THE ABOVE ACCOUNT IS A VERIFIED "RACE BAITING" SHILL TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU INTO FALSELY BELIEVING THE Q MOVEMENT IS A RACE-BASED/ETHNICITY-BASED MOVEMENT AT ALL.
THE SHILLS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SPEAK IN TRIBAL WARFARE NARRATIVE AND RHETORIC, THIS TRIBE OF PEOPLE ARE ENEMIES WITH THAT TRIBE, BASED ON ETHNICITY OR RACE OR GENDER OR RELIGION OR AGE.
NEVER DO THE SHILLS USE EXCLUSIVELY THE REALITY OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND VALUES.
THEY WANT YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE DIVIDED INTO ALLEGEDLY ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE AND ANTAGONISTIC...APPEARANCES.
THEY ARE PSYCHOTIC.
WHY DO THEY SHILL LIKE THIS, WHICH THEIR EVIL RHETORIC IS GUARANTEED TO CAST GUILT AGAINST AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE?
TO TURN YOU AWAY FROM THE ACCELERATING GREAT AWAKENING TAKING PLACE WORLDWIDE THAT THEY ARE DEATHLY AFRAID OF CONTINUING TO ACCELERATE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THESE SHILL'S PUPPET MASTERS ARE THE VERY ENEMY Q IS TAKING DOWN AND THE WORLD IS LEARNING ABOUT
ANY TIME YOU SEE ANY POSTER SUBMIT OR MAKE A COMMENT LIKE THIS ONE, WHICH MAKES SWEEPING JUDGMENTS OF AN ENTIRE ETHNICITY AS GUILTY, WHILE REFUSING TO FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON INDIVIDUAL CHOICES AND VALUES, ARE 100% GUARANTEED SHILLS WHO ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE THE MOVEMENT THAT SCARES THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE COCKROACH SHILLS.
Although the point is that this race has this issue it is also more stark when you look at the rate of crime of just young black men alone. This single group is way way over represented in that category committing most of the crime blacks do and only being 2-3% of the population. This basically justifies profiling as part of police being effective. You could say they are the ones least deserving of any chances. You may wish to say they deserve 0 or 1 at most.
Most of us know this already. Why is this here? We are trying to unit you you fucking shitposting shill. Take this shit back to /b/ you circlejerking faggot.
What on earth does it have to do with Q again? Stop shitting up the board with this baiting bullshit. Coontown has to be active somewhere, go dump this shit there.
All you are showing everyone here is how overtly racist and ignorant you truly are. There are bad apples in every race. We are not superior over any other race. Time to refill yourself bud.
you should just kill yourself. every race is superior to the black race. you just want to virtue signal and ignore the fact that the blacks heve contributed nothing to this world except for suffering and violence. do you honestly believe that you could live in the South side of Chicago for a week? or any black neighborhood for that matter? you would be a victim. I honestly hope that you become a victim of a violent crime at the hands of a nigger. your views are a slap in the face to every white person who is forced to carry the financial burden of niggers in society. a slap in the face to every white person victimized by nigger crimes. a slap in the face to every white person who sees the damage niggers have caused to communities. a slap in the face to all the white people who have, over the years, watched safe neighborhoods become dangerous because niggers are near. fuck you. I hope all of your female relatives get violently raped by niggers. I hope they make you watch before raping your nigger loving ass too. fuck you.
You have been conditioned by the media to be blind to the true nature of different races. Statistics do not lie. What you have come to believe as reality is actually a fantasized version of the black man. They are in all respects inferior to white man on average.
You have been conditioned by racist thoughts/ideas probably passed onto you by racists within your family. I am surrounded by black people who are nothing but loving, intelligent people. You are scared of the pigment of a person's skin. Break your own conditioning and stop living in a world of fear and hatred. You will be a much happier person.
The fact is that those black people, if you are even telling the truth, are not a true representation of the black community. Those are the outliers. Period. You cannot define a specific group our state a group tends to do something based on outliers. The reality is that most black people are extremely racist, homophobic, narcissistic, extremely violent, and borderline retarded. They have no care or concern for their community, or ours. Why do you think all ghettos are trashed? Why, if you took guns away from teenage and young twenty black man gun deaths and getting would drop to almost nothing? Educate yourself on the reality of the situation before you judge others.
On a personal note, I happen to grow up in an extremely left leaning household. However, I went to public school in an inner city and experienced all this racism and subhumanism first hand for many years. I went to school with the majority. You clearly did not.
You are labeling an entire race on your experience with a public school?!?! You have a very pessimistic view of humanity and race in general if you believe you can define the majority of a race with all the derogatory phrases you use to describe them based on your experience in public school. Stats can be manipulated. There are many compounding factors other than the African American biology that defines their current difficulties in life that may lead to crime in some (NOT ALL or even MAJORITY) of them. You are in the minority in your views on race. Stop trying to pollute this sub with your fear, bigotry, racism, and hate.
Since you probably won't do your due diligence and find sources on your own, here are two from the most impeccable sources, Harvard.
On mixed race individuals, and the differences between white and black people.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/plight_of_mixed_race.pdf
Here's a direct quote:
'We characterize typical black behaviors as those behaviors of which blacks do significantly more than whites... These are: getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'
Seriously? Harvard (Porcellian) and Yale (Skull and Bones) are hardly the bastion for truth. Also, according to the first paper, mixed children adhere more closely to their white counterparts than black.
Where is the data that backs up the statement below?
"These are: getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'"
These are things people of all races do not just blacks. You really are showing off your ignorance.
That's exactly the point. They provide data that goes directly against their intended strategy of white genocide, so it should be listened to even more.
These are things people of all races do not just blacks.
Of course, but these are done at such a rate in the black community that they are typical. Also, if you read the study, three data is all in there. They had a sample size of tens of thousands of people for reach race.
"They provide data that goes directly against their intended strategy of white genocide, so it should be listened to even more."
All this proves is that they adhere more to their white background than black. Therefore, the activities they engage in would be linked to their white side, not their black side.
Please point of the data for blacks "getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'
I find it difficult to believe they are keeping statistics based on race of kids getting into trouble with teachers, not paying attention, watching tv, having sex, etc. If they claim they do, there is no way it wouldn't be highly flawed.
I did, and they admit the data sample (from 94-95) is small and lacking and they had to supplement it with the 2000 US Census data. Looks like they created their own data to fit their narrative. Also, much of the data comes from at-home questionnaires done by parents. This is subjective data and not very reliable.
In other words, find better sources to justify your racist delusions bud.
Again, you completely fail to recognize that facts are on my side. I certainly understand that waking up to race is a difficult and uncomfortable task, but these are the realities. I'm guessing by your responses that you don't see how destructive diversity and race mixing are either. These two strategies are implemented to destroy western civilization and have been quite successful. Learn Your history and who is responsible for these atrocities. The push for diversity lead to the mass feminization of European men and the rape of their women and girls. You cannot change the character of certain groups of people. Muslims are pedophiles and hate gays. Africans are retarded savages. Chinese are uncompassionate breeders.Indians are immature street shitters. If you want sources for my claims I would be happy to provide only the most impeccable references for your edification.
Please provide sources rather than broad generalizations and stereotypes. You try to paint an entire race with one stroke. Guess what? The same could be done for the White race as we have committed the most genocides and started the most wars out of any race. Whites could be considered and labelled mass murderers. Guess we should all be labeled as such due to the bad examples of some in our race, huh? Grow up.
The largest mass genocide was done by the Jews in Bolshevik USSR which saw the deaths of 60 million Christians. The second was the cultural revolution on China with 40-50 million. Before that Muslims killed over 150 million Africans in their slave trade that continues to this day. Before you slander the only race that ever sought fit to end slavery and created the world's most idyllic civilizations, it would be a good idea to learn your history.
You are conveniently leaving out the genocide by Whites of the Native Americans.
"According to historian David Stannard, over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas."[47] The indigenous peoples of the Americas experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.[48]"
"During the American Indian Wars, the United States Army carried out a number of massacres and forced relocations of Indigenous peoples, acts that some scholars say constitute genocide. The Sand Creek Massacre, which caused outrage in its own time, has been called genocide. General John Chivington led a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia in a massacre of 70–163 peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho, about two-thirds of whom were women, children, and infants. Chivington and his men took scalpsand other body parts as trophies, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia.[85]"
Guess Jews are not White now?
If you are at all familiar with their tactics, they claim to be white when they shit on whites and then say they are not when they get called on it.
massacre of 70–163
Gotta up those numbers to get to 60 million friend. Current genocide of word is much higher than that.
Crusades
These were in response to the Muslims invading and genociding white Europeans for 400 years. They were more than justified.
Who said we were clean? Just never said we were the worst or even remotely close. We also ended slavery, so... There's that.
World wars were instigated and started by the Jews do that Israel could be founded. Look up the balfour declaration between the Rothschilds and England.
I understand what these "Jews" claim yet they are genetically white. You are trying to do the same thing they are by saying their crimes are not ours because they sometimes say they are not White.
"Gotta up those numbers to get to 60 million friend. Current genocide of word is much higher than that."
I never limited the atrocities caused by Whites to genocide. That is you.
"These were in response to the Muslims invading and genociding white Europeans for 400 years. They were more than justified."
We're they (or any mass killings) really justified? No, they were not.
"In other words, the spread of Islam was a very different affair from the crusades. The crusaders aimed to recapture a sacred place from a religion that they barely understood and that they viewed as fundamentally evil. Muslims built an empire.
That is what made the crusaders and their scorched-earth piety so shocking. Here were Christian armies who heedlessly slaughtered entire populations, not in spite of their religion but because of it. After the First Crusade ended, and once the Christians began trying to build settlements in the Middle East, their attitudes necessarily changed. But the crusade itself had introduced into the region a sort of total religious warfare that had not been seen since Old Testament days."
Not saying Muslims didn't commit any atrocities (they did) but the Crusades were far darker and bloodier and was in regards to taking back Jerusalem.
As for the WW's, I know they were instigated by the "Jews" for Israel. Yet again, you give these Whites leeway. They are White and the men sent to war were White. The blood is on our hands.
"We also ended slavery, so... There's that."
And it took a bloody war to stop, divided half our country, and blacks were (and still are) treated unfairly to this day by the likes of you.
