Natural Selection Has Altered the Appearance of Europeans over the past 5,000 Years

Science Daily, March 10, 2014

There has been much research into the factors that have influenced the human genome since the end of the last Ice Age. Anthropologists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and geneticists at University College London (UCL), working in collaboration with archaeologists from Berlin and Kiev, have analyzed ancient DNA from skeletons and found that selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years, resulting in sustained changes to the appearance of people.

The results of this current research project have been published this week in an article entitled “Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 years” in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).

For a number of years population geneticists have been able to detect echoes of natural selection in the genomes of living humans, but those techniques are typically not very accurate about when that natural selection took place. The researchers in Mainz and London now decided to take a new approach. This involved analyzing DNA from archaeological skeletons and then comparing the prehistoric data with that of contemporary Europeans using computer simulations. Where the genetic changes could not be explained by the randomness of inheritance, the researchers were able to infer that positive selection played a role, i.e., that frequency of a certain mutation increased significantly in a given population.

While investigating numerous genetic markers in archaeological and living individuals, Sandra Wilde of the Palaeogenetics Group at the JGU Institute of Anthropology noticed striking differences in genes associated with hair, skin, and eye pigmentation. “Prehistoric Europeans in the region we studied would have been consistently darker than their descendants today,” says Wilde, first author of the PNAS article. “This is particularly interesting as the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented.” However, things must have changed in the last 50,000 years as humans began to migrate to northern latitudes.

“In Europe we find a particularly wide range of genetic variation in terms of pigmentation,” adds co-author Dr. Karola Kirsanow, who is also a member of the Palaeogenetics Group at Mainz University. “However, we did not expect to find that natural selection had been favoring lighter pigmentation over the past few thousand years.” The signals of selection that the Mainz palaeogeneticists and their colleagues at University College London have identified are comparable to those for malaria resistance and lactase persistence, meaning that they are among the most pronounced that have been discovered to date in the human genome. The authors see several possible explanations. “Perhaps the most obvious is that this is the result of adaptation to the reduced level of sunlight in northern latitudes,” says Professor Mark Thomas of UCL, corresponding author of the study. “Most people of the world make most of their vitamin D in their skin as a result UV exposure. But at northern latitudes and with dark skin, this would have been less efficient. If people weren’t getting much vitamin D in their diet, then having lighter skin may have been the best option.”

“But this vitamin D explanation seems less convincing when it comes to hair and eye color,” Wilde continues. “Instead, it may be that lighter hair and eye color functioned as a signal indicating group affiliation, which in turn played a role in the selection of a partner.” Sexual selection of this kind is common in animals and may also have been one of the driving forces behind human evolution over the past few millennia.

{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.
  • MekongDelta69

    “Whites aren’t really White.”
    So says the ‘Science’ [sic] Daily.

    And 2 + 2 = 5
    So says MekongDelta69.

    Get the point?…

    • Cold_Gravy

      Whatever they think it is we are. It doesn’t make them black or brown. They’re idiots. Pursuing silly arguments like that.

  • IstvanIN

    We are the most, if not the only, diverse people on earth. We don’t need artificial, imported diversity, we made our own.

    • APaige

      Yes. You are correct. We speak many languages-important ones. We have red hair, blond hair, brown hair; we have blue eyes, green eyes, brown eyes, etc. Facial features are diverse, etc. etc. Other races are just mono-tone- in appearance and thought.

      • Edruezzi

        Actually, Africa has more genetic diversity than the rest of the world combined.

        • wildfirexx

          @Edruezzi …We are not just taking about language which is by the way, not genetic. We are talking about distinct characteristics such as physical appearance, color and yes, even brain size.

          • Edruezzi

            There is no reliable variation in brain size among “races’. It’s also not clear that brain size influences intelligence. That’s 19th century science.

          • BillMillerTime

            That is incorrect. MRI scans prove that Caucasians have an average brain size larger than Negroes. See “Scientists Measure the Accuracy of a Racism Claim,” NYT 13 June 2011. See also “Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences In Cognitive Ability,” by A. Jensen and J.P.Rushton, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 2005, Vol. 11, No. 2, 235–294. It’s on the web.

          • Edruezzi

            I’m sure that proves it.

          • 4321realist

            Yes, you would think that, because you labor under the delusion that all you have to do is utter something to provide all the evidence necessary to prove your ludicrous allegations, oblivious to the fact that all you’ve done is given an uninformed opinion with no reliable evidence to back up what you say.

          • Edruezzi

            With all its subordinate clauses and so on, I’m not sure I understand what you just wrote.

          • 4321realist

            I just had my 16 year old niece read it and she understood it perfectly.

            See. You DO have a reading comprehension problem.

          • Edruezzi

            Well, we might note that you and your niece must share a lot of genes. Since genes are destiny maybe she understood it because of that.

          • Edruezzi

            I’ll use a crude example. A whale or elephant’s brain is vastly larger than that of a human, right? Why aren’t whales or elephants more intelligent than humans. Unlike some other, uh, organs, when it comes to brains, size does not matter, or at least it comes with caveats.
            As for S J Gould, he’s a nonpareil when he’s talking about paleontology and evolution. I usually ignore him when he ventures beyond those areas.

          • Luca

            The correct measurement of brain size is in relationship to body mass. A small dog (Papillion) has been shown to be very intelligent but has a brain that would just about fit on a tablespoon.

            It is also important to realize which portions of the brain are larger on whichever mammal we are measuring. Africans may have brains almost as large as others but perhaps those regions of the brain dedicated to music, balance, dance, and violence are better developed than those portions which control thought, conscience, reasoning, logic, learning etc.

          • Edruezzi

            You forgot those portions of the brain dedicated to the firing of pleasure circuits dedicated to the consumption of certain barnyard avians cooked in hot oil.

          • 4321realist

            “Why aren’t whales or elephants more intelligent than humans. Unlike some other, uh, organs, when it comes to brains, size does not matter, or at least it comes with caveats.”

            Hahahahaha!

            You can’t even begin any premise you want to allege without failing to understand that comparisons of anything have to be like examples, which elephants and humans clearly aren’t.

          • Edruezzi

            I was only scaling the problem up to its largest and most striking manifestations. I was trying to show that brain size is meaningless without the factor of size being considered, in spite of the high intelligence of cetaceans and elephants.

          • 4321realist

            “I was only scaling the problem up to its largest and most striking manifestations.”

            Which was an error on your part. You got off the subject entirely by bringing in examples that have no correlation to accurate comparisons.

            I’ve noticed that you do that quite often and it is a process of rambling which gives the reader the impression that you’re desperately clutching at straws, because you don’t really know what you are talking about.

            Too, it is a form of obfuscation.

          • Edruezzi

            Okay, let’s return to the species we’re all so obsessed about. Intelligence depends on the correlation between brain size and body size, right. Now, how does that sort out the races? You’re the expert.

          • 4321realist

            It is 20th century science as well.

            A time when it was possible to tell the truth without mentally disturbed people trying to fog the issues with schemes undreamed of, because they think they can fool humanity into accepting their hare-brained concepts.

            Your utopia is going to implode all on its own, because it is premised on unnatural allegations that are untrue.

            “There is no reliable variation in brain size among “races’.”

            There is, of course. And lying about it won’t change things.

            But what if there wasn’t? Do you really think the whole world doesn’t notice that blacks are mentally still in the stone-age?

            You could claim their brain sizes were ten times larger, but what good would it do, since they constantly furnish examples of their incompetence in most everything they do and say?

          • Edruezzi

            Using the standard terminology used in this “field”, I think it’s a stretch to believe that more than a small minority of Libtards are mentally disturbed. I’m sure that a larger sample size will indicate no reliable systematic variation in brain size.

          • 4321realist

            ” I’m sure that a larger sample size will indicate no reliable systematic variation in brain size.”

            Why?

            Why are you sure of that? You gave no reasons as to why your allegation is credible.

            And you never addressed the other items in my post.

          • BillMillerTime

            Actually the correlation between human brain size and IQ has already been firmly established. From Rushton & Jensen, 2005: “Studies on over 700 participants show that individuals with larger brain volumes have higher IQ scores. About two dozen studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to measure the volume of the human brain have found an overall correlation with IQ of greater than .40 (Rushton & Ankney, 1996; P. A. Vernon, Wickett, Bazana, & Stelmack, 2000). The correlation of .40 using MRI is much higher than the .20 correlation found in earlier research using simple head size measures, although the .20 correlation is also reliable and significant. Rushton and Ankney (1996) reviewed 32 studies correlating measures of external head size with IQ scores or with measures of educational and occupational achievement, and they found a mean of .20 for people of all ages, both sexes, and various ethnic backgrounds, including African Americans.”

            It’s not Edruzzi’s ignorance here that is the problem as ignorance can be cured. It’s his willful stupidity combined with his arrogance that proves so annoying. It’s as if he hasn’t taken the least bit of time even to read the arguments of his philosophical opponents. In other words, he shows himself to be intellectually lazy.

            [BTW, I’m curious why his comments have been deleted. I rather enjoy going head to head with an egalitarian.]

          • Edruezzi

            It depends on what side of the 20th century you were on. It definitely won’t be 21st century science.
            20th century scientists were too busy investigating other issues than to spend their time measuring skulls. Besides, your hero Morton was working according to a Biblical paradigm, which is worth nothing to science, and generally worth nothing. You don’t know how silly it looks, people clutching antiquated charts about brain size. The debate has become a lot more sophisticated than that.
            Your unnatural allegations and your certainty that they are not true come from the gut and visible differences in the appearance of human groups. Well, science doesn’t care about gut feelings or surface appearances. Be careful that you are not doing genetics on a level a literal Neanderthal would have agreed with.

          • 4321realist

            “Measuring skulls definitely won’t be 21st century science.”

            Why not? You’ve given us no reason to believe otherwise.

            “20th century scientists were too busy investigating other issues than to spend their time measuring skulls.”

