research teams. I’m sure they’re very racist .

    • Oil Can Harry

      The scientific team were 20% Haitian, 30% Nigerian, 15% Roma gypsies and 35% Australian aborigines.

      • Non-White enough, but too gentile.

    • Karolina

      Mostly Chinese apparently.

    • Anna Tree

      Yes and while those racist scientists “knock out” genes, the not-racist blacks “knock out” whites [/sarcasm].

  • sbuffalonative

    I see genetic engineering as a hope for the White race. If perfected, we can start untangling unnatural gene mixing.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      This research will also unlock more “uncomfortable truths”. Question is how much of it will be suppressed and misreported to the public.

      • Edruezzi

        There have been no uncomfortable truths unlocked so far. What has been unlocked has always been clearly presented to the public. The public of course misunderstands all of it. Science goes on, etc.

    • Conrad

      This is what we are about. That’s why I repeatedly say – Reason. Logic. Eugenics.

    • Edruezzi

      A far more likely result will be boredom. Believe me, I know about these things.

      • sbuffalonative

        Can you explain both of these comments more fully? Thank you.

        • Edruezzi

          Yeah, certainly.
          Nature has been doing its version of genetic engineering since the origin of life. What have we got? Well, the dinosaurs were spectacular, but man walked on the moon with a body frame recognizably similar to the dinosaurs. We split the atom and found the Higgs, but, to paraphrase Darwin, man bears the lowly stamp of his origin in every fiber of his being. The creature that walked on the moon is really not that different from mammals that were around at the time of the dinosaurs. The really cool stuff was the technology that got him there. Therefore, I don’t think boosting IQs by a few percentage points will be as radical as some of the other technologies that will soon be upon us. Think of AI. As far back as 1996 Kasparov was saying that playing Deep Blue, IBM’s chess computer, was like playing a new order of intelligence. His defeat in game 2 of the match resulted from his being unnerved at the deadly accuracy with which the machine anticipated his moves. He gave up.
          Already we’re seeing AI based systems making entire sectors of the labor force disappear. The last recession had an unemployment problem exacerbated by commerrcial AI. Computer-based legal discovery has rendered some paralegal jobs obsolete. I reckon that kind of software will have a lot more impact than engineering some people with advanced lawyer genes.
          So, if we can get past the ethical hurdles that will almost certainly constrain what people can do in that field, boosting IQs artificially won’t be as radical as a device that can do the work of today’s supercomputers that can fit in the pockets of your jeans and that has AI subsystems.
          As for the second statement, I have degrees in physics and engineering and have done work in molecular biology.

          • sbuffalonative

            Your comments take a different turn than mine. I acknowledge that my comments weren’t as clear as they should have been.

            My hope for GE is that if miscegenation continues and GE becomes feasible GE can be used to saved and resurrected the white genome. I was not speaking to the GEing of a new Super White Man.

            AI is a different subject I wasn’t commenting on but I agree AI is a new fronter.

            I’m still not clear why you believe the results of GE would be boredom. Why boredom and for whom? Individuals or the white race? Please explain if you can.
            I also don’t understand your comments, “I know about these things” and the connection to what degrees you have.
            I suspect you are not an American and I suspect both of our ideas my be ‘lost in translation’.
            Best regards.

          • Edruezzi

            Well, you’re right. GE will make it possible to remove non-European components from the gene pool of the white population.

            I’m as American as it gets.

  • Kit Ingoldby

    As the research into genetics continues it gets harder and harder for leftists to deny biological realities.

    At some time there will be a tipping point as a critical mass of people realise the importance of biology in determining human nature and characteristics.

    • Tarczan

      And by then it will be too late. In fact, it already is too late. America is forever changed.

      • Kit Ingoldby

        Don’t be a defeatist.

        It is not too late until we are 6 feet under the ground.

  • Pro_Whitey

    Interesting, but how precisely does this get the blacks back to Africa and the browns back south of the Rio Grande?

  • bigone4u

    Liberals will call for deactivating the “racist gene.” I’ve already seen talk of it somewhere. After turning whites into black and brown loving zombies, whatever personal resistance to miscegenation will disappear. Alternatively, deactivating the “criminal gene” might lead to the disappearance of blacks. Science can play god or the devil. Which will it be? We need to use our influence, such as it is, to ensure the survival of the white race.

    • Karolina

      Deactivating the criminal gene and giving Blacks high-IQ’s still won’t solve their severe personality defects. Their arrogance and rudeness will still be there.