Whites are obviously superior. That is why all the minorities want to come and live in America and Europe. We have built incredible civilizations from nothing. The niggers and spics want to be a part of that too even though they are inferior and incapable of building or running such a civilization on their own. They need whites. Without us, they fall apart and fight.
Except Native Americans actually established a civilized society before whites arrived in America. Also, whites have destabilized/destroyed many countries such as Africa, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Japan, etc. If anything, whites are a big reason why third world countries can not get ahead. Native Americans have never recovered from our invasion. You're delusional if you believe we are better.
And once again you are wrong. This is just getting embarrassing for you.
"Up until the 1970s, these first Americans had a name: the Clovis peoples. They get their name from an ancient settlement discovered near Clovis, New Mexico, dated to over 11,000 years ago. And DNA suggests they are the direct ancestors of nearly 80 percent of all indigenous people in the Americas.
But there's more. Today, it's widely believed that before the Clovis people, there were others, and as Bawaya says, "they haven't really been identified." But there are remants of them in places as far-flung as the U.S. states of Texas and Virginia, and as far south as Peru and Chile. We call them, for lack of a better name, the Pre-Clovis people.
And to make things more complicated, recent discoveries are threatening to push back the arrival of humans in North America even further back in time. Perhaps as far back as 20,000 years or more. But the science on this is far from settled.
Back to the Europeans
So for now, the Clovis and the Pre-Clovis peoples, long disappeared but still existent in the genetic code of nearly all native Americans, deserve the credit for discovering America."
"And to make things more complicated, recent discoveries are threatening to push back the arrival of humans in North America even further back in time. Perhaps as far back as 20,000 years or more. But the science on this is far from settled."
Hmmmm...science is far from settled...meaning debatable. The evidence we do have that is settled shows people 80% linked to Native Americans were the discoverers of America, not Europeans. Try again bud.
Although evidence supporting the PCMM and the existence of pre-Clovis has grown since 1999, few coastal Pre-Clovis sites have been found to date. Coastal sites are likely inundated since the sea level has done nothing but rise since the Last Glacial Maximum. In addition, there are some scholars within the academic community who remain skeptical about pre-Clovis. In 2017, a special issue of the journal Quaternary International based on a 2016 symposium at the Society for American Archaeology meetings presented several arguments dismissing pre-Clovis theoretical underpinnings.
Not all the papers denied pre-Clovis sites, but several did.
Among the papers, some of the scholars asserted that Clovis was, in fact, the first colonizers of the Americas and that genomic studies of the Anzick burials(which share DNA with modern Native American groups) prove that. Others suggest that the Ice-Free Corridor would still have been usable if unpleasant entryway for the earliest colonists. Still others argue that the Beringian standstill hypothesis is incorrect and that there simply were no people in the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum.
Archaeologist Jesse Tune and colleagues have suggested that all of the so-called pre-Clovis sites are made up of geo-facts, micro-debitage too small to be confidently assigned to human manufacture.
It is undoubtedly true that pre-Clovis sitesare still relatively few in number compared to Clovis. Further, pre-Clovis technology seems extremely varied, especially compared to Clovis which is so strikingly identifiable. Occupation dates on pre-Clovis sites vary between 14,000 cal BP to 20,000 and more. That's an issue that needs to be addressed.
Your evidence is debatable and not settled one bit. The Clovis and Pre-Clovis (80% linked to Native Americans) is verifiable, not debatable, and settled. Therefore, you have no credibility bud.
You are basing your argument on assumptions. You have no idea, nor does anyone else, when or if those tools originated from Europeans. In fact, the article I posted said they might not even be tools to begin with and are possibly just from natural erosions. Here, read carefully again:
"Among the papers, some of the scholars asserted that Clovis was, in fact, the first colonizers of the Americas and that genomic studies of the Anzick burials(which share DNA with modern Native American groups) prove that. Others suggest that the Ice-Free Corridor would still have been usable if unpleasant entryway for the earliest colonists. Still others argue that the Beringian standstill hypothesis is incorrect and that there simply were no people in the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum.
Archaeologist Jesse Tune and colleagues have suggested that all of the so-called pre-Clovis sites are made up of geo-facts, micro-debitage too small to be confidently assigned to human manufacture.
It is undoubtedly true that pre-Clovis sitesare still relatively few in number compared to Clovis. Further, pre-Clovis technology seems extremely varied, especially compared to Clovis which is so strikingly identifiable. Occupation dates on pre-Clovis sites vary between 14,000 cal BP to 20,000 and more. That's an issue that needs to be addressed."
You whole argument is based on "what if?" whereas mine is on "what has been proven." Again, you lack credibility.
For the last time as your argument is extremely weak, read this article carefully and you will see that Pre-Clovis and Clovis are genetically related - in other words - not White as your delusional mind would like to believe.
"The new findings, the Waters Group reported, "suggests that although the ultimate ancestors of the Clovis ultimately originated from northeast Asia..."
Northeast Asia...that would mean they weren't White bud. Back to the drawing board for you!
So let's assume, for arguments sake, Whites colonized America first before the Native Americans like your one book says. Where did they go? Did their DNA change into Native Americans or...use logic here...were the Pre-Clovis actually 80% DNA match for Native Americans as all evidence suggests?
We both know the answer. You are arguing a losing, and somewhat pathetic, argument. Better to give up and save what little face you can vs. continuing to cry "Nuh-uh, Whites discovered America before the Native Americans!!!" like a grade-schooler ready to cry to his Mommy because things aren't exactly the way he wants them to be.
Wow, that is some epic goalposts moving mixed with some creative revisionist history. Unfortunately a 4 year old could come up with a better explanation. Whites are not indigenous to America and at the very least, Native American are genetic descendants of the indigenous tribes that came before them. European DNA does not mean White DNA. You lose this argument as you have no legs left to stand on bud.
First off, not a Jew but it appears you are triggered since you continually resort to name calling.
Second, not surprisingly, you are wrong yet again!
"Europeans have not always been light skinned, and Caucasians are in fact a fairly new development on the continent, relatively speaking.
According to a new study reported in Science Magazine, it has been found that Caucasions are the product of “a patchwork of evolution in different places” across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – both of which have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin colour over the past 8,000 years.
Since researchers began to sequence the genome of ancient populations last year, it has been discovered that Europeans today are the product of hunter gatherers and farmers of at least three ancient populations having mixed together during their migration to the continent over the past 8,000 years.
By comparing key parts of DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient humans from European archaeological sites with recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, Iain Matheison of Harvard University’s lab of population, and geneticist David Reich, discovered the genes linked to skin pigmentation that had survived the natural selection process across Europe.
When modern humans first travelled from Africa to the continent around 40,000 years ago they had darker skin, which was still seen in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary around 8,500 years ago.
These humans lacked two genes – SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 – which lead to the depigmentation and lightening of the skin."
The funny thing is, we Whites (if you believe evolution) evolved from Africans. So really, you are part black as well bud so you really just hate yourself but that part is pretty much obvious by now.
"First of all, irrelevant, no one said anything about pigmentation."
Your whole argument is that Whites discovered America genius! Pigmentation is the only thing that matters to your racist mind.
"Second of all, bullshit, evolution takes much longer."
Source?
"Out of Africa was debunked years ago when the oldest pre human remains were found in the Balkans."
Again, source? Here's one that says otherwise from Jan. 2018.
"Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa, with the earliest-known fossils roughly 300,000 years old. A key milestone was when our species first ventured out of Africa en route to populating the far corners of the globe.
Until now, the oldest Homo sapiens fossils outside Africa had come from two other cave sites in Israel, including one also on Mount Carmel, about 90,000 to 120,000 years old.
The new discovery supports the idea that humans migrated out of Africa through a northern route, the Nile valley and the eastern Mediterranean coast, and not a southern route across the Bab al-Mandeb strait, the southern coast of Saudi Arabia, the Indian subcontinent and East Asia, said Tel Aviv University paleoanthropologist Israel Hershkovitz, who led the study."
"They're just looking at DNA and coming up with theories, it doesn't prove anything."
I would think DNA proves a lot more than simple tools that may not even be tools to begin with. You are absolutely obsessed with a person's DNA unless that evidence counters your view of White Superiority. I can read you like a book bud.
And as I proved to you already yet your simple mind apparently cannot comprehend, European does not mean White. Even if it did (it doesn't), Pre-Clovis are still 80% genetically linked to Native Americans throwing out your "Whites (or Europeans or however you want to justify it in your mind) discovered America first" argument.
"260,000 years old found in China"
The article I linked to you stated homo sapiens migrated from Africa 300,000 years ago, thus predating your 260,000 in China.
"7.2 million years old found in Balkans. lol"
"The first hominin species, a line that eventually leads to humans, MAY HAVE emerged in Europe 7.2 million years ago and not Africa—the most widely accepted starting point for our ancestors."
"The study has been met with skepticism because the vast majority of fossil evidence appears to suggest our ancestors emerged in Africa and migrated outwards."
"But the fossilised hominim is not necessarily our earliest ancestor and may have separated from some other early species that would eventually go on to become Ardipithecus."
Sadly, you seem to misunderstand your evidence. These are not even human remains. Just another species of chimpanzees that may point to the ever-elusive "missing link" between humans and monkeys. Still, this does show, if true, we all come from the same beginnings/species, so your continued criticism of anyone who isn't White is just flat out stupid as we are all one and the same.
Which I already proved to you was not the case until very recently (i.e. 8,000 years ago), and even then, not all Europeans are White genius.
"Fight, because the whites and asians interbred"
If that is the case, then less than 20% would be "White" DNA. Can you prove the other 20% Pre-Clovis DNA was White and not Asian as believed by most scholars? The other 80% is a perfect match for Native Americans who had no White DNA.
"They are pre-human remains, they are not chimpanzees you idiot. Try an anthropology class sometime. lol"
Pre-human: In other words, not human. Gotcha. And he says I'm the moron. Here is a little more info for you:
"Both are bold and highly disputed claims. But the fossil itself is a rare specimen of an APE from around the time of the last common ancestor of CHIMPANZEES and humans."
"Other experts on human prehistory disagree, pointing to extensive fossil evidence that hominins, meaning non-ape humans and their ancestors, originated in Africa and migrated north."
“David Begun has repeatedly proposed that the African ape and human clade arose in Europe and that gorillas, chimps and humans arose from an early European member of this group that migrated into Africa,” said Jay Kelley, a paleontologist at Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins. “This 'back into Africa' scenario has garnered few if any adherents.” The “near consensus,” Kelley said in an email, is that “the hominin lineage arose in Africa.”