            “Investigating other issues?” Like what? That sounds childish.

            “Besides, your hero Morton was working according to a Biblical paradigm, which is worth nothing to science, and generally worth nothing.”

            Why do you think Morton was my hero? I never even mentioned him.

            “You don’t know how silly it looks, people clutching antiquated charts about brain size. ”

            The only thing you’ve presented on here that looks silly is your obviously naive expectations that people discount scientific opinions in favor of the baseless allegations you put forth.

            “Measuring skulls definitely won’t be 21st century science.”

            Why not? You’ve given us no reason to believe otherwise.

            “20th century scientists were too busy investigating other issues than to spend their time measuring skulls.”

            “Investigating other issues?” Like what? That sounds childish.

            “Besides, your hero Morton was working according to a Biblical paradigm, which is worth nothing to science, and generally worth nothing.”

            Why do you think Morton was my hero? I never even mentioned him.

            “You don’t know how silly it looks, people clutching antiquated charts about brain size. ”

            The only thing you’ve presented on here that looks silly is your obviously naive expectations that people discount scientific opinions in favor of the baseless alegations you put forth.

            “The debate has become a lot more sophisticated than that.”

            What you mean here is that the weenies in academia have gotten
            their heads together and came up with another hare-brained scheme to support their rabid agenda, which is like many of the others that are mere flights of fantasy, based in prancing ponies
            and pixies in a far-fetched utopia that only they can see.

            Then you call everything else “unsophisticated,” as if you could even recognize anything on an advanced, proven level.

          • Edruezzi

            In the 21st century scientists will try to work out how the brain, a mass of neural cells, does what it does. Using calipers to measure skulls from around the world will stay in the age of frock coats and Queen Victoria where it belongs.
            Sorry about Morton.
            The weenies in academia unfortunately know more than you do. Live with it.
            As for baseless allegations, a rabid agenda, flights of fantasy, prancing ponies, pixies and so on, it’s the guys who criticize and mock the scientists who are better at working with those.
            Your “advanced’ “proven” level provides a more than adequate yardstick of your scientific knowledge. That knowledge is blatantly inadequate for a debate about human genetics.
            That’s just the truth.

          • LHathaway

            If his knowledge is blatantly inadequate for a debate about human genetics, it’s likely the same could be said of you. Perhaps, If I had read both of you much more closely, I would even think it more likely you are the one who is inadequate. Then again, that would just be my opinion.

          • Edruezzi

            Now that you’re at it, ask him what a Punnet square is. That should enable us to find our bearings.

          • 4321realist

            “In the 21st century scientists will try to work out how the brain, a mass of neural cells, does what it does.”

            They’ve been doing that for years now, and yes, they will continue.

            Dr. James Watson is an example. He received the Pulitzer prize in 1962 for his work with DNA and later on was co-discoverer of the DNA helix and father of the Human Genome Project, said concerning blacks that, “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.”

            He also said that although he hoped everyone was equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.”

            Of course your heroes in academia found that his lapse in concentration wherein he slipped and told the truth was a tremendous blow to the plethora of lies that comprises their PC agenda, and they were fearful their funding would dry up if some careless person spoke honestly and candidly, so they embarked on a demonization campaign that threatened to ostracize him, take away his funding, and make him a pariah in the scientific community.

            Of course he was forced to back track. It was truly shameful, but it’s quite common. Most academics live in a world of make believe.

            “Using calipers to measure skulls from around the world will stay in the age of frock coats and Queen Victoria where it belongs.”

            Why don’t you get off this brain size thing. You haven’t offered anything but your uneducated opinion in the face of scientific evidence, calling it antiquated, which is the best rebuttal you can make.

            “The weenies in academia unfortunately know more than you do.”

            How do you know that? There’s no question most of them comprise the greatest liars of modernity, and they manufacture studies and evidence to fit their agendas.

            You’ve offered no info to the contrary.

            “Your “advanced’ “proven” level provides a more than adequate yardstick of your scientific knowledge.”

            I made no such claims. Obviously you have a problem with reading comprehension. That’s the second time you’ve made claims that were untrue.

            “That knowledge is blatantly inadequate for a debate about human genetics. That’s just the truth.”

            It is?

            What part of my base of knowledge is inadequate to debate human genetics?

            Why not show us your vast knowledge of the subject and point out my errors?

          • Edruezzi

            “The weenies in academia unfortunately know more than you do.”

            How do you know that? There’s no question most of them comprise the greatest liars of modernity, and they manufacture studies and evidence to fit their agendas.

            So, where did you earn the qualifications that give you the edge over the weenies? Watching TV? Meditation. Protest marches?

          • Edruezzi

            I remember the day the news on the Watson comment broke. I figured this was a man with the best years of his career behind him and a Nobel in his pocket and his immortality assured. Five thousand years from now James Watson will be, along with Neil Armstrong, Albert Einstein, Michael Jackson and a few others, one of the handful of twentieth century names people still mention. He could afford to say what he said about black people as an old man, not as the brilliant kid in his twenties who solved the DNA problem.
            But as always, genetic differences between populations, especially closely related populations, have to go through the mill of selection, and if Watson had sat down for a while and thought, he would have asked himself how exactly the differences he cited could have emerged, such as to be a better explanation than culture or the vast and impersonal forces of history for the differenced between groups.
            Imagine now, dear reader, a cursed and dry plain in northeastern Africa on a Friday in 80,794 BC. The concept of weeks didn’t exist in those balmy days, but bear with me. Some people out of a group of savages covered in tribal marks and feathers say they want to head toward that Big Water they heard antelopes and oryx like to congregate around. (Their remote descendants will call that Big Water the Red Sea.) The other group wants to follow a pride of lions southward, because they know lions are great at tracking herds of zebras. The rebellious jocks in the smaller group take off for the Big Water, along with some of the hottest babes in the tribe and some children. Some teenage girls the jocks raped and who fell in love with the jocks (that was romance, circa 80,000 BC) take off with them as well. Cursing the rebels, the larger tribe follows the lions. They’re all black, don’t know what Europe is, don’t know they are on Africa, don’t know anything. Now on that day, the two groups have roughly the same IQ distributions and are probably members of an extended family. Now, I leave it as an exercise to the reader and Professor Watson, who, for all I know, could be reading this as one of the numerous anonymous posters on this site, to explain how the IQs of these groups diverged so drastically as for one group to be fit for only slam dunking and the other group to be fit for doing theoretical physics and landing men on the Moon.
            That’s the homework for today, kids. Bring the teacher an apple tomorrow.

          • Edruezzi

            So if someone says something you don’t agree with, that’s lying. I guess we’ll have to re-engineer that word.

          • 4321realist

            “So if someone says something you don’t agree with, that’s lying. I guess we’ll have to re-engineer that word.”

            No. All you have to do is tell the truth.

            But that wouldn’t advance your pink, rainbow agenda would it?

            Falsification and baseless allegations are the hall marks of rabid leftist geeks and the entire world knows of the nonsensical ploys.

          • Edruezzi

            Well, I don’t know about baseless allegations, but falsification is a hallmark of the rabid agenda of science. A scientific theory has to be falsifiable to be a theory. Now the theory of the leftist academic mafia is by definition unfalsifiable, so I don’t know what to do with it. Everything the lefty academics say is a lie, so the lies cannot be tested.

          • r j p

            Go away troll.

          • Edruezzi

            I’ll take that as a compliment.

          • r j p

            Take it how you wish.
            Then tell me the story of when africans could fly, how they invented advanced mathematics, yet never invented written language?
            Did they run out of the papyrus they invented?

          • Edruezzi

            There’s another region that never invented written language: Europe. The symbols you and I are using descend from a Middle Eastern writing system.

          • Wayne

            Continents don’t invent things, people do. By African he meant negro. The Greek branch of our race did get writing from Phoenicia, then became the historians the world. Other branches of our race invented Sanscrit.

          • Edruezzi

            Yes, by Europe not inventing writing I meant the people, not the soil or geological formations of the continent.
            Last time I checked, Sanskrit was a language, not an invention. The writing system of Sanskrit too derived from the Canaanite system the Phoenicians brought to Europe.

            My entire point is that Africans can’t be faulted for not inventing writing when Europeans failed that test too. Europeans also struggled under the Greek method of doing arithmetic until the Hindu-Arabic system appeared. You had to be a genius to carry out a multiplication like 345 times 51, or apparently even 10 times 5, in Ancient Greece. The Greek inability to do multiplication nevertheless did not deter them from framing bloated hypotheses about the nature or reality.

          • 4321realist

            He’s more of a pink panther than he is a troll.

          • saxonsun

            But there are verifiable differences in brain development among the races. And the proof is the glaring gap between white cultures and the rest.

          • Edruezzi

            Yes there is a glaring gap in development. On the other hand there are no verifiable differences in brain development, or all of embryology would be a lie.
            Of course, you and I may define verifiability differently.

          • LHathaway

            Which is is? ‘whites’ I am going to presume ‘don’t have bigger brains’? or brain size doesn’t influence intelligence? Well, why not? both could be true, but you are making an ‘argument’ none-the-less?

          • Edruezzi

            I thought everything was genetic.

        • Cold_Gravy

          “Some single African countries have more languages than all of Europe.” ???????

          Like saying we have a greater number of different models of cars. Therefore we are more diverse.

          • Edruezzi

            I’m just stating a fact. Look it up. Africa has around two thousand mutually unintelligible languages. Depending on how you classify languages the count could go as high as 3000. Since I’ve been criticized here for suggesting that people should use Google for reference purposes, there are libraries where you can look that up. There’s the added bonus that libraries are among the places in America with proportionately the least numbers of “Those Who Must Not Be Named.” Books and libraries just aren’t there thing.

          • Cold_Gravy

            Not diversity. I don’t know how many languages they have.