      I say don’t risk it. We don’t want 180 IQ Blacks running around; doesn’t sound like a good idea. Most races on the other hand should have the right to boost their people to a high enough intelligence so that we don’t have to keep taking care of them… with Blacks though it’s just too risky.

      • IstvanIN

        Smarter criminals we don’t need. Think of the mayhem they would cause if their gangs were as smart as the Italian mob, without the impulse control.

        • Zaporizhian Sich

          Organized crime, be it the Italian Mob, or Bolsheviks or today’s corporate criminal class create lots of murder and mayhem because they control their rank and file. If they didn’t, they would turn on each other and the whole movement or organization disintegrates.

    • Eddie Lutz

      Hell, with this technology we could all change races at will. Think bigger, man!

  • Puggg

    Does it also apply to pugs?

    • M.

      I’m sure it does.

    • bigone4u

      Like some people, those little pugs never look happy or contented. Maybe they’re worried about the survival of the white race. Without whites around, dogs wouldn’t have it so good and I think some of them know that. There’s more than one “waycisss” dog around, for sure.

      • Puggg

        Every dog breed is a human creation, and a very overwhelming majority are from north-central-west Europe. And the ones that aren’t, like the pug, from China, were really popularized by importing them into Europe.

  • M&S

    It’s not a be-all cure but it brings us a LOT closer to active engineering because it was never as blind-man-groping-along an act of blind experiment as they imply. The genome of all species are actually laid out in relatively understandable geometries of ‘heads here, feet there, ordered groupings. Almost as though intentionally so.

    The problem is that some areas are developmentally activated in combined sequences, like a chord on a piano, multiple times. Looking at the junk DNA may prove helpful in analytics as the equivalent of ‘composer notes’ for what did and did not (evolutionarily) work before. Particularly is they are found to be cyclical rather than randomized event tree driven.

    CRISPR or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats acts like the dash-dot sequences in morse code but rather than -being- datums, they encapsulate and frame it, originally as a kind of matching identifier with known viral DNA patterns as an immune response. CAS9 is one of the proteins which, associated with these spacers, can then cut apart the effected DNA of a virally sheath attacking a cell, rendering it inert and adding it to the list of identified threats.

    But the cool thing about CAS9 and the CRISPR system as a whole is that it’s easy to tailor to specific gene sequences and SNP clusters to activate multiple gene groups by simply copying the associated 10-20 base pair sequences that form connectors. This can make them very precisely targetable and incredibly flexible as a function of what kinds of genes they activate to synthesize natural proteins (the anti-arthritics are mentioned specifically but this could also apply to dopamines for Alzheimer’s and to other specific brain endocrines regulating mood and functional intelligence as efficiency processing).

    As such, CAS9 can be both a protein cutter in and of itself and an RNA sequence activator which means you can use it as whiting fluid on a typewriter to inactivate ‘miss-spelled’ genes or as a splicer to pull apart and insert new, additive gene variants.

    Beyond this, if you want to monitor genetic effects /as outcomes/, you really need the ability to grow multiple fetus’ of an otherwise exactly similar type with small variations in an exogenic (artificial womb) level of activation so that you can monitor and enhance certain stages of tissue generation and layering from a remotely viewed, comparative analysis, level without invasive imaging.

    There is only so much metabolic energy to allocate at certain stages of the gestation cycle and this results in some important choices having to be made in optimization of functional outcome.

    Obviously, such is NOT something you can do to a woman as the hormones will stress her and kill the baby in a large percentage of outcomes.

    In this, the mechanics of what must be done to support the chemistry, as well as the moral certainty of doing it to improve the species with certain death of fetus’ an almost assured event to further scientific understanding of the developmental ‘chords’ playing into melody remain beyond the level of public level capabilities to do real genetic engineering (as opposed to editing).

    Will it remain that way? Hard to say. When we first sequenced the tissues it was a 5 year and 100 million dollar effort. Now it is almost effortless at a 100,000th that cost. But the fact remains that to do real work here requires scientific commitment to build up the engineering base to match the technical achievements and that in turn requires moral certitude that we have a right to try to improve ourselves without appeals to gods or racial envy.

    Until we do have the courage to take this step and do some critical comparative analysis of ‘what must come first’ we will not be able to transition into formative idea conceptualizing of which chords to play in what sequences to get the earliest, most effective, tissue bedding and this will be particularly important to things like myelin coating generation, early configuration of certain brain morphologies (we will know -exactly- when ‘life’ as sentience begins) and biochemical balances within the developing child’s brain.