You should really read the whole article as there are many more valid points calling out the claims made about your "evidence."
"You should read the headline, you moron. lol
FIRST HUMAN ANCESTOR CAME FROM EUROPE NOT AFRICA, 7.2 MILLION-YEAR-OLD FOSSILS INDICATE"
First, that was in reference to your 260,000 China evidence. Second, here's a different headline for you:
"Ape that lived in Europe 7 million years ago could be human ancestor, controversial study suggests"
Hmmm, guess headlines aren't the end-all, be-all of evidence. Maybe do some more research before you go all gung-ho on faulty "evidence" and then label someone a "moron" who proves you incorrect. It makes you look like the "moron" bud.
You are posting controversial articles as if they are fact and when I call you out with evidence proving the consensus is against your "evidence", you whine and throw insults like a little child. I think this debate is settled. Nice try bud.
Here again, you are showing your lack of research. Same article I provided you earlier:
"For the loose tooth, the thickness of the enamel ruled out other, better-documented ancient apes, the scientists said, such as Ouranopithecus. But they could not prove with absolute certainty that the tooth came from Graecopithecus freybergi."
They are not even certain it came from the source they are claiming! For arguments sake, let's say it is:
Graecopithecus freybergi:
It is in the subfamily: Homininae, also called "African hominids" or "African apes", is a subfamily of Hominidae.[1][2
"The Homininae cladogram has three main branches, which lead to gorillas (through the tribe Gorillini),"
So your counter is "Nuh-uh!" and more name-calling? Again?!?! Without providing counter source/evidence?!?! Did you even read the source I linked you? Granted, it's Wikipedia yet the info is valid. I can find more sources proving your ignorance if you'd like.
In any case, this conversation is long past reeking of immature childishness on your part so further discourse really isn't warranted. Enjoy ignorance as I hear it's bliss!
No, you definitely didn't and the evidence I provided straight up proved you wrong and you had nothing to counter it with. Where was my evidence wrong bud?
"Gorillas are a sub group of the family of great apes."
"Apes belong to the family of primates called hominoidea. The family of hominoids is classified into two groups; the hominidae and the hylobatidae. The hominidae consists of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans. These primates are collectively known as the ‘great apes’.
"Gorillas are apes that belong to the hominoid family."
What the hell are you even talking about? Read the subfamily Homininae genius. Here is the link to Graecopithecus freybergi where you can find it's subfamily:
"Now you are on record as conflating humans with apes. Idiot."
This is according to evolution theory and the evidence presented for it. I never said I believed in evolution. If you don't like Wikipedia, try Britannica:
"Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the apesuperfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)."
You keep calling me an idiot yet over and over again you are wrong. I'm pretty sure you are proving yourself more deserving of that moniker with each new comment.
Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the apesuperfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)
Rendering your argument meaningless. It means jack nothing. lol
Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the apesuperfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). >Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)
Actually you did, you said that since Graecopithecus are linked to subgroup Homininae, that they are just apes, when Homininae includes humans.
That's why I'm calling you names, because you're a moron.
Except Graecopithecus freybergi is not human, it is more closely related to an ape. Here is a better explanation:
"Regardless, humans didn’t evolve 7 million years ago. Sahelanthropus and even Lucy do not look like anyone you would call “human.” Humans have only been around for about 3 million years, and our own specific species is only about 300,000 years old. Even if Graecopithecus turns out to be themissing link–the true ancestor of both modern chimps and modern humans–that still does not change where humans evolved, because Graecopithecus narrowly missed being a human by 4 million years."
I would read the whole article if I were you. You may just learn something other than name-calling.
Just for fun, here is some more info shedding quite a bit of doubt about your 7.2 million year old "human" from the experts.
"Not everyone is convinced by the research. “I really appreciate having a detailed analysis of the Graecopithecus jaw—the only fossil of its genus so far,” Rick Potts, head of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program tells Guarino. “But I think the principal claim of the main paper goes well beyond the evidence in hand.”
Jay Kelley, a paleontologist at Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins also tells Guarino that the tooth evidence is not as significant as it seems. He says some of the earliest-known hominins didn’t have fused teeth roots and some later human ancestors did, meaning it’s not strong evidence that El Graeco is an early pre-human.
Potts agrees. In an email to Smithsonian.com, he says he’s not convinced by the tooth evidence, especially since so few samples were studied. Instead of being an early pre-human, he says it’s likely El Graeco is related to EUROPEAN APES. “Analyses by other research groups…suggest that Graecopithecus—known only from the single mandible with hardly any tooth crowns preserved—is closely related to the much better documented Ouranopithecus, also a late Miocene ape found in Greece,” Potts writes.
Potts also says that the location doesn’t add up as the place where apes and pre-humans split. “A hominin or even a hominine (modern African ape) ancestor located in a fairly isolated place in southern Europe doesn’t make much sense geographically as the ancestor of modern African apes, or particular the oldest ancestor of African hominins,” he writes."
So now you've abandoned that argument and you're posting some other wall of text of some researcher's speculation that I'm supposed to read in my copious spare time.
Huh? I've always doubted your argument that Graecopithecus freybergi was human. That's been my point all along. I have shared proof that it is more closely related to Apes and that Pre-human is not human. There is controversy surrounding the discovery and conclusions from it within the scientific community.
I can't help it if you hinge your racists belief on faulty "evidence" nor can I help it if you can't follow along. Try to keep up with the class bud otherwise you are gonna be held back.
You are correct. We went over it and you were proven wrong. Graecopithecus freybergi is in the same subfamily referred to as the African Apes. It existed some 4 million years before the closest possible human ancestor and humans as we know them didn't exist until 300,000 years ago. Thus, Graecopithecus freybergi is not human and all evidence points that our ancestors descended from Africa.
Oh, and you were also wrong about Native Americans not being indigenous to America, Europeans being only White, and gorillas not being apes. Your batting average is really low right now. You should quit while you are waaaay behind.
Graecopithecus freybergi is in the same subfamily referred to as the African Apes
And modern humans, moron.
Native Americans not being indigenous to America
They crossed from Asia, after the whites had been here 5000 years or so. That's why 20,000 year old European stone age tools were found and why indians are 1/3 European.
Wow, you really love in a delusional world where direct evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow-minded racist world view is just ignored.
"And modern humans, moron, rendering your point moot."
While humans may belong to the same subfamily, they did not exist for over 7 million years later. Modern humans didn't exist until 300,000 years ago. Thus, Graecopithecus freybergi is not human. It has more in common with European Apes.
"Potts (HEAD OF SMITHSONIAN HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM) agrees. In an email to Smithsonian.com, he says he’s not convinced by the tooth evidence, especially since so few samples were studied. Instead of being an early pre-human, he says it’s likely El Graeco is related to EUROPEAN APES."
"They crossed from Asia, after the whites had been here 5000 years or so."
Actually, the Native Americans are direct descendants of both Clovis and Pre-Clovis. The Pre-Clovis migrated from Northeast Asia and share 80% DNA match with Native Americans.
"Recent ancient DNA studies indicate that approximately 13,000 years ago, two clades (genetic groups) of peoples emerged; one exclusively consisting of northern Native Americans, and one consisting of peoples from North, Central, and South America, including the 12,800 year old Anzick childfrom a Clovis burial site in Montana. All genetics research to date has affirmed the shared ancestry of all ancient and contemporary indigenous peoples of the Americas, and refuted stories about the presence of “lost tribes”, ancient Europeans, and (I can’t believe that I actually have to say this) ancient aliens."
The "European tools", as I pointed out previously, mote than likely are nothing more than rock fragments from erosion.
"Europeans are European, no one has proven that they ever had dark skin."
Ok, final time:
"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency"
Again with the name calling. Triggered much. Being wrong all the time does that. Since you continually add nothing new to conversation but insults and I have to keep repeating myself to you for clarification, I think this conversation has reached it's limit bud. Enjoy your racist delusions of grandeur.
And I've refuted all of your attempts bud. Evidence doesn't lie. Continuing to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your tiny White superiority worldview is a waste of your time? You are like an Ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. Just continue to cover your ears saying "Nah nah nah nah nah...not listening!" It will get you far in life...
"I'm listening, but all your theories have been garbage so far and I've explained why."
You've done nothing of the sort. First off, they aren't "my theories" and are the prevalent theories backed by evidence and the scientific community. Second, your responses have been "Nuh uh" with no evidence backing up why you say it's wrong. I'm not just taking your word for it. I've provided plenty of evidence/articles/experts supporting what I say. You provided one controversial article that has been refuted by experts in the same field. Learn how to support your argument and then I will listen. Until then, I will assume you have nothing else to add to back up your claim and that the debate is settled.
are the prevalent theories backed by evidence and the scientific community.
Some of them are the theories of the researchers in the particular article you googled in desperation, the rest are completely harebrained like the one where Graecopithecus are not human because they inhabit a subgroup that also includes humans. lol
Another expert in the field completely demolishing your White Superiority fantasies:
"Dr Julien Benoit, a vertebrate palaeontologist and palaeobiologist who has worked extensively on the African continent and was not part of the European research team, chatted to The Conversation Africa about the findings."
"For starters, the material isn’t well preserved. It consists mostly of a jaw with no complete teeth preserved. That’s a problem because the teeth’s anatomical characteristics are the most important element when classifying any primate, including humans.
The authors claim that the jaw’s fourth premolar root is similar to that of a hominin’s. This is not a character that is conventionally used in palaeoanthropology, especially because not all hominins have similar tooth roots. This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.
They also argue that the small size of the incomplete canine tooth (as suggested by the size of its root) would put this fossil close to hominin ancestry. This is based on the assumption that hominins are the only apes with small canines. This, again, is not true. In Europe, where apes have a very rich fossil record, there’s an ape called Oreopithecus which has small canines but is not related to humans at all.
This is an example of independent, parallel evolution: when one species evolves similarities to another without being related to it. For instance, dolphins look like fish, but they’re not. This is probably the same thing for Graecopithecus and hominins.
I agree with many of my colleagues, who think that this new jaw represents an Ape species that is not related to humans. It might belong to a species like Oreopithecus, which evolved human-like features – such as the fusion of the fourth premolar roots and small canines – in parallel to our lineage.
Finally, the study is lacking a phylogenetic analysis. This is a statistical method used to reconstruct a reliable evolutionary tree. To say that a fossil species is an early hominin without performing this kind of analysis is like giving the result of an equation without actually doing the maths."