          • Edruezzi

            I stand by what I said about the number of languages. As for the genetic diversity of Africans, think about it this way. It’s been shown that human genetic diversity peaks in Africa and then declines the further away you move from Africa. Europe is a relatively homogeneous continent genetically and Native Americans have the least genetic diversity. These values are consistent with the theory that humans originated in Africa and then migrated away from it in relatively small groups.
            Of course in a democracy people are free to reject all this as liberal propaganda. I wouldn’t be surprised. After all, some creationists say nuclear fusion powering the sun and stars is a myth, and that Noah sailed with baby dinosaurs, and so on.

          • Wayne

            Creationists dont say that, I used to be one. You seem to believe a myth yourself–that evolution magically stopped with the first human.

          • Luca

            It doesn’t matter how many languages or genetic diversity they have. They never developed an alphabet or any written language, they never invented the wheel or built anything better than a mud hut or a spear. All their genetic diversity never advanced beyond stone-age hunter-gatherer. They are still genetically wired to pick the “low-hanging fruit”.

            Their IQ’s are well documented to below average and they are best known for violence, cannibalism, bigamy, disease, crime, famine, war, and genocide throughout their lovely continent.

            Just thought I would throw out at a few more facts to enhance yours.

          • Edruezzi

            Europe never developed an alphabet or any written language either. It seems that in that area the advantage Europe had was being closer to the Middle East, where those things were invented.
            As for violence, cannibalism, bigamy, disease, crime, famine, war and genocide, these have been documented on every continent. A history of Europe is a story of war.

          • Luca

            Key word was “never”. No one said Europeans developed the alphabet, you changed the subject. But at least Europeans saw the value of one once they were exposed to it and adapted it for their own use.

            As for violence, cannibalism, bigamy, disease, crime, famine, war and genocide, these are not perpetual pressing issues in most places in the world today, but are readily found in many African nations.

          • Kalashnikov

            You do realize that those languages, being unwritten, typically have on the order of 15-20,000 words. This compared to English at 250,000+ words. The brain size argument is a red herring. For all of their genetic diversity the one trait shared across Africa and it’s diaspora is general stupidity.

          • Edruezzi

            Thanks for your reply.

            First off, all African languages are today all written languages. As for the large vocabulary of English, if I looked through your post above and removed every word not of Anglo-Saxon origin in it I would from

            “You do realize that those languages, being unwritten, typically have on the order of 15-20,000 words. This compared to English at 250,000+ words. The brain size argument is a red herring. For all of their genetic diversity the one trait shared across Africa and it’s diaspora is general stupidity.”

            to

            : “You..do… that..those..being…have..on…the…of 15-20,000. This… to..English. at.. 250,000 words…The brain is a red herring. For all of their…. the one…shared…across…and its is.”.

            I could also remove the numerical symbols, since they ultimately originated on the Indian subcontinent.

            The general stupidity of Africans you mention is more likely a product of limited combined cultural experience than genes. Because of the formidable barrier of the Sahara, Africa went from total isolation to contact with the industrialized world in less than a generation. In other regions where isolated people made contact with modernity, like Australia and the Americas, smallpox and so on wiped them out, or they were protected by the inaccessibility of the Amazon or the New Guinea highlands. Read Guns, Germs and Steel.

          • Kalashnikov

            It’s interesting that someone that can write as well as you could think that they are making these great points when they are in fact…not. That African languages have been spelled out in Latin script is irrelevant. You stated that there are a few thousand African languages. I pointed out that those languages only have a fraction of the vocabulary of virtually any other language you could choose. You then launched an attempt at obfuscation by talking about word origins. In doing so you ignored the fact that the languages those words originated in all have many times the vocabulary of any five African languages.

            The Africans had germs. Why didn’t they have guns and steel?

          • Because they’re stupid.

          • Edruezzi

            Oh, this is easy. All words, if you look at their origins, are bent or adapted from preexisting words. What I meant to show is that the procedure by which English borrows words from other languages is the same as African languages, or indeed other European languages, use. Today France has people who try to keep words of English origin out of it.

            Fine Africans didn’t invent guns and steel and so they’re stupid. That would mean these other tribes and ethnicities are stupid: all native Americans, the Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Polynesians. The stupid club is pretty big.
            As for steel since Europeans did not invent that, I leave it as an exercise to the reader what the implications of that are.

          • LHathaway

            This was a good one. Good post. Good one Edruezzi.

          • Edruezzi

            I just checked some word origins. If I continued to prune the non Anglo-Saxon words from the post above the post would look like this:

            “”You..do… that..those..being…have..on…the…of 15-20,000. This… to..English. at.. 250,000 words…The… is a red herring. For all of their…. the one…shared……and its is.”.

          • LHathaway

            Which is it? We have a lot of ‘diversity’ or we don’t? If we have no diversity, how did we ‘pick up so much language’ from elsewhere?

          • LHathaway

            I thought ‘Those who must not be named’ on AmRen were Jews?

            I’m not trying to ‘name’ jews ,but you mentioned the local library. . . aren’t almost all books found in your local library printed in NYC? I bet 95 to 99% of all books at your local library were printed in ‘the city that must never be named’ lol. I don’t know, that’s just a guess. Of course, even if 100% of the books found in your local library were printed in NYC, what would that mean? That ‘the group that must never be named’ is busy quietly (and honestly) trying to name themselves?

            Are we confused about ‘the group that must never be named’ on AmRen? We may be. Cause I thought those ‘who can never be named’, lol, loved the library?

          • Edruezzi

            Okay, I’m so sorry. I didn’t get the slang here. I thought Group that Must Not Be Names was African Americans.

          • LHathaway

            No. The group that ‘must never be named’ are jews. That’s just what ‘jew haters’ say. It probably a preference here because not going on about jews makes us look less like cranks. Heck, this site is all about naming black, individually, or as a group. Whites who have been beat up by them, pushed aside, replaced by these holy beings (who can never do wrong even as they gravely wrong whites – replaced by, even in the eyes of other whites) enjoy seeing them taken down a peg or two, or whites ‘lifted up’. At least someone, somewhere, cares that even us racists feel good about ourselves. . . .

            That’s likely what the whole ‘brain size’ debate 100 years ago was about – making whites feel better. Everywhere in the world the natives have their preferences and stories too. ‘Pride’ is something to religiously promote everywhere in the world, all over the world, especially in the white or multicultural world – except for whites themselves.

          • BillMillerTime

            Sub-saharan languages weren’t even written down until the white man came along. In PC-speak, Africans have “a rich oral tradition.” Even to this day, one in three Sub-saharan Africans are illiterate (according to UBESCO). What would one expect from a population where the average IQ is 70? That’s TWO standard deviations below the average white IQ.

        • DudeWheresMyCountry?

          Cameroon alone has more unimpressive humans than all of Europe.

        • HamletsGhost

          If Africans truly had more genetic diversity than Europeans, why doesn’t it show? In just one minor area like hair color,Europeans have hair from blond to red to black and all shades in-between. Their textures can vary from straight to wavy to curly. Africans have only one color (black) and only only texture (nappy).
          If Africans had more diversity, there’d be more variance in their I.Q. scores. There’d be proportionately more geniuses as well as morons, but best evidence shows that not only do they have lower I.Q.s, but that they have less variance in their scores as well.
          It’s probably best to stop parroting liberal mind-slop so casually like that.

          • Edruezzi

            Hey, the acceleration due to gravity at sea level is 9.8 meters per second per second. Is that liberal mind-slop? The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago when a meteor hit Yucatan. That’s me parroting liberal mind-slop. Facts exist, whether you are liberal or conservative.
            European hair color shows because there is no melanin to mask it. Strip away the screen of melanin and Africans have red hair and blond hair and so on. Black albinos come as redheads and blonds and so on. African hair color does vary in texture. Some African hair is nappier than others. Africans are so diverse that if the rapture took away all humans but the inhabitants of a hillside in the DRC Congo we could reconstruct almost all of human genetic diversity, except for things like Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis from the people of that hillside.
            As for the IQ score variance, that’s Jensenian mind-slop.
            Have a nice day.

          • HamletsGhost

            So the Hon. Elijah Muhammed was right, eh?
            Seriously though, you can argue that some Africans’ hair is nappier than others, but where in Africa can you find even one pure African with straight hair, even among Africa’s albinos? With all that wondrous genetic diversity, you’d think we could find at least a few.
            As for the IQ variance, that’s nothing to do with Jensen. It’s just logic. Higher diversity in genetic inheritance should manifest itself into higher diversity in IQ scores. So where are the black geniuses? We know they got the moron end of the scale covered, but what about the right side of the curve?

          • Edruezzi

            There is not only genetic diversity, Mr. Hamlet, there is also the effect of directional selection. African hair was never selected for straightness.
            As for African geniuses, go to any good US university and hang around a while. A lot of the black people you’ll see there as students and professors are African immigrants.

          • HamletsGhost

            Well then, if their hair was never selected for straightness, that means they don’t have the genes for it. Ergo, less genetic diversity.
            I’ve been to US universities as well as spent a semester abroad in Europe, and I never saw such black geniuses such as you describe. I did see plenty of affirmative action quota cases however. Both among the faculty and the student body.
            Thanks for playing. Hope you had fun.

          • Edruezzi

            Now I know what Sisyphus felt like.
            The people with the kinky hair would still have genetic diversity, for whatever their hair would look like. They just wouldn’t have genes for straight hair. Straight hair is a result of a single deletion in one base or so. It has to overcome a far larger variety of genes that code for the characteristic nappy hair of Africans to show itself, which is why black-white mixes like the current leader of the Free World have relatively nappy hair.
            As for the universities, it’s highly unlikely that you’ve been to all the universities in Europe and the US. As it is, African immigrants in the US are better educated and have a higher proportion of bachelor degrees and graduate degrees than the white US population. They also tend to marry the affirmative action quota cases.

          • Edruezzi

            NB: Whatever codes for straight hair arose from a gene Africans have already that was subsequently modified. So the precursor is included in the vast African diversity anyway.