    But imagine if we do.

    Imagine what a 125 baseline IQ means.

    Instantly, whites would no longer owe our right to exist to other, smarter, groups, class or racial to deign give us ‘wisdom’ as to the limits of our own natures. Instantly, we can make ourselves natively immune to Big Lie politics and force the end of cognitive dissonance over racial differences and while making clear the realities inherent to feeding the Malthusian Beast of R-Breeder populations.

    Unfortunately, what we cannot do is withhold whiteness from those who already envy what we have but come from environments where they have bred themselves out of house and home on residual resources to improve themselves, naturally.

    Supply white genes for racial conservatism as conceptual brilliance and you will give awareness of need to go along with need as an acknowledgement of just how primitive their conditions are. Which is the same as saying we would have 7 billion competitors, overnight.

    The one ‘good’ thing that may derive from this is the creation of super pathogens by which the world leadership agrees to each blot out a certain segment of their population by only attacking people with key-variant genes for low IQ or low social conformity while maintaining whatever other (empathy, submission, extroversion) trait’s they deem ‘un/admirable’ in an underclass.

    i.e. We may trade Malthusian for Orwellian outcomes.

    Nevertheless, this is a major step forwards. And one whose R&D we _must_ have the guts to take for ourselves and our children’s inheritance.

    • SoulInvictus

      “Imagine what a 125 baseline IQ means.”

      Sorry, IQ isn’t the panacea. We already have higher average IQ’s, and even glaring statistics and real life experience don’t break the leftist indoctrination.
      Without a fundamental rebellion against what passes for our culture now, intelligence won’t fix it.
      Rather than genetic engineering fantasy, success is much more likely through proven mechanisms like charismatic leaders, social pressure, and religion.

      Don’t take that as an argument against eugenics though. I’ve long wondered how the discovery of DNA didn’t at least lead to everyone wanting to breed out traits everyone considers bad. Bad teeth, eyes, etc.
      It’s only pure selfishness that has kept our current generation from being near flawless (health and body wise).

  • Karolina

    You have to control impulse and personality disorders too.

    Imagine Black geniuses who harbor homicidal tendencies? Hell no..

    Limit this technology to those that do not harbor God complexes and poor impulse control (ie Blacks, Muslims, American Indians/Mestizos). Unfortunately, I don’t see this happening.

    We are going to have Blacks with 180 IQ’s raping and pillaging on a continental scale.

    • M.

      Blacks harbor those tendencies because they’re low-IQ. That’s why many Middle-Easterners, North Africans, and mestizoes act the same way.

      Low-IQ people function more on a pleasure/pain instinctive level. They also get their psychological kick from high social status/recognition. Even more so than the higher-IQ folk.
      That’s why they’re more easily lured into the latest Nike, car, anything that bling-blings, or anything that could procure immediate pleasure or displays high status.

      Their decision-making is more instinctive, in a nutshell.

      This goes for stupid whites too, like the English Chavs.

      • Karolina

        I think that poor impulse control and intelligence, despite being negatively correlated, are not ‘exclusive’ to each other.

        Giving Blacks genius-level IQ’s will not lead to a disappearance of high testosterone levels, nor will it give them the love, caring, and empathy that many other people (especially Whites) hold.

        There are many 3rd world populations which hold IQ’s that are approx. the same as African-Americans. Some, like North Africans, are even lower at around 82. Indians are at this level, and some of the smart light-skinned Middle-Eastern populations, which also happen to be Christian, don’t reach above 85. (Lynn 2012)

        Yet, these people can still form civilizations greater than the greatest Black Americans, and societies which (other than Islamic terrorism) tend to be free of crime and homicide (comparatively speaking). 85-IQ Arabs are nowhere near Blacks for example in their propensity to commit crimes, yet they are still of very low intelligence.

        • M.

          There might be a religion factor for Arabs. People of these regions also tend to be naturally conservative. But yes, it seems that they are less prone to crime.

          They lower intelligence is mainly displayed in the lack of creativity, and a lack of empathy, compared to white Europeans.

          • Karolina

            Well, even if Islam leads to lower crime rates due to it’s family values, the fact remains that Christians in that region are even less criminal than the Muslims (this could have something to do with being a fearful minority, but Arab Christian immigrants to Europe are almost like Whites in criminality, compared to the Muslim Arabs).