Actually, you have been consistently schooled and I already refuted your "evidence" multiple times. Since you have clearly lacked the ability to comprehend anything that destroys your White Superiority fantasies, I will not waste my time presenting the evidence again. When you wake back up to reality and learn how to read/comprehend, go back through this conversation and you will be embarrassed how sad your excuses are. You have no evidence at all except for controversial theories whereas I presented direct evidence as well as respected people in the fields calling out your "evidence." History, consensus, and actual evidence are on my side bud.
I can really do this all day but to save you the embarrassment, please provide 1 source with experts outside of your study saying with 100% confidence that your theory stands.
No you did not. Your counter to every article with experts criticizing and calling out your delusional theory was either "Nuh uh," "tl;dr," or "He's a nobody." You only provide your opinion without sources backing you up. It's really been like debating a child.
LOL, you lost the debate when you decided you couldn't read the evidence and started ignoring anything that proved your fantasy a lie. You know who cover their ears when they don't want to hear something? Children. Don't debate if you won't look at evidence counter to your own viewpoint. Otherwise, this is just an insult fest that has run it's course.
LOL, more excuses?!?! I've refuted your "evidence" and my argument is backed by the scientific consensus as well as a hundred years worth of evidence. Can your White Supremacist fantasy say the same? Nope! LMAO!
"Some of them are the obscure pet theories of the researchers"
LOL, and yet that's all the article you shared is...a pet theory and a controversial one at that. Not accepted as fact or as even likely within the scientific community.
Again, you have nothing to back up your refutations. Not shocking at this point. Are you really saying Graecopithecus freybergi are human? They may not even be pre-human. First, humans did not exist 7.2 million years ago. We came about at most 300,000 years ago. Thus Graecopithecus freybergi are not human. As the leader of the Human Origins program from the Smithsonian said, they are more likely related to European apes. Head of Human Origins from the SMITHSONIAN!!! You've heard of them right? Pretty prestigious. Do you have anything outside your one controversial article backing your claim it's human? Nope, you don't. Case closed. Go back to your White Superiority fantasyland little child.
Again, no sources backing your claims up. I've provided more than one source/expert backing up my claims yet you are too lazy to read/refute. It's obvious you can't as no one agrees with you/them. Epic fail bud!!!
You provided one source which I refuted with plenty. More insults. Shocking. Insults are thrown by the simple-minded. Now it's obvious why you can't understand what I've presented you as your 3rd world mentality you hate so much is too slow to keep up. Sad.
Excuses again?!?! Your ignorance is absolutely astounding! Here's who you are calling a "nobody:"
"Richard B. Potts is a paleoanthropologist and has been the director of the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History'sHuman Origins Program since 1985. He is the curator of the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian.[1]
Potts graduated from Temple University in his home town of Philadelphia.[2] In 1982 Potts received his doctorate in biological anthropology from Harvard University. Prior to joining the Smithsonian Institution he taught at Yale University and was its Peabody Museum of Natural History curator of Physical Anthropology.[1] He has been involved with early human excavation sites in Africa and Asia. His focus is on how human adaptation and evolution was in response to continuous changes in their environment over time.[1]"
Seriously, you really need to give up as your lack of reading, comprehension, and research skills are really painting a sad little picture of delusion and laziness.
Richard B. Potts is a paleoanthropologist and has been the director of the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History'sHuman Origins Program since 1985
Uh, genius, (don't get excited...using the term sarcastically) you called him a nobody after I presented his quotes questioning your "evidence." You really don't live in reality, do you? You call out my experts as nobodies and when I prove to you he actually is a "somebody" well-versed in his field, you go back to giving the "Nah nah nah nah nah...not listening!" argument again. Childish.
Except he did contradict you and he is an expert. What version of reality do you live in where you look at his credentials and think "He's not an expert"? The only thing you continue to prove is that you can't read or comprehend new information given to you unless it has big bright colorful words on thick cardboard pages with plenty of colorful pictures.
Which ones? I saw one. Highly controversial and called out by experts in the same field.
"Several salient points:
Indians are 1/3 European
Europeans were in America first"
Provide evidence other than your ignorant views bud.
"You conveniently forget that your assertions about pre-humans were proved laughably false."
Be honest. You sadly already admitted to the fact that you don't even read the evidence I provide. You have been proven wrong time after time and you don't even know because you were too lazy and full of excuse after excuse to read what I posted.
LOL! I read your ONE piece of "evidence" and refuted it thoroughly with many experts and articles criticizing it. LMAO! Maybe you should reread your comments and see how lacking in sources/substance your argument has truly been.
BOOM!!! Two newer articles confirming East Asian ancestry of Native Americans.
"East Asian Origins Confirmed
Anzick-1’s DNA allowed researchers to confirm genetically, for the first time, that all native peoples of North and South America descended from ancestors who arrived via land bridges from East Asia, possibly in a single migration. While there has been ample archeological evidence of the East Asian origin of Native Americans, conclusive proof based on DNA had been absent until now. Even a recent study comparing the genes of ancient Siberian remains with those of modern Native Americans had not been as conclusive.
The sequencing of Anzick-1’s genome, however, revealed the child was part of a line that was directly ancestral to 80 percent of all American native peoples, and close cousins to the remaining 20 percent.
In addition, analysis of the child’s mitochondrial DNA indicated Anzick-1 belonged to what’s known as the D4h3a haplogroup, or lineage. The finding is important — and surprising, according to researchers — because the D4h3a line is considered to be a “founder” lineage, belonging to the first people to arrive in the Americas. Although rare in most Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada today, D4h3a genes are found more commonly in native people of South America, far from the Montana cliff beneath which Anzick-1 was laid to rest."
"Genomic comparisons suggest that USR1 and USR2 were related—probably first cousins—and that the USR1 genome is most closely related to contemporary Native American genomes. The researchers inferred that USR1 is part of a unique population they call Ancient Beringians, who descended from the same ancestors, but stopped interacting and sharing DNA with the populations of other Native Americans between 18,000 and 22,000 years ago. Genetic analysis of the proportions of components of the USR1 genome shared with Native Americans, Siberians, and East Asians also showed that a single founding population of all Native Americans split from East Asian ancestors gradually between about 25,000 and 36,000 years ago."
So basically what you and these assholes have done is to shit on the trans atlantic hypothesis while ignoring that the people who crossed the land bridge were both asian and European.
Again, European does not mean White genius. These Eurasians - the Altai - were not White.
"After more than a century of speculation, an international group of geneticists has conclusively proven that the Aztecs, Incas, and Iroquois are closely related to the peoples of Altai, the Siberian region that borders China and Mongolia.
Scientists have suspected for a long time that Native Americans are closely related to the peoples of Altai. The theory of the Altai peoples migrating from Siberia across Chukotka and Alaska, down to the Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, appeared almost a century ago."
They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia. The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.
"Using evolutionary models, the researchers showed that the ancestors of the first Native Americans started to emerge as a distinct population about 35,000 years ago, probably in north-east Asia. About 25,000 years ago, this group mixed and bred with ancient north Eurasians in the region, the descendants of whom went on to become the first Native Americans to settle the New World."
"Connie Mulligan, an anthropologist at the University of Florida, said the findings pointed to a single migration of people from Asia to the New World, but said other questions remained. “How did people move so quickly to the southernmost point of South America and settle two continents that span a huge climatic and geographic range?” she said."
Yes, it does, they clearly said from Germany, Europeans are white. lol
They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia. The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.
Non-Sequitor. One half of her DNA came from the past, the other half from the future. Amazing. lol
"After more than a century of speculation, an international group of geneticists has conclusively proven that the Aztecs, Incas, and Iroquois are closely related to the peoples of Altai, the Siberian region that borders China and Mongolia.
You are relying on one tiny unproven sentence to hinge your argument on. Sad.
"Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany."
LIKELY - i.e. not confirmed. Newer evidence shows the Siberian ancestors to be the Altai - no German ancestry. Completely Asian. BOOM! Debunked again!!!
"It is already confirmed that the DNA is 1/3 European and the physical evidence backs this up."
Proved you wrong yet again in my previous comment with numerous articles with no political slants shutting down your Solutrean theory based on this DNA evidence. I know you don't like to read but please take the time to see my previous comment as you may learn it's best not to hinge your argument on one article with wrong information when there are numerous articles stating the opposite thus proving you wrong. A little research would go a long way towards making you look less lazy/ignorant.
"Where's the other half of her DNA, moron? Did her descendants get in a time machine and fuck her mother? lol"
First off, the Montana boy is a "he" not a "she" so your source (whatever it is) is wrong right away. Second, are you too blind to realize you answered your own question?!?!
"The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans."
The rest of the DNA is Native American...i.e. NOT WHITE! LOL!
There is no such thing as "Native American" DNA moron.
Native Americans are 2/3 Asian, 1/3 European.
A third of both juveniles' DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal'ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany's Swabian Jura mountains.
"There is no such thing as "Native American" DNA moron."
I'm the moron?!?! LMAO!
"Native American DNA
North and South America were settled by at least three waves of migrants from Asia, who occupied the Americas from Canada to the southern tip of Chile. North America was initially occupied by people who came from Siberia and coastal North Asia.
Far fewer than 1,000 people crossed the Bering land bridge, and Native Americans appear to derive from this initial wave of migration. Evidence suggests they dispersed rapidly along the western coast of the Americas, perhaps by sea, within a period of only about a thousand years. Not long after humans first appeared in today’s Alaska and the western United States, they settled as far south as the tip of modern-day Chile. For help researching Native American ancestry, see Researching Native American Ancestry."
The real moron is someone who believes in a pure White race.
"When genetic anthropologists examine the full scope of humans, they find that historical patterns in DNA markers make the case that everyone in the world came from a common ancestor who was born in East Africa within the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Plus, groups intermingled so much over the course of history that genetic diversity is a continuum both within American and Europe, through to Asia and Africa, Novembre of the University of Chicago said.
"Genetically, the idea of white European as a single homogenous group does not hold up. The classic geographic boundaries of the Mediterranean, Caucasus, and Urals that have shaped human movement and contact are all permeable barriers," said Novembre. "Most of the genetic variants you or I carry, we share with other people all across the globe…If you are in some ethnic group, there are not single genetic variants that you definitely have and everyone outside the group does not."