          • HamletsGhost

            Actually, you have no idea how Sisyphus felt. Sisyphus at least came close to success before his work was undone. You haven’t even budged the boulder.

            All your babble about diversity in genes is likewise worthless. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not the recipe. You can talk all day about genetic diversity, but it won’t change the facts that all this supposedly wondrous diversity doesn’t translate into anything anyone wants.
            There are several thousand universities, so surprise surprise, you got something right for once: I haven’t been to every single one. Do you expect a cookie for your brilliant insight?
            You confuse piling up degrees with education. I’ve seen lots of Africans stay in college for years grabbing degree after another while working some graduate teaching position in some fluff field. And no, they don’t typically marry the AA types. Most Africans don’t like American blacks, and the feeling is reciprocal.
            I recall reading some libtard gushing about how Robert Mugabe earned 7 Masters degrees while in prison in Rhodesia. Too bad one of those degrees couldn’t have been in how not to run a 1st-world country into the mud.

          • Edruezzi

            Your background in Classical learning is impressive. Perhaps it is in that field that your expertise lies. It is clearly not in genetics.
            Unfortunately, piling up degrees approximates more closely to education in our world than the embrace of ignorance.

          • Edruezzi

            My post was about genetic diversity, not the other kind of diversity. It is definitely not worthless. Understand the nuts-and-bolts science of the post before you reject it out of hand.

    • Edruezzi

      You’re actually right. Aside from the genes that code for skin color, and the high genetic diversity of Africa, human genetic diversity is roughly the same everywhere around the globe. There’s less genetic diversity among Earth’s 7 billion people than in the less than 200,000 chimpanzees around the world.

      • LHathaway

        I see you’re very busy, and will likely never notice this to respond. . and somehow, I apologize. . I’ve turned my kind of real question in to an argument. You’ve claimed, I think, ‘Africans haven’t had enough social interaction with the larger world, even mentioning the sahara desert. . . if all of this is true. . how did africans get this ‘greater genetic diversity’ (that we should never question as liberal clap-trap) if they have no contact with outsiders? Contact that would allow them to have all these lenglty vocabularies, for one.

        And pardon the additional ‘quesition’ that has come to me. . . . if man is descended from monkeys, our closest relatives, and all races have descended from blacks. . how is it that there is greater genetic diversity in monkeys than there is humans. . . and yet greater genetic diversity in blacks in africa. . . wait. . that actually lines up. . .since it does. . if it does (and isn’t more liberal ballyho) it’s likely a lucky coincidence for you!

        Not trying to comparing blacks to monkeys. . your example. . . lets just forget the second part of the question, not because it doesn’t make any sense for me, but because we don’t want to compare blacks to monkeys even if by coincidence. That’s it.

        • Edruezzi

          You guys make this too easy.

          Genetic diversity arises from several purely biological factors. Any population has mutation going on in the genomes of its individuals. That’s the neutral theory talking. Mutation is ultimately the source of new genes. As long as selection does not overly drive down any particular gene variant at a locus to a very low percentage that variant will remain in the population according to the Hardy-Weinberg law. Now, in a freely breeding population genes are scrambled and rescrambled in each generation as reproduction goes on. That also increases diversity.
          In the case of humans, Africa is a special case of this. Just as in the case of dialects of a language, the greatest center of diversity of the genomes of a species is where the species originated. The USA has a startling diversity of accents of English, but this pales beside that of England, a far smaller country, where the language originated. Listen to the Spice Girls, who come from different parts of England, being interviewed as a group, and you’ll understand what I mean. Likewise, Africa is strikingly diverse because only a small number of the people living in Africa circa 80,000 to 60,000 years ago left the continent. All the 6.2 billion or so humans who aren’t of sub-saharan African descent come from that very small pool of people. There could have been as few as two hundred people leaving an Africa with hundreds of thousands of people, by some estimates. If I have a heap of beads of 100 different colors and mix the beads up randomly, it’s obvious that if I take out ten beads from there they will be less diverse in color than the original heap. Genes work in almost the same way. Of that pool that left Africa an even smaller pool left Eurasia to form the Native American population, which is why Native Americans are even less diverse than other groups.

          In terms of genetic diversity, Africa also has the additional advantage of having had a human population for far longer than any of the other continents. Long residence also helps increase genetic diversity.
          Now, since non-African genomes are less diverse than those of Africa, non-contact with outsiders would be irrelevant to African genetic diversity. Africa does not need the lower diversity of outsiders to increase its own genetic diversity. In fact, aside from a small number of mutations that have arisen since humans left Africa, we could reconstruct the entire diversity of the global human population from the genetic diversity inherent in a single African city, or village even.
          I said chimpanzees are more genetically diverse than humans. I did not say that monkeys are more genetically diverse than humans. The reason why chimps are more diverse is obvious. At a time in Africa, the recent ancestors of chimps outnumbered the recent ancestors of humans. The ancestors of humans would have been a marginal group struggling for survival while the chimpanzees were far more numerous. QED.
          You are free to compare blacks to monkeys. Freedom is one of the fruits of democracy. Your comparison is inaccurate, however. Man is not descended from monkeys. Humans instead share a common ancestor with monkeys and that last common ancestor lived around 30 million years ago. Based on that, Europeans are as equally related to monkeys as Africans are. If you call that liberal claptrap then I have a right to describe you as scientifically ignorant.

  • r j p

    I think scientists just make stuff up anymore.
    hbd* chick would probably have pages to write on this.

  • Luca

    The further we got out of Africa, the more we traded melanin for brain power.

    • crapps

      I don’t care how much melanin you have, if
      you spend long hot hours under the sun your
      bound to start thinking sluggishly..

      • Zimriel

        Froude said exactly that in “Bow of Ulysses” about Barbados.

        • crapps

          We crept along in the shade of trees and warehouses till we reached the principal street. Here my friends brought me to the Icehouse, a sort of club, with reading rooms and dining rooms, and sleeping accommodation for members from a distance who do not like colonial hotels. Before anything else could be thought of I was introduced to cocktail, with which I had to make closer acquaintance afterwards, cocktail being the established corrective of West Indian languor, without which life is impossible.

    • Edruezzi

      There is no genetic or physiological connection between the distribution of melanin in the skin and the physiology or neural wiring of the brain, in humans or any species.

      • r j p

        You really have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Edruezzi

          You sire, are the one who has no idea what I’m talking about.

  • Daniel Schmuhl

    Peter Frost has argued somewhat convincingly that sexual selection is the cause of extreme depigmentation in Europeans as well as the diversity in hair and eye color. I used to have light blonde hair, blue eyes, and fair skin as a child. As i’ve aged my hair has turned dark brown and my skin has become a bit darker.

    The bad thing about these news stories is that they give credence to crackpots and afrocentrists. What really matters here is the brain.

    • ncpride

      I have photos of my siblings and I with practically White hair, but it darkened to a sandy brown over the years, but we all kept the light green eyes inherited from our mother.

      • Who Me?

        I have, (well, had before it whitened from age) bright red, red hair, nothing strawberry, auburn, chestnut, carroty or ginger about it, just straight brilliant fire-engine red. One sister is a blonde, and two more have light brown hair. Three of us have blue eyes, one has green. The blonde and I have freckles, the other two can suntan. This is just ONE family. White people are highly diverse, we just don’t get credit for it.

        • ncpride

          Funny you should say that….in the sun, my daughters hair is a brilliant auburn color she gets from her paternal grandmother (who seriously reminds me of Ann Margaret) while my son’s hair will turn nearly blonde in the summer. That’s beautiful diversity….

        • Edruezzi

          Hair color shows the same or even greater variation in Asians and Africans. The difference with Europeans however is that the melanin distribution in Asian and African hair and skin masks that. At the same time, genetic diversity in Africa is so great that a distance of only about a hundred miles across Africa encompasses more genetic diversity than all of Europe.

          • Who Me?

            Oh, I see, we all have lying eyes? Is that what you are saying?

          • Edruezzi

            Yes. You took the words right out of my mouth. That’s the way it is. In fact we do have lying eyes. Science is about going beyond the illusions the senses present to us.

          • LHathaway

            lol, we have blond hair, red hair, brown hair, black hair, something similar with the eyes. We even have straight hair, wavy hair, and even hair nearly as curly as in africa. . and yet it is our hair and eyes that aren’t magically ‘diverse’ enough? ‘Science’ has something to amaze.

        • wildfirexx

          I think thousands of years ago we kept the hair color and eye color we were born with, just like many people in the Scandinavian countries today. But over those thousands of years (just like today)
          we were invaded by brown skinned people from the southern regions.

    • Bossman

      I can of believe that myself. With white skin, a woman looks more naked and therefore more desirable.

    • JohnEngelman

      Peter Frost is more convincing when he explains how Europeans became less prone to violent crime over time. He argues that blond hair and blue eyes spread because they were considered to be sexually desirable, but he does not explain why they were considered to be sexually desirable.

      • Edruezzi

        Maybe civilization made them more desirable.

        • JohnEngelman

          Light skinned people have created better societies than dark skinned people. Consequently whiteness connotes a higher level of culture and civilization. However, there is nothing intrinsically desirable about whiteness.

          Men prefer young women with what are called “hour glass figures” because they are better able to give birth to healthy babies. This is true even for a casual affair when a man does not want to have children. It is instinctive.

          Blond hair and blue eyes go with light skin for reasons we have not discovered yet.

          • There is everything desirable about whiteness. One of my Japanese friends had a package stolen from her mail in 1997, so she had me sort that out for her. I did it because I loved her as if she were my sister. I wasn’t out to have sex with her, and she liked golf a bit too much for my tastes.

          • JohnEngelman

            Fashions change. For awhile in the United States there was an element of prestige in having “a healthy tan.”

          • I mean the race, rather than the color.

            The company I for which I once worked doesn’t have a chemical department anymore; they do circuit design now rather than new materials.