          • M.

            There’s also the fact Middle-Eastern Christians have some Western European ancestry from the Crusaders’ era. Which is why they tend to be a little more European-looking than the Muslims. Especially in today’s Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria.

          • Karolina

            I’m not sure about Crusader ancestry, but they definitely look whiter (and the Christian Copts in Egypt are probably the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians).

            I think it has to do with having little Negroid admixture, not any Crusader ancestry (remember that the Crusader states were only in the Levant, and didn’t last for very long). Middle-Eastern people probably looked a lot more Caucasoid and a lot less Negroid during ancient history (probably up until the last millenia or so). With all of the Negroid admixture that has built up in North Africa and some parts of West Asia, Middle-Eastern populations now look distinctly different from Europeans.

            I think that in the past, before the Arab slave trade, they looked distinctly more Caucasoid and they’ve been like that for most of history. I’m not sure why the Christians were left virtually untouched by the Negroid admixture (average Egyptians were found to be 15% Negroid in a 2011 study; Copts were somewhere below 3%), but this appears to be the case.

          • M.

            “I’m not sure about Crusader ancestry.”
            I got that information from the Wikipedia article “Lebanese people”. But from what I remember, the europid ancestry isn’t very high, but it’s there.

            “remember that the Crusader states were only in the Levant”
            The Levant is modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan.

            “Middle-Eastern populations now look distinctly different from Europeans.”
            I think they have look distinctly from Europeans for a while. Most people of that region descend from the J haplogroup. It’s subclade J1 is mostly found in Arabia, while J2 in the Levant. So they do have their own genetic markers.
            That’s why I think that some Levantine people looking more like (Latin) Europeans is more due to an evolutional convergence. Like the Ainu. Because, genetically, they’re closer to Arabians.

            “I’m not sure why the Christians were left virtually untouched by the Negroid admixture.”
            That’s because only Muslims are allowed to own slaves in a Muslim land. And as we know, most of the negroid admixture Arab Muslims have, they have it from masters impregnating their sex slaves. The male slaves were castrated.

            “average Egyptians were found to be 15% Negroid in a 2011 study; Copts were somewhere below 1%”
            Christian Egyptians do look a little less negroid, yes.

          • Sick of it

            “I’m not sure why the Christians were left virtually untouched by the Negroid admixture (average Egyptians were found to be 15% Negroid in a 2011 study; Copts were somewhere below 3%), but this appears to be the case.”

            This is why those who must not be named are attacking Christianity from every angle, including through WN sources. What else really binds people together as a community, as an ethnic group? Certainly not one of the alternatives.

          • jeffaral

            The only think that binds people together is blood. Where would-be universalist religions prevail, it’s unending blood shed; though it’s good to see that Christianity, at least in America, has brought blacks, Mexicans and whites together, creating the perfect multicultural utopia.

          • Truth Teller

            Are you a Muslim?

          • Sick of it

            Funny, I recall good church folk being against the multicultural modern America…then their children were brainwashed in the public schools.

          • Doesn’t that Egyptian average include full blooded blacks?

          • M.

            I don’t think Egyptians have full-blooded blacks. Egypt is bordered by Sudan, and even the Sudanese aren’t fully negroid. At least those in the north.

          • Truth Teller

            They have Nubians which are probably around 60% or so.

          • Karolina

            Not really.

            Remember that average Black IQ is around 65 in sub-Saharan Africa. It is only African-Americans who have an average so much higher than their kin, at around 85 (as well as Black Brits and other diaspora communities).

            If Egyptians and other North Africans migrated to the US for instance, their IQ would probably be above 90.

          • Truth Teller

            I think there is a higher IQ in the black Americans because they are mixed with whites. The mystery is why it would rise that much with 20% white admixture.

          • Karolina

            That’s not the only reason. Lynn puts a high-end estimate of 80 for the genotypic potential of Blacks. The only reason they average 85 is because of the White admixture.

            So really, with proper culture, and trillions in aid (as well as White management and leading the decision-making), you can raise the Black IQ from 65 to a maximum of 80.

            North Africans, who are average an IQ of 82, could probably be raised to around 90. West Asians (primarily the Levant and Caucasus) could probably reach close to European levels (but again, only with European technology and knowledge transfer).

          • Edruezzi

            It must be the special Van der Waals forces embedded in European DNA that attract molecules and functional groups that boost intelligence.