"That hierarchy of race that he adheres to begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to so-called ‘whites,’ then is there an internal hierarchy within this putative ‘white’ race? Are some ‘white’ groups superior to others that seem ‘less-white’?
For instance, are all Finns superior to all Iberians, who tend to be of a darker skin tone? Is a low-education Swede automatically “better” than an intelligent, highly-educated tan-colored Greek? Alternatively, didn’t a ‘darker’ Latin peoples, the Romans, conquer and civilize less-developed barbarian tribes of Britons?
Britain itself is made up of highly-intermixed peoples, the product of encounters with Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Danes, Gaelic Celts, Jutes, Frisians, etc. We also see this in countries such as Spain, where Moors, Jews, Roma, Celts, Basques, Catalans, African Guanches, and others coexisted and undoubtedly intermixed for centuries. As the early twentieth-century Venezuelan sociologistLaureano Vallenilla Lanz said in 1919, there is no purity of race in Spain."
Read the articles. There is plenty of evidence/experts mixed in the articles. You would know if you actually read them instead of making childish excuses to ignore them.
"This week, she is the second author on a paper in Nature that reports the complete sequence of the Anzick child’s nuclear genome. The sequencing effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev and Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1- to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy, is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples from Central and South America. “Their data are very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville.
If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians. And that could help tribes that want to claim and rebury ancient American skeletons such as that of the 9400-year-old Kennewick Man from Washington state. “This is proof that Kennewick Man was Native American,” says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon, Eugene. Sarah Anzick, whose family is in possession of the infant, says that it is likely to be reburied in May."
"The property on which the child was found was owned by the Anzick family, hence the name of the remains. DNA testing of that child, conducted before he was re-interred close to the original burial site, revealed his genetic ties to North and South American natives, as well as ancient Siberians. The results further solidified theories that the Americas were settled in several waves of migrants who crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to Alaska, some of whom then worked their way south."
This earned Willerslev's team an astounding publishing achievement in just 100 days: The decoding of the genomes of the oldest analyzed members of homo sapiens in both the Old and the New Worlds. This has allowed them to reconstruct the settlement of the Americas via the Beringia land bridge during the ice ages -- when what is now the Bering Strait between Russia and Alaska was frozen over -- in greater detail than ever before.
A third of both juveniles' DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal'ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany's Swabian Jura mountains.
I know it's the same kid dingus. I showed his DNA origins, from 2 separate articles, has no ties to Germany but to Asians and one article points out the DNA analysis destroys the Solutrean theory. You are apparently not smart enough to put two and two together. The Siberians Native Americans are traced to are the Altai. No German ancestry.
"Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their Asian genetic lineages up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.
'Our goal in working in this area was to better define what those founding lineages or sister lineages are to Native American populations,' Schurr said.
The region lies at the intersection of what is now Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan."
A third of both juveniles' DNA can be traced to the earliest European. Physical evidence also supports this European origin: Archeologists discovered 30 ivory pendants at Mal'ta, the Stone Age settlement site near Lake Baikal where the remains were found. The pendants show great similarity to ones found at Hohle Fels cave, an important Paleolithic site in southern Germany's Swabian Jura mountains.
Again, show me where European = White. Also, you have one tiny comment from one article. Here are numerous articles about the same topic which say that the DNA is Asian:
"The DNA also indicates the boy’s ancestors came from Asia, supporting the standard idea of ancient migration to the Americas by way of a land bridge that disappeared long ago."
"He led the effort to read that genome. The genes reveal that early Americans are the product of two lineages that most likely met and interbred in Asia before making the trek across the Bering land bridge.
"So this strongly suggests that there was a single migration of people into the Americas," Waters says. "And these people were probably the people who eventually gave rise to Clovis."
The finding contradicts a long-shot hypothesis that Clovis' ancestors actually came from Europe, not Asia. But it leaves many other questions about Clovis unresolved."
"If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians. And that could help tribes that want to claim and rebury ancient American skeletons such as that of the 9400-year-old Kennewick Man from Washington state. “This is proof that Kennewick Man was Native American,” says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon, Eugene. Sarah Anzick, whose family is in possession of the infant, says that it is likely to be reburied in May."
"No one knew it then, but his DNA would eventually confirm the Asian roots of all of today's Native Americans and rule out a controversial theory that some ancestral populations might have crossed the Americas from Ice Age Europe."
"Paleogenomic analysis of the remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central and South America.[1][3] These findings support the hypothesis that modern Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago.[1][3]"
The funny thing is, I could keep going as there are numerous articles stating the same thing: this discovery proves the Solutrean theory wrong. You sadly keep trying to latch onto one sentence in one article whereas all of the evidence outside of your misinformed article prove you wrong. By harping on this particular case, you actually proved your Solutrean theory wrong and you don't even realize it. LMAO!
The genes reveal that early Americans are the product of two lineages that most likely met and interbred in Asia before making the trek across the Bering land bridge.
Inconclusive, yet still 1/3 European. Doesn't take into account physical evidence of European tools. lol
I see you are back to your walls of text and googling a million different articles. Don't bother nigger.
I won't let you forget that you were quoting different articles on the same study back to me (as you are doing now), essentially arguing with yourself.
"I won't let you forget that you were quoting different articles on the same study back to me"
LOL! I never said it was a different study. I was showing you how your ONE article had the information wrong and that EVERY other article showed you are wrong. Please find ONE other article stating the Montana boy DNA shows what you say it does. Just ONE. I provided 5 more and there are so many others showing the evidence shows the exact opposite of what you say yet you continue to hide behind the "tl;dr" excuse like a ostrich with its head in the sand. Childish. LMAO! I guess your strategy is if the evidence proves you wrong, it's best to ignore and deny, deny, deny!
I guess you failed in your quest to find any other sources backing you up so it's back to "Nuh uh." Classic you!
"Nope, you just found an article on the same study"
I found numerous articles and I only shared a few. In any case, you wouldn't know as you didn't read them. All the articles interpret the DNA the same way which is to say the Montana boy proves Asian lineage for Native Americans, not White Europeans (LMAO). You have one sentence from one source saying otherwise and nothing else backing you up. Pretty sad bud.
The results reveal that Native Americans are a mixture between Western Europeans who reached Siberia and an East Asian population. This paints a new picture of Native Americans and at the same time solves a number of puzzles regarding the colonisation of America. ”For American archaeology, this is a really, really big thing,” says Willerslev.
Of course the same researcher will come to the same conclusion genius. Did other experts/sources come to the same conclusions? No.
I posted several articles, which are newer, refuting these claims based on the DNA evidence. You are clinging to one guy.
In any case, Montana boy DNA evidence is newer and more conclusive:
The find offers the first genetic evidence for what Native Americans have claimed all along: that they are directly descended from the first Americans. It also confirms that those first Americans can be traced back at least 24,000 years, to a group of early Asians and a group of Europeans who mated near Lake Baikal in what is now Siberia. And it dispels a controversial theory that the Americas were first populated by west Europeans who somehow crossed the Atlantic Ocean.
I>t also confirms that those first Americans can be traced back at least 24,000 years, to a group of early Asians and a group of Europeans who mated near Lake Baikal in what is now Siberia.
The pathetic part of your argument is that you are attempting to hitch an imaginary 1/3 White European DNA to Native Americans in order to say Whites discovered America first. Let's say for arguments sake, you are right. 1/3 is not a lot and the Native Americans wouldn't be pure White anyways so a "pure White race" did not discover America even by your own false evidence. You are too blind to see how ridiculous your argument is even in the face of copies amounts of evidence proving you wrong
”That really is a lot,” says Willerslev. “It shows us that Europeans and East Asians met and had lots of sex, and that’s what created the Native Americans.
Lol, you really are dense. Nowhere does it say they are White. In fact, I just provided in my previous comment to you the same guy, Eske Willerslev, saying the DNA of Native Americans is Asian/Eurasian from Siberia. In other words, NOT WHITE. LMAO, nice try. Back to the drawing board with your ignorant ass.
Can you show me any sources saying all Europeans are white?
"No, he did not say from Siberia, he said GERMANY. lol"
Take the time to look at this article with the accompanying Native American lineage map supplied by Eske Willerslev. It shows absolutely 0 German links. Guess Eske found new information that countered his one German comment and changed his belief. That's what happens when rational people receive new, credible information that challenges their previous beliefs. They discard false information.
"The genetic analysis points towards a divergence of all ancient Native Americans from a single east Asian source population somewhere between 36,000 to 25,000 years ago—well before humans crossed into Beringia, an area that includes the land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska at the end of the last ice age. That means that somewhere along the way, either in eastern Asia or in Beringia itself, a group of people became isolated from other east Asians for about 10,000 years, long enough to become a unique strain of humanity."
Can you show me any sources saying all Europeans are white?
Europeans are obviously white, you say they are not.
The burden of proof is on you.
Take the time to look at this article with the accompanying Native American lineage map supplied by Eske Willerslev. It shows absolutely 0 German links.
Heh, wrong. Stupid fucking coon. lol
Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy's [Clovis-era, found in Montana] origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.
"Europeans are obviously white, you say they are not.
The burden of proof is on you"
I already proved it numerous times to you previously so I won't again. Learn to read and comprehend. And you definitely need new eyes as Europeans are definitely not all White. Idiot thinks Europeans are a RACE LMAO!!!
"Heh, wrong. Stupid fucking coon. lol"
Nope, not wrong:
Now though, thanks to work by Morten Rasmussen and many co-authors published in Nature, we have the full genome of a Clovis person who lived c. 10,600 cal BC in Montana, the north-west US. The diagram above shows this individual's genetic affinities. The important dots to look for are the black and grey ones. They show that the part of the world where people are farthest genetically from the Clovis culture are southern Europe and the Near East. This happens to include the area of the Solutrean culture. Case closed.
"In addition to extravagant claims based upon problematic dating and superficial similarities between tools, a serious problem with the Solutrean hypothesis is that its claim of an ancient European origin for Clovis also predicts that we would find a significant genetic contribution from ancient Europeans into ancient Native American populations. We don’t. All ancient and modern Native Americans possess mitochondrial (maternally-inherited) and Y-chromosome (paternally-inherited) lineages that are descended from those found in peoples of Siberia. They are not found in ancient or modern Europeans. Comparisons of bi-parentally inherited nuclear markers also show a close relationship between all Native Americans and Siberians, not Europeans."