            I think we whites, and even castizos like me are the best people in the world. Maybe we’re not as bright as NE Asians, or as organized or law-abiding. We’re more creative. I have a federal felony record about a mile long, but also 79 US and foreign patents.

            I don’t do laboratory work anymore, but I have a machine shop in my basement. I’ve recently been making fishing lures. I use the through-wire construction Paul Adams published. I made the jig in three sizes. Two were for 1mm wire: 100mm and 70mm, but the third was in 100mm for 4mm wire, which I welded. Instead of his wooden construction, I cast the lures around the wire with hobby resin. I carved the prototypes out of wood and made rubber molds which I lubricate with non-stick cooking spray.

            I am now a stay-at-home father. I’ll never have a security clearance again, so working for Lockheed-Martin is right out. Sayaka works at a bank, and I paid off the house. Ariadne has turned into a fairly serious stargazer, so I got her really good ex-Royal Air Force binoculars from Deutsche Optik.

            I wonder whether I have diluted it out too much, and this is one of the reasons I miss Spartacus.

          • Get ready for your daughter to hit you up for a telescope some time soon. I was 11 when I stuck my hand out to my mother and expected her to put a telescope in it, because I outgrew the binoculars. Luckily she found in the newspaper classifieds (remember those?) that someone who lived pretty close by had a used 4″ reflector for sale for a very good price.

            Luckily for my mother, by the time I outgrew that, I could buy my own stuff, and luckily again for me, I was able to find a used 8″ S-C reflector also for a good price.

            That said, if you’re not so lucky in the used telescope department, then, get to work on that cookbook.

      • wildfirexx

        Well, look around…isn’t it just common sense. Just ask so many black celebrities that choose their white blonde trophy wifes over their own.
        Or why so many white women dye their hair blonde than the other way around… to look more attractive.

    • Edruezzi

      While Afrocentrists are beyond the pale, I think a lot more people have to be careful about the way they throw the word crackpot around. As for the brain, I’ll stick my neck out and declare that it’s been the target of a lot less differential selection than almost any other organ in the body. The brain has not changed much, anywhere in the world, in the past 90,000 years, if not longer.

      • BillMillerTime

        What leads you to that conclusion?

      • JohnEngelman

        Then why do whites and Orientals tend to have larger brains with more convolutions than Negroes? The division of the races only happened about 60 to 70 thousand years ago when one hundred to several hundred modern humans left Africa.

        The only racial groups that have average IQ’s of 100 or above have practiced civilization for at least a thousand years, usually longer.

        • Edruezzi

          Hello, John.

          Whites and Orientals do not tend to have larger brains with more convolutions than Negroes. There is simply no difference in convolutions and brain size that varies in a systematic way regionally. I don’t know where you get your data. Meanwhile, you appear to have no idea what it costs in terms of selection pressures to produce even one mild convolution in the brain. Or maybe you could explain that for the benefit of other readers.

          As for the defenders of giant brains, it’s worth noting that the Neanderthal brain was larger than the Human brain. Look what happened to the Neanderthals. For a while it wasn’t even clear they had language.

          As for your argument about the effects of civilization I’ll have to recap, since arguing with you is more of an endurance contest than an exercise in logic. If civilization produced settled populations engaged in agriculture and if selection pressures due to literacy and what we’d call academics were mild, due to the fact that for most of civilized history most people were illiterate, it’s not clear how the pressures civilization produced were different from those in the heart of Africa. Africa too had settled agricultural populations. The fact that it yielded up 11 million of its most able bodied youths to the Slave Trade and kept going attests to that.

          • JohnEngelman

            Whites and Orientals do not tend to have larger brains with more convolutions than Negroes. There is simply no difference in convolutions and brain size that varies in a systematic way regionally. I don’t know where you get your data.

            – Edruezzi

            Consider, for example, a section titled “A Curtain Raiser With a Moral”. In this, Gould (1996, 109-114) reviewed a technical debate over Black/White brain-size differences between Robert Bennett Bean (1906), a Virginia physician, and Franklin P. Mall (1909), Beans mentor at Johns Hopkins Medical School. Bean (1906) published a study finding that the weight of 103 American Negro brains at autopsy varied with the amount of Caucasian admixture, from 0 admixture = 1,157 grams, 1/16 = 1,191 grams, 1/8 = 1,335 grams, 1/4 = 1,340 grams, to 1/2 = 1,347 grams. Bean also reported that the 103 Negro brains were less convoluted than were 49 White brains and that Whites had a proportionately larger genus to splenium ratio (front to back part of corpus callosum), implying that Whites may have more activity in the frontal lobes which were thought to be the seat of intelligence. Mall (1909) disagreed and found that he was unable to replicate the results on genus/splenium ratios when he remeasured a subset of the brains under ‘blind’ conditions regarding the race of the brain. Gould elevated this disagreement on one of the findings into a morality play. (Mall “became suspicious”; “prior prejudice dictates conclusions”). What Gould neglects to tell us is that Mall himself (p. 7) reported a Black/White difference in brain weight of 100 grams and that he did not refute the data on racial admixture or on complexity of convolutions.

            – J. Philippe Rushton, from “RACE, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE BRAIN: THE ERRORS AND OMISSIONS OF THE REVISED
            EDITION OF S. J. GOULD’S THE MISMEASURE OF MAN”
            http://www.cpsimoes.net/artigos/art_rush.html

          • LHathaway

            “arguing with you is more of an endurance contest than an exercise in logic”.


            Too funny. Nice put-down. Don’t know how true it is or not. I like the ‘hello-john’ at the beginning, so he hopes to be recognized and perhaps is enamored with you, and then the insult inside. . Was funny. The joke. Sorry, John.

        • It was probably closer to 160,000 years ago, and we interbred with much earlier hominids.

          • JohnEngelman

            160,000 years ago our ancestors were recently evolved modern humans living in Africa. They resembled the San Bushmen, who are the oldest surviving race in existence.

            60,000 to 70,000 years ago one hundred to several hundred of these modern humans left Africa, probably crossing the Sinai Peninsula. About 40,000 years ago the ancestors of Caucasians and Mongoloids began to evolve in different directions.

      • LHathaway

        You’re a man, or women, of at least some humor. .

  • “Instead, it may be that lighter hair and eye color functioned as a signal indicating group affiliation, which in turn played a role in the selection of a partner.”
    ___________________________________________
    My light brown hair and blue eyes serve me well as to my group affiliation. I also prefer a blue-eyed partner. Isn’t natural selection a wonderful scientific discovery. I’m normal, not an evil racist, according to science. No matter what the libtards say.

    • Edruezzi

      It appears you do not understand what natural selection is. It’s the pruning and sculpting effect differential reproduction has on a population’s gene frequencies given particular environments. For example, artiodactyl legs became whale flippers because of natural selection. NS has nothing to do with group affiliation.
      I hope it’s not necessary to point out as well that we’ve known about it since 1859.

      • LHathaway

        Well, in addition to ‘natural selection’ and the survival of the fittest, there is also ‘sexual selection’ at work? I’m pretty sure Darwin theorized that both these separate processes were at work?

  • Sharps Rifle

    Odd…study of the Neandertal genome has indicated that at least SOME Neandertal were light skinned and red haired. Makes me wonder what empirical evidence these doofuses in Mainz have to back up their assertions.

    • Daniel Schmuhl

      Uh this study isn’t about Neanderthals..

      • I think he’s referring to the fact that non-Africans have some Neanderthal blood in them.

        • Daniel Schmuhl

          No, he said something very much Incorrect. Young guys are defending what he said and upvoting it merely because this place is an echo chamber. It is scientifically ignorant on many levels.

          • JohnEngelman

            Most people allow their likes and dislikes to determine their judgment of what is true and false.

        • LHathaway

          If we all came out of africa. . . how is it possible blacks have no neanderthal genes? neanderthals would have had to be part black, if this is true, also out of africa, or N’s would have had to have been a different species? If so, how could out gene intermix.

          I ask the question. . . . but i think Neanderthals’ have been made up – in order to fighten europeans that, if exinction happend once, it could happen again. And they seem to be the next on the chopping block. . .

          • I think the idea is that Neanderthals were an actual subspecies that split from the tree, so to speak, and left Africa beforehand, and that we then mixed with them later after we left Africa. I read recently (I can Google-hunt and find where, if you want) that Neanderthals and modern humans were “on the edge of biological compatibility.”

          • I am reading about them now: “The Humans Who Went Extinct”, by Clive Finlayson: ISBN 978-0-19-92319-1. They didn’t really go extinct, but just got diluted out.

          • BillMillerTime

            The May 6, 2010 issue of Science, Journal of the American Academy of Sciences, has finally confirmed that modern human populations have significant Neanderthal genetic admixture. This study by the Max Planck Institute of Leipzig under the overall leadership of Dr. Svante Paabo included some researchers from the Harvard University School of Medicine.

          • BillMillerTime

            The concepts of “species” has leaky borders. Are dogs and wolves two different species? Or are dogs simply a sub-species of wolves? Depends on which biologist one asks. Can they interbreed and produce viable offspring? Yes. In biology, there are as many as 26 different conceptualizations of “species.” It’s even got a name: “the species problem.”

          • Exactly right! Since the term “species” is a human language construct, the boundaries between different species are necessarily also a little artificial. Lions and tigers can interbreed. Dogs and wolves likewise – one of my friends had a wolf hybrid, even though that’s illegal in Denver. Roxanne was as sweet as a summer day, but very, very protective of her family and their friends.

            Sheep and goats have been crossed. Horses and donkeys produce mules, which are almost always sterile. Horses and zebras cross. Male llamas have been crossed with female camels (the offspring would be too big for a female llama). White-tail and mule deer can interbreed, though the gait of the offspring is halfway in-between and they fall prey easily.

            Birds can do this as well: turkeys and peacocks are interfertile.