          • Karolina

            Hey M.

            Your commenting is being moderated because you posted a link, so I’ll respond here.

            I read the “Lebanese people” article on Wikipedia, and it seems the genetic contribution from Crusaders is exceptionally low; 2% for Christians and even less so for Muslims (and that was in Lebanon, the center of the Crusader States).

            Also, the Levant is modern-day Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan (along with Palestine and Israel). Yes, that is correct. Which means that outside of this tiny area, the Crusader genes if you will, are next to non-existent.

            Also, having different haplogroup frequencies is not indicative of significant phenotypical diversity; take a look at the different markers between Celts and Germanics for instance.

            Lastly, I’d say you are correct on the slave part, and that picture itself is interesting. They don’t look Negroid; more like dark-skinned Semites.

          • M.

            “having different haplogroup frequencies is not indicative of significant phenotypical diversity”

            That’s what I meant by “evolutionary convergence”. Even though some population groups aren’t of the same descent, they end up looking pretty similar. Like the Ainu who look more European than Asian, even though racially, they’re closer to other Asians.

            I agree with the rest.

          • Karolina

            So you believe the Middle-Eastern populations who look strongly Caucasoid are that way because of convergent evolution?

            Ok, that’s fair enough, but what does that have to do with what I am saying? You are explaining the *reason* behind why Middle-Eastern and European populations look Caucasoid; I’m simply saying that they do look Caucasoid (at least those with no Negroid influence).

          • M.

            They do, yes. Some of them also display some blondism in hair and eye color.

            That’s a Syrian girl.

          • itdoesnotmatter

            She looks exactly like one of our EKG techs, who is a drop dead gorgeous Berber male. An immigrant.

          • M.

            I’m a Berber myself. Although I’m hardly distinguishable from your average European. This is not the case for most Berbers, but a part of us is mostly of European descent.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Now picture this precious little girl being raped to death by “godly” Africanized Sunni Muslims. Guess she won’t be one of the fifty virgins they get to fornicate with in heaven while huffing on hashish.

            Funny how Middle Eastern Christians and members of heretical Muslim sects targeted for being raped to death seem the Whitest, is it not?

            What’s wrong with hating evil?

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Repost of something Spartacus put up…
            Real tear jerker…

          • Edruezzi

            Ah, lovely thing. She must be dodging bullets right now.

          • Anna Tree

            Because they are Levantine whites (a sub-group like Nordic, Mediterranean, Alpin). Being Christians they miscegenated less than those who converted (forcingly or not) to islam. Although of course some Muslims from that area didn’t miscegenate too and look very white and fair.

          • Karolina

            Well unfortunately they are a dying people 🙁

          • jeffaral

            I’ve seen thousands of Arabs in my life and 99,999 % of them don’t look that fair and white.

          • Truth Teller

            Where do you live?

          • Anna Tree

            Most of the Arabs I have seen are indeed like you say not fair and white. But Syrian were originally Levantine whites not Arabs and I have seen some descendants of those Levantine whites from Syria who must have been spared the forced miscegenation of the islamic jihad, and they were very fair and white, I was astounded, but you are right, it seems those are a minority.

          • NeanderthalDNA

            Andre Agassi.

          • Less inbreeding among the Christians.

          • Truth Teller

            I’ve noticed cousin marriage tends to happen in either very upper class or very lower class people. With the upper class, it’s more to “keep the money in the family”. Genes tend to combine so it either leads to stupidity or a lot of intelligence but other illnesses.

          • Edruezzi

            Why are we talking about the Crusades and cousin marriage? I thought the article was about a technological advance. We should all be talking about the brave New World where we can engineer the black out of the Bantu.

          • Einsatzgrenadier

            Muslims tend to commit a high level of crime in western Europe. They are the most crime-prone group in continental western Europe, especially Scandinavia.

          • M.

            They do. And I still maintain that they are more easily lured into the bling-bling and the thug life. They’re also more easily manipulated by extremist religious preachings.

          • jeffaral

            Not true. By far most of the violent crime in Europe is commited by Blacks (mostly christian), whatever their origin. Blacks in the Netherlands, from the Suriname or Africa, control 90% of the drug bussiness. Usually to blame all evil on Muslims is typical of zionist Christian morons. The percentage of women attending high education in Iran e.g. is higher than in most western nations.