"The second, like this article in der Spiegal “Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe”, emphasized the Anzick-1’s genetic affinities with the recently published genome from the ancient Siberian “Mal’ta child” (Raghavan et al. 2013) as evidence of European ancestry. (They specifically suggest that he may have German ancestry). That they chose to do so is puzzling. Shared ancestry between an ancient Native American and an ancient Siberian individual from the Lake Baikal region is a totally unsurprising result and fits within our consensus models for the peopling of the Americas. But Spiegal’s interpretation of this as a “European link” to Native Americans is inaccurate. The Mal’ta individual shows shared ancestry with a broad distribution of Eurasian populations, not just modern Europeans. Furthermore, the Mal’ta child lived 24,000 years ago, and the genetic landscape of that time period was almost certainly unlike the genetic landscape of today. To say that the Mal’ta child was “European” is to inappropriately apply a modern description of genetic variation backwards to a time when genetic diversity patterns in Europe likely were very different: by that logic, it would be just as accurate to say that modern Europeans are “Siberian”!
1/3 Eurasian, not White European. You continually mistakingly believe European means White. EUROPEAN IS NOT A RACE GENIUS! The Eurasian Altai from Siberia are Asian.
"Among the people who may have emerged from the Altai region are the predecessors of the first Native Americans.
Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their ASIAN GENETIC LINEAGES up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas."
That's right, keep posting more articles when your pet theories get destroyed.
Shuckin and jivin' nigger.
1/3 Eurasian, not White European.
Nope lol
”That really is a lot,” says Willerslev. “It shows us that Europeans and East Asians met and had lots of sex, and that’s what created the Native Americans.
Right above the section you highlighted is this nugget:
"According to the researchers’ calculations, 14-39 percent of the Native American genetic material comes from Mal’ta."
First, are you seriously saying the ancient Maltese are White? Second, even if they were, only 14-39% of the DNA potentially comes from them. That leaves 61 - 86 percent coming from Asians. To put in grade school terms for you: 1/3 is not as much as 2/3. NOT seeing a lot of White DNA there genius.
In any case, to put your lunacy fringe theories to bed, take the Kennewick Man:
"For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome. Michael Crawford, head of KU's Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and a professor of anthropology, was a co-author on that genetic project.
Raff said it was significant that Kennewick Man was on the West Coast, as it put the oldest and most ancestral lineage of X2a ever recovered in a geographic region more consistent with a migration from Siberia across the land bridge known as Beringia, which no longer exists between Alaska and Siberia, than a migration across the Atlantic. Prior to the sequencing of his genome, Kennewick Man had been used as an argument to support non-Siberian ancestry, because his skull looked different from those of later Native Americans. But his genome, and that of other ancient Americans with distinctive skull shapes, showed that was not true.
"When you look at the complete genome of ancient Native Americans up until now, we see no evidence for ancient European ancestry," she said."
"Nineteen years after this important body was found, the genome analysis was finally published.
Had he been European (or Japanese or Polynesian), it would’ve been the most revolutionary find in the history of U.S. anthropology, and all textbooks on human migration would have been rewritten. But of course he wasn’t. A fragment of material was used to sequence his DNA, and it showed that lo and behold, Kennewick Man—the Ancient One—was closely related to the Anzick baby. And as for the living, he was more closely related to Native Americans than to anyone else on Earth, and within that group, most closely related to the Colville tribes.
Anzick is firm and final proof that North and South America were populated by the same people. Anzick’s mitochondrial genome is most similar to people of central and south America today."
The Kennewick Man and the Montana boy supersede the Malta boy and prove definitively that Native Americans are related to Asians and do not have White European DNA.
To put the final nail in the coffin, the guy you love to quote, Eske Willerslev, debunks his comment and your theory in a newer study:
“This is a new population of Native Americans,” said Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen, whose team recovered the girl’s DNA from a dense part of her skull known as the petrous bone. Details of the work are published in Nature.
Working with scientists at the University of Alaska and elsewhere, Willerslev compared the genetic makeup of the baby, named Xach’itee’aanenh t’eede gaay or “sunrise child-girl” by the local community, with genomes from other ancient and modern people. They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia. The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.
Using evolutionary models, the researchers showed that the ancestors of the first Native Americans started to emerge as a distinct population about 35,000 years ago, probably in north-east Asia. About 25,000 years ago, this group mixed and bred with ancient north Eurasians in the region, the descendants of whom went on to become the first Native Americans to settle the New World.
First, are you seriously saying the ancient Maltese are White?
Once again, your stupidity and niggardly nature reveals itself. You can't even understand what you read. He's saying that Europeans, specifically in the region of Germany, traveled to Mal'ta.
A Danish-led international research team has mapped the hitherto oldest genome of an anatomically modern human: the genome of a boy buried at Mal’ta near Lake Baikal in south-central Siberia some 24,000 years ago.
Surprisingly, the genetic material reveals that the boy was European, which means that a European culture reached all the way east to Lake Baikal
.
"He's saying that Europeans, specifically in the region of Germany, traveled to Mal'ta."
You are really dense and have severe confirmation bias. It says nothing about the DNA coming from Germans. Here are 2 quotes from your article:
"The really sensational news, however, is that a large proportion (about a third) of all living Native Americans are descendants of the Mal’ta people."
"According to the researchers’ calculations, 14-39 percent of the Native American genetic material comes from Mal’ta."
In any case, this was a study from 2013. The Kennewick Man (2015) and Montana boy (2014) proved definitively that Native Americans have no European DNA.
Now a team of scientists led by the Danish geneticist Eske Willerslev has analyzed the boy's [Clovis-era, found in Montana] origins and discovered that he descends from a Siberian tribe with roots tracing back to Europe. Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany.
"Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany."
Idiot.
The second, like this article in der Spiegal “Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe”, emphasized the Anzick-1’s genetic affinities with the recently published genome from the ancient Siberian “Mal’ta child” (Raghavan et al. 2013) as evidence of European ancestry. (They specifically suggest that he may have German ancestry). That they chose to do so is puzzling. Shared ancestry between an ancient Native American and an ancient Siberian individual from the Lake Baikal region is a totally unsurprising result and fits within our consensus models for the peopling of the Americas. But Spiegal’s interpretation of this as a “European link” to Native Americans is inaccurate. The Mal’ta individual shows shared ancestry with a broad distribution of Eurasian populations, not just modern Europeans. Furthermore, the Mal’ta child lived 24,000 years ago, and the genetic landscape of that time period was almost certainly unlike the genetic landscape of today. To say that the Mal’ta child was “European” is to inappropriately apply a modern description of genetic variation backwards to a time when genetic diversity patterns in Europe likely were very different: by that logic, it would be just as accurate to say that modern Europeans are “Siberian”!
So stupid you can't do one ounce of research. The article was written by Jennifer Raff. Here is her profile:
JENNIFER A. RAFF, PHD
Assistant Professor
Ph.D., Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree), Indiana University, Bloomington
Research Areas: genomics, population genetics, ancient DNA, anthropological genetics, human evolution and population history, migration, bioarchaeology, scientific literacy, North America, Arctic
Education
Ph.D., Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree), Indiana University, Bloomington
You are absolutely delusional. In the face of direct evidence that you are wrong, you go into your little childish denial mode. It's pathetic yet at the same time oddly amusing LOL. How you can claim a woman with this pedigree a "nobody" is laughably absurd:
Jennifer Raff
Jennifer is a geneticist who specialises in the study of human variation among contemporary and ancient populations. She hunts for clues to our histories that are embedded in our genomes, working in both the laboratory and in the field (usually the Arctic).
Geneticist. Anthropologist. Science writer. FULL BIO
I’m an anthropological geneticist with a PhD in genetics and anthropology. As an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, I study the DNA of ancient and contemporary peoples in order to understand their histories, focusing mainly on Native American populations. I write for the general public on topics concerning human genetics and scientific literacy, particularly those related to human evolution and more recent history, and issues at the intersection of genetics, race, and identity.
Now, in your own words, explain why this is so and back it up with sources otherwise you are once again conflating your opinion as evidence and wasting my time.
"Already did. She's the one who had no sources and could not explain why."
Here is her source for the article. Learn to read bud:
"Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018. Terminal Pleistocene Alaskan genome reveals first founding population of Native Americans. Nature."
You are sidestepping and making excuses. Here is more of her evidence:
"However, Jennifer Raff, a University of Kansas assistant professor of anthropology, said mitochondrial and genomic data that scientists have recovered don't support such an early wave of migrants.
"That hypothesis is only held by a very tiny minority of the archaeological community, but nevertheless it gets a lot of attention from people who have a casual interest in American archaeology," said Raff, lead author of a recent article in the journal PaleoAmerica on the issue. "When we summarize the genetic results we have, we find nothing that's consistent with these hypothesized trans-Atlantic migrations."
Raff and co-author Deborah Bolnick, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, published the article that evaluated these hypotheses in light of current genetic evidence from ancient and present-day Native Americans. They concluded that genetic data scientists have recovered to date only supports a migration from Siberia into the Americas and does not show evidence of earlier migrations from ancient Israelites or inhabitants of what is now Europe. Within the next month, the journal article will available to the public via open access, Raff said.
The genetic piece of one recent argument for a trans-Atlantic migration—known as the Solutrean hypothesis—contended that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations provided evidence for ancient gene flow from Europe or the Middle East into North America. The hypothesis suggested that the North American Clovis culture dated roughly 13,000 years ago was directly descended from the Solutrean culture of southwestern Europe dated roughly 23,000 years before present.
However, Raff and Bolnick said in analyzing all recent genetic studies of the earliest Native Americans they didn't find anything consistent with a possible early trans-Atlantic migration. For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome. Michael Crawford, head of KU's Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and a professor of anthropology, was a co-author on that genetic project.
Raff said it was significant that Kennewick Man was on the West Coast, as it put the oldest and most ancestral lineage of X2a ever recovered in a geographic region more consistent with a migration from Siberia across the land bridge known as Beringia, which no longer exists between Alaska and Siberia, than a migration across the Atlantic. Prior to the sequencing of his genome, Kennewick Man had been used as an argument to support non-Siberian ancestry, because his skull looked different from those of later Native Americans. But his genome, and that of other ancient Americans with distinctive skull shapes, showed that was not true.
"When you look at the complete genome of ancient Native Americans up until now, we see no evidence for ancient European ancestry," she said.
Proponents of an early trans-Atlantic migration typically point to a similarity in the tools used by Clovis people—ancient Native Americans—with the early Solutrean hunter-gatherer people in Europe, Raff said.