          • BillMillerTime

            Right. I always like to bring up the species problem whenever some leftist wants to quibble over the meaning of race. Also, dog breeds. When I’m asked, “So how many different human races are there?” I respond with “How many different dog breeds are there? How many different colors are there in the rainbow?” Any concept with fuzzy boundaries has this problem, and there will always be lumpers and splitters. If I tell you about the neighborhood where I grew up, and I say that Martin Luther King Blvd. ran through my neighborhood, it conveys salient information even though I can’t really give a precise definition of “neighborhood.” On the other hand if I tell you that River Oaks Blvd. ran through my neighborhood (a rich area in Houston), I have likewise conveyed salient information about where I grew up, my socio-economic status, my probable ancestry, etc.

    • Andy

      They’re saying we’ve become lighter on average over the past 5000 years. That doesn’t mean there was no light skin or hair before that.

    • JohnEngelman

      Caucasians have inherited some Neanderthal genes. Hair color is determined by single genes. That is why if one parent has blue eyes and the other has brown eyes their child has blue or brown eyes, not blueish brown. The gene for red hair may have evolved first among Neanderthals, and only then moved to Cro Magnons.

      Skin color is determined by more genes. That is why if a dark skinned parent and a light skinned parent have a child the child has skin color of intermediate color.

      Whites and Orientals evolved light skin through different mutations, but in response to the same population pressures. It was probably the same with Neanderthals. They lived in Europe during several ice ages, so they needed to absorb as much as sunlight as they could to develop vitamin D.

  • crapps

    Natural selection seems to be the major factor to evolutionary changes,
    seems logical then that breeding along racial lines is the best procedure
    for race longevity and stability …

    • Bossman

      According to Charles Darwin, both natural selection and sexual selection play a role in evolution.

  • Spartacus

    “All our early ancestors were more darkly pigmented.”

    ———————————————————————————————————————

    But thankfully, we eventually evolved into real human beings, which includes skin that doesn’t look like feces .

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      But who could doubt the wise words of Al Sharpton?

      • Blacks can’t even understand philosophy much less write it.

        • r j p

          But they can write and talk (insert another word for crap here).

          • BaronBaal

            I cannot imagine the average black being able to look ahead even one week in the future much less sit down and form abstract ideas. Philosophy is totally alien to them.

          • In all seriousness, I don’t think there has ever been a single black philosopher of note. I would be curious to see if anyone could think of an exception. Cornel West is the only one I’ve even heard of, and he’s not particularly noteworthy.

        • LHathaway

          Funny.

      • Cid Campeador

        Why do we spend time devoting any attention to this horse’s ass?
        Ignore him and eventually he’ll go away.

    • wildfirexx

      Notice how this guy straightens his kinky hair to look less Negroid. lmao

  • Within the article it says over the last 50,000 years which is more believable, but of course the headline goes for 5,000 years, so they can justify shoveling more non diverse invaders down our throats, like it’s preferential returning to original primordial sludge, so we can all be sold and drink poisonous Cocoa Cola together.
    Also phenotype is just the tip of the iceberg, if you put a bunch of albino Bantu’s in a room, you’re still not going to get a group who can split the atom, discover penicillin or transmit across radio waves.
    Our origins are probably not that flattering, but mixing our DNA with Neanderthal genes obviously made something magical happen, with an side effects such as having the capability to wipe out a large proportion of humanity, while also suffering from the contradictory altruistic need to elevate the rest of humanity to our level.
    Which of course has hijacked by the really smart people on this planet into a big smoke and mirrors game of hide the global exploitation, while marketing a green lifestyle that can only exist through the slave labor of others. Sometimes I think the less we know collectively the better, but then ignorance is easily exploited by playing on fears.
    I don’t know, all I do know is planing for those you love beyond your own lifespan, is getting harder to predict.

    • wildfirexx

      You’re right…Caucasians have bigger brains on average than the Negroids , but Neanderthals had bigger brains than we did..so it makes sense we inherited some of their bigger brains as well .

  • dave

    About 2,000,000,000 yrs from now,blacks will have white skin,blue eyes and blond hair.

    • Bossman

      Then they will have disappeared.

  • Evette Coutier

    Ant

  • sbuffalonative

    “In Europe we find a particularly wide range of genetic variation in terms of pigmentation,”

    In other words, Europe already has diversity.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    the darker phenotype seems to have been preferred by evolution over hundreds of thousands of years.

    Everyone knows the White Race doesn’t exist and is nothing more than a social construct.

    • My eyes have turned from being dark grey to blue. Maybe this means I’m turning back into a proper elf instead of one of the fallen – an orc. The only poems I write are about lost love. I have hideous nightmares, sometimes with music. I write the lyrics down when I awake. I know that is cheating, but my last – sung in the first person – is about a guy who’s best friend dies of alcohol poisoning.

      There’s no song like it that I could find.

      • Ella

        My son eyes have lightened to almost no colour in the last year to almost “ice.” If you have Irish or Scot in you, they actually have some of the bluest eyes in the world according to a Harvard research study, of all places to be studied!

        • Here we go:

          Dreams of Diane

          Love’s sweet glory, loss and pain
          years down the road, all yet remain.
          Of you,
          I still dream.

          Soft fair skin and golden hair
          when sleep comes to me, you’re always there.
          Ever
          seventeen.

          I kiss you nights, caress your face
          dreading we must part from our embrace
          at dawn
          when I awake.

          When a day’s despair towers,
          if I can wait a dozen hours
          my heart
          will not break.

          In our heart of hearts, all Scots are poets.

          • Ella

            I smiled. It reminds me of youthful romance.

          • It was young. It died young, too, and 30 years later it hurts me quite terribly.

          • BaronBaal

            Not the most romantic way to form a relationship, huh? But hey, who am I to judge? What happened to you in prison stays in prison, right?

          • Nothing bad happened to me inside, only out here in the world.

        • r j p

          The first time I saw a girl with gray eyes and freckles, I just stared.
          Mesmerizing. Seemed as pure as fresh snow.

      • LHathaway

        It’s very possible you are developing glaucoma

        • I pity you for that.

          • LHathaway

            You pity me, for thinking your change of eye color may possibly be do to glaucoma?

          • I thought you were referring to my thinking my Japanese wife is wonderful.

          • LHathaway

            Ok, I’m not in the medical profession, but it at least occurred to me that could be a possible cause of your change in eye color.

    • Edruezzi

      If a given race of the human population was 1.5 million years in the making it’s not clear what race you mean. Humans, not to mention their current sub-populations, did not exist 1.5 million years ago. 1.5 million years ago we had a shared history.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        “it’s not clear what race you mean.”

        This is what those who wish to eliminate the White Race, the Cultural Marxist say, to “prove” that the White Race and ONLY the White Race is a mere social construct. It is a lame attempt to dehumanize us and people who are not human or don’t exist are easily eliminated. In case you haven’t seen it, there is a concerted effort to destroy White civilization, culture and heritage. Why is it White homelands and ONLY White homelands are being flooded by the most backwards sub-humans from the 3rd world? We’ll soon be a minority in the land we created for ourselves and our posterity — what then?

        We are going to end up like the Whites in South Africa in all of our homelands, lorded over by murderous, White-hating savages.

        Funny how that works: Cultural Marxists claim the White (not Asian, Hispanic or black) race doesn’t exist — except when it comes to slavery, colonialism, Nazism and all other evils of the world and AA, quotas and other discrimination against Whites — then suddenly the government and EVERYONE else understands clearly that there is, indeed, a White Race.

        • Edruezzi

          Thank you for your reply. It’s quite spirited.
          I have to confess that I did not know about anything called cultural Marxism until I began to regularly read posts on Amren. I don’t know much about Marxism except that it fell in Europe in 1989 and that it was an unworkable economic system based on some idiotic philosophy. The system actually fell well before 1989, in 1961, when the government of East Berlin resorted to building a wall to keep its citizens from fleeing. A system that people don’t want to live under has failed. In addition, by 1961, it was clear that a Marxist economy produced stagnation relative to the free-market model.
          Sir, if there is a concerted effort to destroy only the white race I do not know about it. Perhaps I’m not well informed or I’m naive. Such a plot must be a vast, global conspiracy and the people running it must be doing a very good job of concealing themselves.
          The people whose opinion on race I take seriously are scientists. When they say that race is a social construct they don’t apply that to only the white race but to all races. As for the flooding of white homelands by nonwhites that is a serious problem of our time. The root of the problem is that living standards and the general quality of life are so high in the white homelands that these countries have been a magnet for people from around the world. That is to an extent rational human behavior. As an immigrant, would you rather go to California or Somalia, Germany or Papua New Guinea? That’s a no-brainer.
          I must also add some clarification. When I said it’s not clear what race you meant, I meant that given your figure of 1.5 million years and the current consensus in science, there was no human species. If there was no human species 1.5 million years ago there were no human races and therefore no whites. If whites started diverging from the rest of Homo sapiens 1.5 million years ago they would qualify as another species altogether. As it turns out, our ancestors and those of the Neanderthals had not diverged 1.5 million years ago and Homo habilis was still around.

          • Bon, From the Land of Babble

            “White Americans Are Being Targeted For Extermination”

            http //whitemanmarch com/white…

          • Edruezzi

            Oh, come on.

          • BillMillerTime

            If the editor of that site researched his articles a bit more before posting them, he would be able to screen out the errors. His claims about the FEMA “Youth Corps” (and accompanying photo) are wrong.

    • wildfirexx

      Thanks Bon,
      We have to reprogram the next generation of whites, and make them more aware of the NWO ethnic cleansing of whites, that taking place in western society today.

      • Bon, From the Land of Babble

        Is there anything more important than securing a homeland and future for ourselves and our White children?

        “White Americans Are Being Targeted For Extermination”

        We are facing an unprecedented assault from every angle as our enemies ramp-up their agenda. The mainstream media and government officials are constantly pumping out anti-white propaganda and policies, but this is only the beginning of something much larger.

        http //whitemanmarch com/white-americans-are-being-targeted-for-extermination/

  • DudeWheresMyCountry?