          • Einsatzgrenadier

            No, you’re wrong. The people responsible for the majority of violent crimes in Europe are Muslims, of whatever race. Most of the immigration to Europe is Muslim anyway and its the Muslims who cause the vast majority of the problems on that continent. Iranians, for example, are one of the most violent, crime-prone groups in Europe (what do you expect? They’re Muslims). Even in the Netherlands, its Muslims (Moroccans, Turks) who are over-represented in the crime statistics, more so than any other group.

            Muslims cause problems wherever they go. They’re not wanted in Europe.

        • Truth Teller

          The IQs of non Muslim minority groups in the Middle East has not been tested. I doubt it would be low however given these statistics:

          “For example, in 2011 the number of Arab Christian students eligible for a high-school diploma stood at 64% in comparison to only 48% among Muslim children, 55% among Druze and 59% in the Jewish education system in general.

          They were also the vanguard in terms of eligibility for higher education. Some 56% of Arab Christians, compared with 50% of Jewish students; 36% of Druze students and 34% of Muslims received a high school diploma that met the basic demands of Israeli universities.”

          • Karolina

            Very interesting. Thanks for the info.

        • Edruezzi

          Imagine a Mike Tyson or OJ with an Einstein IQ. Unleash him in a lilly-white dorm room in Miss Porter’s School. It’ll be a rout.
          We must suppress that technology and send its perpretrators to those Marxist reeducation camps today.

      • CaptainCroMag

        IQ is just one piece of the puzzle. There are low IQ groups, like southeast Asians or American Indians, whose violent crime rates are far lower than Blacks.

        Like IQ, personality is also heritable. Blacks have distinct personality traits that make them unfit for living in a modern society. Blacks stand apart from all others in their propensity for ruining civilizations.

  • NeanderthalDNA

    Perhaps we’ll find out they are an invasive and isidious alien species inserted into our world by evil reptiloids from Beta Reticuli, bred from a species native to the system Nu Iota Gamma Gamma Epsilon Rho?

    Or not.

  • WR_the_realist

    Hmmm — Feng Zhang must be a white guy, because the white nationalists insist that Asians never innovate or make scientific breakthroughs.

    • willbest

      According to the write up the process used by the two teams (Feng Zhang and Eric Lander) was published by John van der Oust. Thus all Feng Zhang was doing was replicating or confirming van der Oust’s ideas. And as far as I am aware nobody in the WN denies that asians are industrious or capable of making iterative improvements.

    • Jack Burton

      He’s not living in Asia, moron. He lives, studies and works in White America.

      He’s not the only one involved in the research.

    • I may agree that some ‘white nationalists’ throw out some very blanket statements – and I think it can be damaging in some situations to be quite so dogmatic – but a problem with your argument here is that Feng Zhang is studying and manipulating DNA.

      ….And who was it who came up with the concepts, the science and understanding of DNA in the first place? That would be Europeans:-

      Johannes Friedrich Miescher, Swiss.
      Ludwig Kossel, German.
      Phoebus Levene, Lithuanian-American.
      William Thomas Astbury, English.
      Nikolai Koltsov, Russian.
      Frederick Griffith, English.
      Oswald T. Avery, Canadian/American
      James Watson, American.

      Others involved in the double helix include Lawrence Bragg, Francis Crick, Erwin Chargaff, Jerry Donohue, Rosalind Franklin, Raymond Gosling, Sir John Randall, Alex Stokes, Maurice Wilkins, Herbert Wilson…

      The Japanese, for example, may well innovate and make breakthroughs on car mass production, car design, etc. They are very smart and seem to be wonderful at understanding things and knowing how to work with things.

      However, without the internal combustion engine, or the very concept of using such a thing for transportation of human beings, their ‘innovations’ and ‘breakthroughs’ would never even exist.

      The main trouble for ‘white nationalists’, I suspect, is that we tend to focus too much on past achievements of our peoples which were born in very fortunate circumstances (as cultivated in our civilisation, built for ourselves).

      We cannot afford to live on the past and to live in the past and assume that we can always rise to the top and always be more inventive and ingenious when stripped of our civilisation and homogeneity that cultivates such progress instead of the current myriads of other problems we have to deal with.

      We have to make sure that our own people are still at the forefront, because I see a lot of ‘innovation’ and breakthroughs with people of non European origin who reside in our nations, whilst our own children are getting extremely dumbed down and those that are not dumbed down are often not managing to find suitable places in universities or in high-grade engineering.