However, most anthropologists and archaeologists consider that a coincidence, especially because the genetic evidence thus far doesn't seem to support the early trans-Atlantic migration.
Raff said it was important to accurately examine the populating of the Americas, especially because many times in American history those who favor the idea of a European influence upon Native Americans have used that to take away from their tribal sovereignty and cultural achievements."
Again, try doing actual reading/research before making extremely ill-advised ignorant comments as you continually come out looking rather unintelligent.
Lol, you take one mispoken quote and herald it and when proven wrong continue to make lame excuses to attempt to save face. I am not discounting Willerslev at all as his most recent research, as well as that by "some worthless bitch assistant professor" prove his earlier quote wrong. It's called changing hypothesis in the face of new evidence. You should try it as you will sound way less ignorant. LMAO!
"Nowhere does he contradict the old research, you're just a fool who googles shit he doesn't understand."
Except for the genealogy timeline of Native Americans that Willerslev himself provided that you continually ignore like a cornered child. Here it is again so please stop ignoring it:
"And the Beringians were 1/3 European, as he stated earlier."
Seriously? This is just getting sad.
"Who were the Ancient Beringians?
Ancient Beringians were a Native American group that formed a genetically distinct population between 21,000 and 11,500 years ago, and probably persisted in Alaska until about 6000 years ago. This population was discovered through genomic analyses on two infants discovered at the Upward Sun River site (USR) reported in Nature on Jan 3, 2018 (Figure 1). The discovery and analyses of these infants were reported in PNAS in 2014. The site is associated with the Denali complex, a widespread archaeological culture in Northwest North America."
Please show me where it says they are 1/3 European. Plus, your argument is they are part German according to Willerslev even though he has proven this false himself. Proto-Europeans, which is what you would be looking at at this point in time, were not White which I have proven to you but it's a moot point as they have no influence on Native American DNA. Only ancient Asian Siberians may be genetically related.
"Unique strain of humanity = not exclusively asian"
Where do they say this? You are giving your own interpretation. They do not say the unique strain is White European which is what you are pathetically attempting to claim.
Wow, triggered much? Guess being proven an idiot over and over again is getting to you.
"Willerslev and his team is already on the record as saying so in two articles already posted. We've been through this."
Willerslev is also on record in newer research/articles proving his earlier theory wrong. That's how science works. You form a hypothesis and correct it when new evidence proves the old one wrong.
Jennifer Raff is an equally qualified corraborating expert backing up Willerslev's new research. Where are your experts/articles proving you right? Oh, that's right, you have none LMAO!!!
You saying "No" is not a qualified rebuttal. Prove me wrong. I provided the quotes/evidence. Show me where it's wrong. You sticking your head in the sand saying "nuh uh" is not acceptable. Try harder little one.
Idiot. I supplied you with articles based directly on her research. You live in such a small, delusional world. Keep on keeping your head in the sand little racist.
You idiot. I have shown you Willerslev's own research conducted after your 2013 article refuting his own earlier research. It definitively showed Native Americans have no German DNA. It even had a Native American lineage chart Willerslev himself provided showing as much.
You really need to read what I share as you continually sound like a moron.
Your opinion. How was it slanted? Provide evidence and sources bud.
Once again, look at this article with direct evidence in the form of a detailed genetic timeline of Native Americans provided by your hero Eske Willerslev. It is from January 3rd, 2018 and is based on much newer evidence than your actually slanted German article.
"The genetic analysis points towards a divergence of all ancient Native Americans from a single east Asian source population somewhere between 36,000 to 25,000 years ago—well before humans crossed into Beringia, an area that includes the land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska at the end of the last ice age. That means that somewhere along the way, either in eastern Asia or in Beringia itself, a group of people became isolated from other east Asians for about 10,000 years, long enough to become a unique strain of humanity."
That means that somewhere along the way, either in eastern Asia or in Beringia itself, a group of people became isolated from other east Asians for about 10,000 years, long enough to become a unique strain of humanity
Yes, because Europeans traveled to Siberia and mixed with asians and became "a unique strain of humanity"
Does not contradict anything and he's your hero. I never knew his name prior to your bringing him up. lol
"Yes, because Europeans traveled to Siberia and mixed with asians and became "a unique strain of humanity"
You are putting words into his mouth he never said. First, that group of people belong to "the OTHER East Asians" hence the use of other. Nowhere does it say they mixed with Europeans. Once again, Willerslev's own chart detailing the genealogy of Native Americans (which you continue to ignore as you cannot explain it away) proves no European ancestry outside of Siberia which were the Asians of Altai.
You have such an extreme case of denial you continue to ignore direct evidence from Willerslev himself that contradicts the one quote from a slanted German article from the guy you herald as the top authority. How sad that you cling to such false hopes when repeatedly proven wrong.
And I've shown you repeatedly new evidence from Willerslev that disproves his one comment about German ancestry of Native Americans. He also only said it was likely, not definite which he ended up proving it was not likely at all. Can you disprove or explain away the new evidence from Willerslev himself or are you in the habit of ignoring new evidence even if it's from the same source that disproves their earlier statements?
Lol insults from someone who thinks he's smart when he continually proves he is not. LMAO!!! Here are direct quotes from him once again disproving your "theory."
The team of academics not only discovered that the Spirit Cave remains -- the world's oldest natural mummy -- was a Native American but they were able to dismiss a longstanding theory that a group called Paleoamericans existed in North America before Native Americans.
"The ground-breaking research also discovered clues of a puzzling Australasian genetic signal in the 10,400 year old Lagoa Santa remains from Brazil revealing a previously unknown group of early South Americans -- but the Australasian link left no genetic trace in North America. It was described by one of the scientists as 'extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary chapter in human history'.
Professor Eske Willeslev, who holds positions both at St John's College, University of Cambridge, and the University of Copenhagen, and led the study, said: "Spirit Cave and Lagoa Santa were very controversial because they were identified as so-called 'Paleoamericans' based on craniometry -- it was determined that the shape of their skulls was different to current day Native Americans. Our study proves that Spirit Cave and Lagoa Santa were actually genetically closer to contemporary Native Americans than to any other ancient or contemporary group sequenced to date."
The Lagoa Santa remains were retrieved by Danish explorer Peter W. Lund in the 19th century and his work led to this 'Paleoamerican hypothesis' based on cranial morphology that theorised the famous group of skeletons could not be Native Americans. But this new study disproves that theory and the findings were published by Professor Willeslev with representatives from the Brazilian National Museum in Rio on Tuesday, November 6 2018.
He added: "Looking at the bumps and shapes of a head does not help you understand the true genetic ancestry of a population -- we have proved that you can have people who look very different but are closely related."
"Willerslev and his colleagues then pieced together how the peopling of the Americans might have occurred. They estimated that the founding population of Native Americans — including both Northern and Southern Native Americans and Beringians — diverged from ancestral Asians about 36,000 years ago, though with a high level of gene flow until about 25,000 years ago. Ancient Beringians then diverged from the common ancestor of other Native Americans about 20,900 years ago. This, they noted, is in agreement with the Beringian standstill model, which says that the people moving from Asia to the Americas were isolated in Beringia for a period of time before moving southward.
But where that split occurred remains unclear. One possibility is that Ancient Beringians and other Native American split while in northeast Asia, while another is that they split in northwest North America, the researchers said. Willerslev and his colleagues noted that the first scenario is more consistent with archaeological evidence, while the second is in line with genetic evidence."
Lol, you still have yet to even provide any relevant evidence to this theory. I have provided plenty of experts/new evidence proving you wrong yet you cling to a single source from 2013. Even though Willerslev himself proved you wrong. You are pathetic. Go back to school and learn how to debate as "Lalalalala not listening" and deny, deny, deny are not acceptable rebuttals.
I have already provided it in the form of direct quotes from two articles.
You have supplied articles that do not in any way directly refute that, including some garbage opinions based on nothing from an assistant professor from Kansas.
Nope, you provided one 2013 article from Der Spiegel and another 2013 from ScienceNordic. Old articles/quote bud. Where is your newer relevant info? I provided plenty of new evidence/experts backing up my claim as I researched it. You have done nothing of the sort and you can't because you have none. Sad. You should be embarrassed.
And as a final kick to your racist nutsack, here is Willerslev's definitive statement from 2014 (which is newer than your 2013 quote in case you couldn't figure that out).
"This new research "has settled the long-standing debate about the origins of the Clovis," Willerslev said. "We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
So this is what denial looks like. A direct freaking quote from Willerslev himself completely obliterating any European roots to Native Americans and you still claim it doesn't say that. Wow! That is absolutely stunning! It's also amazing you completely ignored the co-authors remarks:
"The findings do not support a Western European origin of the First Americans."
"Instead, Willerslev has said that Europeans and Asians mixed in Siberia, then crossed."
Willerslev is absolutely not saying this. His exact words contradict your statement completely:
"We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
The Clovis people do not have any European DNA as they did not originate from Europe. Your comprehension skills suck horribly little racist.
Idiot. NOT what the Solutrean theory is referring to:
"The Solutrean hypothesis is a minority opinion concerning the human settlement of North America. It holds, essentially, during the last ice age, anatomically modern humans from Europe crossed via an ice bridge or over open water to North America. They brought the Solutrean high hunting culture, with its characteristic and advanced stone tool set to North America, where it became known as the Clovis culture.
Further evidence for this is supposed to come from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA); one group, Haplogroup X, is found in large numbers in widely scattered populations, but its incidence is highest among Native Americans speaking Algonquian languages in northeastern North America; and also in Old World populations from the Middle East, where it is particularly common among the Druze community."
AND THIS NUGGET:
"In 2014, DNA from a 12,500 year old infant of the Clovis culture was sequenced; the skeleton was found in association with Clovis artifacts. The DNA showed strong affinities to Paleolithic populations known from Siberia, in an area west of Lake Baikal, known as the Mal'ta-Buret' culture. The Clovis DNA also had strong affinities with contemporary Native Americans. No significant European ties were found, which makes the Solutrean hypothesis increasingly unlikely.[7]"
"In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a male infant (Anzick-1) from a 12,500-year-old deposit in Montana was sequenced.[8] The skeleton was found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources. The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations, which indicated that the samples derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population.[9]"
The Solutrean hypothesis tries to link European and Native American DNA. THIS study proved it dead wrong as there is no European DNA associated with Native Americans.