    No matter what the agenda is here there are truths that can’t be denied. The races are different because nature made us evolve differently and more importantly we choose to be different, to create our own groups.

    • Edruezzi

      An ecologically successful group like the humans of the paleolithic would have too much inertia for nature to push their gene frequencies around.

      • DudeWheresMyCountry?

        Why would you pick California over Somalia? Oh yeah, because the people are different.

      • LHathaway

        Sometimes you are funny. . .

  • Sick of it

    Amazing that they continue to peddle these lies when one could find a white-skinned redhead in North Africa thousands of years ago. Same DNA as is found in Western Europe. Golly gosh, we’ll need to bury that evidence (again).

  • Ella

    I think anyone with a functioning brain knows that NOT all Swedes, Germans, Irish, Danes, Polish and other Northern Europeans have blue eyes, but the brown eyes are just not black (BB dominants) as seen in other racial ethnic groups.

    • Edruezzi

      I wonder how many assumptions you have made. Meanwhile, according to the neutral theory, genes mutate at roughly the same rate, since mutation is random and does not reflect the needs of the organism or the demands of the environment. It’s selection that makes the difference.

      • Ella

        It depends on what articles or books you read and who argues what. Welcome to science.

  • Mahound

    Clearly some white supremacist professors over there. We all no that there are no genetic differences at all, any visual or behaviour alteration is the product of a racist illusion.

    • Edruezzi

      There’s a common core (no pun intended) of genes in the human population that does not vary from race to race, chiefly because the genes are so physiologically important that nature doesn’t toy with them or because there is no way differential selection could have acted on them. The striking differences in appearance that we do see are the products of very few genes. For example, all of the difference we see around the world in human skin color is down to variation in three genes (out of around 20,000). The other significant differences are down to selection in different regions for resistance to things like malaria and tuberculosis.

      • wildfirexx

        @Edruezzi…After reading your numerous comments on this article…Why do I get the feeling…that you wish the Demise of the White European Race ?

        • r j p

          He’s a troll.

      • DJ

        What happened to my comment??? Was it deleted? If so WHY?

  • Magician

    You are welcome to correct me if there is anything wrong in this post but, people in Nordic regions are characterized by the following traits

    – They tend to have lighter hair obviously and foremost
    – They tend to have smaller eyes to protect the eyes from natural factors (But I am not sure what. Would not the natural sunlight be generally weaker up there?)

    And now, in Southern Europe

    – They tend to have more brunettes
    – They tend to be shorter
    – Their children tend to mature earlier than their counterparts in Nordic regions, both emotionally and physically.

    • Edruezzi

      You should know mythology when you see it.

  • wildfirexx

    This is not the first I’ve heard this natural selection theory…about fairer skinned females being more attractive than darker skinned.
    But the time frame for this to occur has been moved up from 50,000 years ago to only 5000 years ago, which makes me a little suspicious of another PC theory, that we all looked like negroids only 5000 years ago to promote the NWO belief that we’re all the same race, so be happy about Diversity.
    But then again if this was the case…how do they explain the darker skinned eskimos who have inhabited the North American Artic for the past 10,000 years or more.

  • Uncle Bob

    I claim Neanderthal heritage. The original, bearded, red headed, white skinned Europeans and ancient Dwarven craftsmen of the north who developed the first industrial process (making glue/epoxy) over 200k years ago. The east African bushmen they mixed with in the Middle East looked more similar to Orientals than the forest Bantus of west Africa. In fact, the Khoisan bushmen are the original H.Sapiens still surviving today in the remote desert areas the Bantus have forced them to dwell in. The original H. Sapiens didn’t develop until 190k years ago and they shared Africa with more primitive H.Erectus types. It’s evident to me that the white race is descended from an elder race that lived in the north, wore clothing, and mastered early tool making while H. Sapiens were still naked savages.

  • BaronBaal

    What about me? Before the age of 6 I had blue eyes and blond hair but by the age of 9 or so my eyes were green and my hair a light brown. And by the age of 16 my eyes had become a brownish green color and my hair had turned to a normal brown color. Am I abnormal?
    P.S. I’m Scots-Irish, btw.

    • M.

      This happens to many people: my hair was light brown when I was a kid, now it’s dark brown; my sister’s eyes were gray, now they’re light brown.

      It has to do with epigenetics (how the genes are expressed) rather than genetics (the genes themselves).

      This short article explains it: http://www(not)livescience(not)com/34827-towhead-blond-kids-blondes-go-dark-brunette.html

      • BaronBaal

        Whew, nice to know I’m normal. Thanks.

    • My sister’s eyes were originally brown, but turned green. Mine were originally blue, turned very dark grey, and have turned blue again.

  • BaronBaal

    There are conflicting views about the origins of Caucasian people. One theory is that they originated in the Caucasus Mountains and another theory is that they originated in Anatolia (aka modern Turkey) about 10,000 YBP. And yet another theory is that after Caucasians originated from the Central Asian steppes and have been there for 10s of thousands of years. That they originated in Central Asia makes more sense to me because that would also explain why European mummies have been found in Western China (the oldest dating back to 4,000 YBP)- indicating that these people actually did travel as far East as China. In my honest opinion, though, the history of the first Europeans is much, much more complicated than that. The Ainu of Japan are classified as Caucasoid and no one knows where they came from. And what about the Caucasoid skeletons found in Siberia that date back to well over 20,000 YBP? Their DNA is or WESTERN European origin so our European lineage is much more complex than most people realize.

  • William Allingham

    first of all is there a study showing the difference in Vitamin D absorption between dark and light skinned people in the same place? maybe the difference would be so negligible that the theory would fall apart

    also they say that Europe became great because of increased numbers (enhancing sharing and connections) and that in turn these increased numbers were the result of pure chance (climate) but this theory falls apart when you see that places like mesoamerica were overpopulated (great numbers and connections) and nevertheless they resembled more hunter gatherers with gaudy pyramids, also in Europe when the plague stroke; within a year economy and advancement was back into normality (something that still strikes modern scholars).

    no doubt theres something more mysterious that goes beyond simple climatological selection.

  • Edruezzi

    Out of Africa is consistent with the only known model of speciation that exists in evolutionary biology. At most the paper you cited only pushes back human origins a few tens of thousands of years, and appears to suggest humans being outside Africa earlier than thought. It does not invalidate the argument that our species originated in one small, finite region. Actually it does not matter if that region is in Africa or not.

  • John R

    DNA evolution has altered the appearance of Europeans over the last 5,000 years. And liberal multiculturalism has altered the appearance of Europe over the last fifty years!

    • LHathaway

      Very good. . .

  • MooTieFighter

    I find it hard to call it true natural selection anymore. We really don’t follow the rules of natural selection. We intervene and keep the weakest alive and reproducing. We keep people alive/breeding that would have been weeded out if we really allowed natural selection to occur.

  • Any woman is beautiful to the man she loves. Her smile lights up her whole face.

  • LovelyNordicHeidi

    ……………………………………..

    • LovelyNordicHeidi

      There has been much research into the factors that have influenced the human genome since the end of the last Ice Age. Anthropologists at Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) and geneticists at University College London (UCL), working in collaboration with archaeologists from Berlin and Kiev, have analyzed ancient DNA from skeletons and found that selection has had a significant effect on the human genome even in the past 5,000 years, resulting in sustained changes to the appearance of people.
      —————————————————–
      Five-thousand-year evolution is being destroyed in just a few decades of multiculturalism. They sure know how to ruin things.

  • Edruezzi

    So the Hindi are white now. Anyway, race is not my point. Maybe I should have removed the words of Scandinavian origin as well. My point is that all languages borrow and the strength of English is its adeptness at borrowing. Many Americans don’t know that words like hickory, maple and so on are Native American in origin. Isolated regions like New Guinea or Africa have limited vocabularies because their people don;t move around a lot. Not having writing also limits vocabulary generation.

  • Edruezzi

    I honestly wish the descendants of the Solutereans the best in their quest to take back their homeland.

  • LHathaway

    Important science, no doubt, and yet, europe grows darker and darker every day (and I don’t mean immigration, I mean dark hair and darker eyes, from somewhere) and no one seems to make note.

  • LHathaway

    Not after they take of the USA.

  • Edruezzi

    I don’t think the race of the speakers of a language has had a great deal of influence on how words have crossed from language to language. The question is this? Did the Latin words come from outside English? They did and they crossed into English in the same way numerous Spanish words have found their way into the Indian languages of South America.

  • Edruezzi

    So YouTube actually allowed this.

    • For 6 years now.
      In terms of showing phonetician diversity how is it wrong?
      92% of the world’s population has black hair and brown eyes.
      As a people why would we want ourselves displaced, replaced, or have ourselves genetically overwritten? Aren’t our traits recessive after all?
      I think that you’re an interesting guy Edruezzi, I can understand you having a vested interest in convincing us not to work in our own group self interest, as a representative of a couple of groups that us Amrener’s are against (i.e being an immigrant and black), and your intelligence proves a few of our misconceptions about your racial group as incorrect(or are perhaps generalizations at least).

      You too are unapologetically pro-Nigerian, pro-black issues/entertainers etc But what I admire about you is your frustration at your own peoples lack of logic(which we can relate to), which you’re demonstrating you have a great aptitude for here and I sense that have enough self respect as not to sell out your own background in becoming a new world Western style African.
      How are we different in that regard?
      As we respect and like our own group and see global inclusion politics as being an attack on our unique identity as a people.
      Look change is a part of life, I accept that and hey there are historical double standards all over the place, which sometimes makes me think that we’re just making all this up as we going along, but conservatives conserve, that’s what we do.
      I don’t think that you’re ever going to convince us that the type of change you represent is advantageous, outside economic gains for a few businesses.
      But hey at least you’re not a sell out, but then why expect us to be?