    • Gianni_Paolinzetti

      Please cite for us all the quotations where white nationalists say that Asians “never” innovate or make scientific breakthroughs…

  • willbest

    You have to be able to pay for the GATTACA future before it benefits your family.

  • Conrad

    This technology is already out there, and yes they may get it too. But we had certainly better not be left out.

  • IstvanIN

    But we waste our money on research on Beyonce, yes, Beyonce. Rutgers University’s Dept. of Women and Gender Studies, School of Arts and Sciences, New Brunswick offers a course on Beyonce. My tax dollars pay for this nonsense. Along with wasting millions of dollars on football, basketball and women’s basketball. The eskimos who run the University destroyed the traditional undergraduate college structure and have been downgrading, bit by bit, the Ag School (once a very difficult college to get into), all to become Beyonce University. Isn’t it enough they glorify blackies in football, basketball and girl’s basketball. So I suppose the Chinese will out research us and eventually bury us. I would love to read what a Chinese historian will write about the decline of the American Empire a hundred years hence?

    Dr. Ling in 2114 will write “while the Americans studied Beyonce and developed twerking we broke the genetic code, finally being able to eliminate the degenerate races of Europe, Africa and the Americas. The world then became ours”.

  • RyanP

    If we can master genetic engineering, race will become much less relevant. Natural selection stumbled upon various human races by chance. There is no reason to believe that it already created the optimal human(white). There is no sense in purifying the “best” form nature came up with. It is now in the domain of engineering. What is the best human that could ever be? That being said, the doctors who figure this out will be white 🙂

    • Truth Teller

      Does anyone else have a take on how racial interactions would be different if genetic engineering became more common?

    • Gianni_Paolinzetti

      This is why I’m very skeptical of genetic engineering. Maybe by objective measures global quality of life would improve in the aggregate as a result of genetically modified human beings, but I’ll gladly take a world populated by organically differentiated peoples where I feel some deep, meaningful genetic connection to my ancestors, to my family, to my people, and to my race, as against the rest of the world. It’s not by happenstance that I’m partial to European peoples – I genuinely delight in there being some bond among us written into our blood and history, and I see the potential erosion of this bond as being incredibly undesirable. Not only would it be boring if biodiversity were to exist only where individuals wanted it to, but it would cheapen so many fundamental aspects of our human identity (even irrespective of race).

      Also, I think that the risks associated with tampering with the natural distribution of traits among the human population are uncertain and could have disastrous consequences. Many traits that we naturally assume to be very desirable could turn out to be dysgenic when amplified at a population-wide level (e.g. for populations to thrive, you invariably need some stratification in intelligence where you have less intelligent persons who are willing to perform tasks without the neurotic attention to detail or the questioning of authority that you may see among more intelligent persons working in the same capacity).

      I don’t have a very well-thought out answer to the question of what genetic engineering would lead to, but I’m fairly certain I wouldn’t find it desirable in the way it is most likely to be carried out.

      • Zaporizhian Sich

        This will lead to designer viruses developed as bioweapons that are designed to kill, sterilize or both people of a particular race or ethnic group. You can be sure this research will be used against us.

  • M.

    As Karolina suggested in one of her comments, Christians tend to have less negroid admixture. That’s mainly because they weren’t allowed to trade or own slaves. So this might explain it.

    The indigenous Christian do achieve better than Muslims, and not only in Israel, but in all of the Middle East.

  • Anna Tree

    I think Levantine whites were/are not Arabs. I think they are whites: a sub-group, like Nordic, Mediterranean or Alpine. They are indeed not Nordic: they don’t have blond hair at all, and maybe only a few have blue eyes. As I said, not a lot of the descendants of the Levantine whites are still Levantine or whites. But I have seen a few who were much whiter than Northern Mediterraneans.

    • M.

      I meant “Arabs” in the pan-ethnic sense, like in Arabic-speakers. But racially, yes, they’re clearly distinguishible from (Arabian) Arabs. They may be a type of whites, or Caucasians, but the majority of them cannot pass for European.

      • Edruezzi

        A genetic concept of Arabs is meaningless. It’s precisely as meaningless as calling the multicolored and multiracial speakers of English in the USA an ethnic group.
        On the other hand, an ethnic group like the Germans or even the homogenous Japanese, evolved from the fusions of diverse peoples.

  • Edruezzi

    How have you been Anna? Haven’t heard from you in a while.

    • M.

      It’s still me, M. :/

      • Edruezzi