      • Edruezzi

        I just don’t like it when people say genetics is a liberal plot. It isn’t. And meanwhile, this explosion of comments started when I pointed out that Africa is the most genetically diverse region. That’s just a scientific fact. It has nothing to do with politics.

    • 4321realist

      The paradigm is finally shifting….gradually….but shifting all the same, and it reflects a white backlash not only to the ludicrous concepts of leftist ideology, but to the anti-white, anti-Christian hatred that has had us in its grip for several years now……and much of this backlash concerns hostile reactions to black crime and violence.

      You’ve spent much time on this web site, obviously unaware that white hostility is a growing phenomenon throughout the country which is evident on almost all the web site comment sections.

      Do you plan to waste as much time on them as you did here with the same results?

  • 4321realist

    “So what? Besides, language diversity is not the subject here.”

    Nor is most of everything he has been wildly ranting about, Wayne.

    He probably doesn’t realize it himself, but critical theory is his ploy, but he’s not very good at it.

    In order to be effective it is IMPERATIVE to be clear, logical and coherent, and he’s none of that.

    Most of what he wildly raves about is just pure nonsense and isn’t even pertinent to the conversation.

    If he came on here hoping to prove everybody wrong about everything they know to be true, he’s failed miserably.

  • M&S

    Mitochondrial and Y mutation factors are increasingly found to be too glitchy/random to be used as bioclock indicators of population divergence and SNP mutation tracking is hard when you have no period integrator to indicate where as much as when certain ‘non random’ mutations begin to gain traction as a function of the societal or environmental mechanisms that encourage them.

    I would suggest that if living in northern conditions were entirely about sunlight, then Innuit, Inupiat, Yupik, Aleut and Sami peoples would all be pale as ghosts and yet they are not.

    While cold may be a part of this problem I would go the other direction and say that the rise of whites in a specific area of what is now northern Poland through Eastern Lithuania occurred because they were in fact consuming a lot of vitamin D rich foods including fish and deer liver and so -did not need the excess-.

    Why that would be important to the likely metabolic or environmental correlate as gave rise to white intelligence I do not know, at a guess, I would offer that the Vitamin D offers a regulatory function as Calcidiol and Calcitriol that regulate cell growth and differentiation as well as blood pressure and of course bone health.

    I still believe that there is thermal condition involved as well in that highly active brain function raises tissue temperatures with resultant negative effects somewhat like running an overclocked processor on a computer and that this may be exacerbated by presence of large numbers of oxidants in the blood from UV interaction within the skin.

    Move populations out of tropical areas and you fix both problems. Put them in a place there they have an unusually high access to Vitamin D replacement so that whatever function it serves can be partially offset or alternatively /suppressed/ (so that higher BP equates to faster heart rhythm and more blood flow to deliver a higher caloric load of nutrients to the brain, supported by a more active metabolism ruled by mitochondrial efficiency improvements) and you get a chain effect.

    In any case, it’s simply amazing that, for a condition which supposedly doesn’t exist (racially differentiated intelligence), diversity scientists are so obsessed with finding it’s origins in racial phenotype correlated indicators.

    >
    “We were expecting to find that changes in the human genome were the result of population dynamics, such as migration.
    >
    Migration leads to competition as populations shift into the same terrain space. Competition has always lead to blood. The difference being that as exo-group annihilation by or subjugation of indigene groups occurs, the -females- will become prizes whose rape and pregnancy becomes a rapid proliferator of successful genes. Correlate biological upheavals with natural disasters and remove those from the system and all others which show sudden population geneflow will likely be the result of a new mutation which has caused such a significant increase in selection (survive, breed, succeed) conditions that it has created excess population which has moved into adjacent terrain isolates as a hostile force.
    >
    In general we expect genetic changes due to natural selection to be the exception rather than the rule.
    >
    Rubbish. Man breed because man kills. Whether he does it in the service of a single mate better than all others or of many mates, as a Genghis Condition spreader of genes is the only real question. Do you really suppose that people recognized ‘innate quality’ in the arrival of strangers and simply said: “Here, take my wife, I’ll raise any bastard you leave behind.” Please. Heroes have all the women they want because Heroes get paid to do one thing, very well. And Warrior Kings want strong bloodlines to form the armies which will follow them.
    >
    At the same time, it cannot be denied that lactase persistence, i.e., the ability to digest the main sugar in milk as an adult, and pigmentation genes have been favored by natural selection to a surprising degree over the last 10,000 years or so,” adds Professor Joachim Burger, senior author of the study.
    >
    Not least because it rewards the population which successfully captures, domesticates and husbands herds of year-round, high calorie, grass converters as a source of high fat content metabolism boosting, calories. Next to Han Chinese and Native Americans, Blacks are among the highest percentage lactose intolerant populations on earth, with over 89% unable to drink milk, even today.
    They are also among those quickest to gain intolerance to mike with nearly 45% intolerant by 10 (intolerance increases in all populations as they age).
    To be pastoralists requires planning and mediative, not impulsive behavior. The metabolic benefits of drinking milk may again be less in a hot, Sub Saharan environment than say the Asian steppes where a man rode the mare that fed him and traded her colts before slaughtering her for meat when she was too old to keep up with his tribe.
    But the important thing is that the -ability- to transition to managed care of livestock indicates a predisposition towards slow, wise, thinking which is enhanced by added calories during both key developmental phases and after, as a lifelong benefit.
    >
    “But it should be kept in mind that our findings do not necessarily mean that everything selected for in the past is still beneficial today. The characteristics handed down as a result of sexual selection can be more often explained as the result of preference on the part of individuals or groups rather than adaptation to the environment.”
    >
    This is true. In a world where blacks have highly dense bones and quick twitch muscle fiber deriving from high dose serum testosterone, which negatively effects fluid intelligence as brain development before the early onset of puberty, there is a negative correlation with environmental Selection.
    What scientists refuse to admit and what secretly worries me as being the driving motive for their sudden interest in Whiteness is that they look for the seeds of brilliance at a genetic level, hoping to introduce it as biochemical genetic modification in the foods blacks and Hispanics eat, because they know that if non-white, R-Breeding, populations don’t ‘grow up’, mentally, at the same time they come to outnumber us demographically (on the order of 96% of the population by 2100) they will annihilate us in their desperation to feed the locust instinct of spatial occupation and control over all resources.
    Of course, it will also provide them wealth and fame to say that they discovered, belatedly, the ‘real reason’ blacks aren’t as smart as we are and fixed it, undoubtedly through some social intervention.
    This being the pacifist alternative to the other solution: mass annihilation of the locust population by white technology.
    Unfortunately, breeding a smarter OPs by finding those genes which are associated with the white rise to higher intelligence will only breed better predators because we are not just a genetic base but the interactive modifier of living culture that drives it. And Other Populations, protective of their own Genetic Algorithms, find nothing to emulate in our Way Of Ways.
    Nor should we want them to.
    P.S. _The Ten Thousand Year Explosion_ states that there are specific differences in whites from the earliest Classic Greek period when peoples ‘from the North’ (blonde and redhaired, even then) first came to the Mediterranean and were deemed ‘quite clever’ by the Egyptians in comparison to the nothing-special Jews. This correlates with the rise of whiteness in specified Baltic area.
    The same book states that, however clever they may seem to us, in their writing and their inventions, they were not in fact ‘modern’ to our way of thinking. Nor were the Italians of the period 1,650AD when the Renaissance was in full bloom. Skull impressions of brain convolute densities tell us that they were -capable- of thinking at a much less advanced level than we are used to as a norm now.
    Hence it must be stated that the rise of Western Culture, while certainly aided by being white, has as much to do with recent developments as it does our ancestral DNA.
    _It is an interactive process_. One which can only continue so long as White Privilege continues to allow us to evolve at an accelerated rate rather than fall back as we wait for other racial groups to catch up.
    This is another sure sign that diversity can never be a goal in and of itself because what helps other populations hurts us. No matter how strong a mountain bike, you keep going forward in the hillclimb or you slip a gear and fall back on your butt.
    We cannot fall back. Not now. We’re so close to _becoming_ something better. Evolution is not evenly begun or ended. It’s not fair. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be the winners that we can be, for ourselves. Because it’s ultimately only our own race to run.

  • Fr. John+

    Again, the evolutionists are trying to demean and deny the Scriptural record, which stated that God created the Crown of his creation, via the unique Man, ‘Adam.’ – Which word, in the Hebrew, means ‘fair, ruddy, able to [visibly] blush.’ All characteristics of Caucasoids; all characteristics of every one of Christ’s ancestors. And all of which leave out the non-whites from the Covenants of Scripture. We in Christendom once knew this, and acted like it mattered. Sorry, Gents, this is heresy masquerading as science. Anathema sit.

  • Re importing the Scandinavians in the 20’s, God bless who ever thought that idea up, they certainly have helped propagate Ozzie beach bunny image (even in those antiquated swimsuits).
    An attractive people whose temperament leads to making stable societies, it’s ashame they are now poisoning their own back yards in trying to prove how much cleverer they are with their voluntary multiculturalism.
    When I read about the ‘stolen generation’ episode, the impression I got was it was liberals of the day who were the architects of the whole plan, who were genuinely trying to elevate the Aborigines, in granted a sterner style to what us modern people are used to.
    Yet when you read about it today, the progressives paint a picture of cold hearted right wing Whites trying to breed the Aborigines out of existence, if that was the goal, surely just shooting them would have been quicker.
    This makes me think that todays progressives will still be painted unfairly (so why bother), if we’re unsuccessful in turning this cultural war around.
    Already we’re seeing cracks, such as the Steve Sailer “World War T” (on Taki mag) article citing feminists getting called Hitler (who else) for excluding trans gender man to females from their gatherings.
    The crazier it gets the better, because we collectively have to draw the line somewhere.

  • Pumpkin soup, with lots of pepper in it.