You keep talking about IQs yet continually prove you have none.
The Solutrean hypothesis on the peopling of the Americas claims that the earliest human migration to the Americas took place from Europe, during the Last Glacial Maximum.[1][2][3] This hypothesis contrasts with the mainstream view that the North American continent was first reached after the Last Glacial Maximum, by people from North Asia, either by the Bering land bridge (i.e. Beringia),[4] or by maritime travel along the Pacific coast, or by both.
"False, it is distinct from the linking of European and Asian DNA in Mal'ta."
So you either completely ignored or could not comprehend this:
"The GENETIC piece of one recent argument for a trans-Atlantic migration—known as the Solutrean hypothesis—contended that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations provided evidence for ancient gene flow from Europe or the Middle East into North America. The hypothesis suggested that the North American Clovis culture dated roughly 13,000 years ago was directly descended from the Solutrean culture of southwestern Europe dated roughly 23,000 years before present.
However, Raff and Bolnick said in analyzing all recent genetic studies of the earliest Native Americans they didn't find anything consistent with a possible early trans-Atlantic migration. For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome."
There is a GENETIC part of the Solutrean hypothesis and it was thoroughly debunked by Kennewick Man and Montana boy.
In any case, if you believe there is no GENETIC component to the Solutrean hypothesis, what is your argument? Are you not attempting to say that Native Americans have White DNA therefore Whites discovered America LMAO? You don't even know what your own damn argument is anymore fool!
Your argument: "Oh wow, a published researcher in the same field who is extremely qualified? Lol, let's not take her or her work seriously even though I have nothing to debunk her work with as it doesn't fit with my little racist fantasies."
Either prove she is not qualified or accept that she is. You saying she is not qualified doesn't make it so. Those institutions who publish her work as well as the journals/sites that interview her for articles deem Raff qualified. Excuse me for taking their word over yours.
"Show me where Willerslev said it."
Are you kidding me right now?!?! The wheels must turn very slowly in your head.
"This new research "has settled the long-standing debate about the origins of the Clovis," Willerslev said. "We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
The Solutrean hypothesis posits that a population derived from the Solutrean culture of Western Europe may have crossed the North Atlantic Ocean along the edge of pack ice that extended from the Atlantic coast of France to North America during the Last Glacial Maximum, before 17 kya.
"She's not extremely qualified. Shes' an assistant professor in Kansas."
What makes her unqualified? She has the education, the published work, the field experience, and she is quoted as an expert in numerous articles. Here is her curriculum vitae:
"Jennifer Raff is an Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Kansas, and director and Principal Investigator of the KU Laboratory of Human Population Genomics. She has a dual Ph.D. in Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Anthropology from Indiana University, and has completed postdoctoral work at the University of Utah, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and the University of Texas.
Jennifer’s research focuses on the molecular genetics of evolution through the analysis of genomes from ancient and contemporary human populations, with a special emphasis on the initial colonization and subsequent population history of the American continents. In addition to her academic work, she is extensively involved in science literacy outreach efforts through social media, public talks, and writing for her blog, the Huffington Post, and the Social Evolution Forum."
So again, what makes her unqualified other than you don't like her work? She is much more than just an assistant professor (as if being an assistant professor makes her inferior). She has also taught numerous classes herself. You have no basis to call her unqualified. Her opinion/research carries weight whereas yours does not.
"We've already discussed why that doesn't mean what you think it does, nigger."
It means exactly what I said and I've shown that the Solutrean hypothesis relies on the Halpogroup X DNA which was a disproven connection. You really need to do better research little racist.
You saying it isn't proves nothing. Again, your uneducated opinion. I have proved the consensus is on my side over and over again with SOURCES. Where is your SOURCE saying the consensus is on the Solutrean side little racist?
And those were from 2013. Please provide direct evidence afterwards. I provided quotes/papers/articles from 2014 to 2018 from Willerslev and others refuting your ONE mistaken quote.
"You're misusing that word Solutrean again,"
If you are not arguing for the Solutrean hypothesis, what is your argument? Are you saying the Solutrean hypothesis is not correct?
It's absolutely pathetic how you see anyone who disagrees with you as a "nigger" even though I have repeatedly told you I am White. You are proving you are mentally retarded as you cannot comprehend basic English.
Well, that is what one expects a delusional person to say so congrats, you have proven that diagnosis completely true! You have no evidence, no articles, and no experts backing you up. Your one claim with Willerslev hilariously blew up in your face due to direct quotes and evidence from him that, had you done a tiny bit of research, could have been avoided. Instead, you end up looking like a buffoon in denial.
"and the quotes from Willerslev don't support you."
Your (completely wrong) opinion but definitely not the opinion of Willerslev or his co-authors of his studies which I have supplied plenty of direct quotes/evidence/articles for that you continually ignore or deny.
Yet you cannot refute the evidence presented nor present anything valuable of your own. The Solutrean hypothesis is the "crack-pot" theory with nearly the entire scientific community laughing at it. There is no evidence to support the Solutrean theory at all.
"One idea, called the Solutrean hypothesis, suggests that the first Native Americans originated from Europe at an earlier stage, specifically from what is now France and Spain.
However, the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Potter says this is unlikely:
"It’s been tested and refuted on a number of grounds, not the least of which is the wide variety of technological disconnects that we see. But probably the most damming critique has been on the genetics side where we really don’t find any connection from European Paleolithic foragers and Native American."
Another study author at the press briefing, Ripan Malhi of the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, says the Solutrean hypothesis has been mostly debunked. He says genetic evidence rules it out:
"[W]hen the Anzick child was analyzed genomically, the closest relationship was to present day Native Americans and not to Europeans. And so I think that pretty much closed the door on the Solutrean hypothesis."
Yes, but: At least one expert, who was not part of this study, took issue with the paper's genetic findings. University of Cambridge's Eske Willerslev — who's renowned in the field for his work on ancient DNA and whose research includes a 2014 study on the Anzick child — tells Axios:
Hmmm....why didn't you post his quote? Could it be you knew it didn't support your version of reality? Let's take a look at what Willerslev was actually dissenting, shall we?
"The authors claim that divergence dates between Siberian’s and Native Americans and the deep split within native Americans are uncertain but in fact the ancient genomic literature show highly consistent results on these matters using different methods: with divergence between Siberian’s and native American ancestors around 23,000 and deep split into the north and southern branches of native Americans around 15,000."
"They also claim equal probability of first Americans entering the lower 48 states through the interior ice free corridor and the costal route ignoring recent literature showing the ice free corridor not being biological viable [until] after Clovis times."
He is arguing the dates saying the genealogical timeline has been proven and is not uncertain as the study said as well as refuting the idea of the ice free corridor. This dissent has nothing to do with DNA findings. Try to at least be honest with your attempted refutations little racist.
Seriously?!?! That's your response?!? You provided a quote that did nothing for your argument. I didn't provide the quote because it was irrelevant which you would have realized if you had a double digit IQ but sadly you lack that as well as the ability to research/read/comprehend.
Yet nothing you can provide that shows she is unqualified except for your own misguided pathetic opinion. You should really learn how to debate. Opinions don't count as rebuttal/evidence little racist.
I shared her extensive background multiple times. NOT my fault you can't read or comprehend it. As for Willerslev, I already provided his quotes/research debunking your racist fantasies. No need to repeat myself again and again to your illiterate uneducated ass LMAO!!!
"Willerslev has never reversed himself on this, dream on."
You keep saying this yet his quotes and research afterwards prove otherwise whether you want to admit it or not. Keep your head in the sand little racist.
"didn't work because she's a nobody with no original research."
"All PHDs have published papers, means nothing."
Hypocrite. Which is it? She is either a "nobody with no original research" or "her original research means nothing because all PhDs publish papers." You cannot be this stupid (actually, you have proven over and over again you are). LMAO!
"That could never disprove European ancestry as present day Native Americans are 1/3 European. lo"
Where is your source? I have provided many saying otherwise. SOURCE YOUR STATEMENTS little racist.
Back to your trusty "Nuh uh!" argument again, I see. It actually contradicts everything so I guess you once again failed to read/comprehend the articles/experts. Don't buy it and want more proof? Here you go!
"Geneticists, too, have tested the Solutrean hypothesis. If it were true, we would expect to see ancestry from non-Siberian descended populations present in the genomes of ancient Native Americans. We don’t. All contemporary and ancient Native Americans, including the only known ancient individual buried in association with Clovis tools, show descent from an ancestral population with Siberian roots. There is a very clear pattern of evolutionary history recorded in ancient genomes from Siberia, Beringia, and North America, and no evidence for trans-Atlantic gene flow."
"First of all, Standford, Bradley, and Oppenheimer simply assume that Solutreans would have had X because it’s seen in contemporary European populations. But in fact, the contemporary European gene pool was formed only within the last 8,000 years, and it’s unknown whether earlier peoples would have had haplogroup X in the same frequencies (or at all). No genomes from Solutren peoples have ever been sequenced, and you should always be cautious when a case is made for extending present day patterns of genetic variation into the past without direct confirmation from ancient DNA.
"Today, lineages of haplogroup X are found widely dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, North Africa, and North America. We can reconstruct their evolutionary relationships – much like you can reconstruct a family tree – by looking at patterns of shared and derived mutations. Lineages found in the Americas, X2a and X2g, are not descendedfrom the lineages (X2b, X2d, and X2c) found in Europe. Instead, they share a very ancient common ancestor from Eurasia, X2. (Here is a detailed discussion of the evolution of these haplogroups for anyone interested).
X2a is of a comparable age to other indigenous American haplogroups (A,B,C,D), which would not be true if it was derived from a separate migration from Europe. Finally, the oldest lineage of X2a found in the Americas was recovered from the Ancient One (also known as Kennewick Man), an ancient individual dating to ~9,000 years ago and from the West Coast (not the East Coast as would be predicted from the Solutrean hypothesis). His entire genome has been sequenced and shows that he has no ancestry from European sources. There is no conceivable scenario under which Kennewick Man could have inherited just his mitochondrial genome from Solutreans but the rest of his genome from Beringians. Thus, without additional evidence, there is nothing to justify the assumption that X2a must have evolved in Europe."
And this paper, while you will likely ignore due to It's length, demolishes the Solutrean THEORY.
"Recent whole-genome and ancient DNA studies have affirmed the reality of a West Eurasian-Amerindian connection (to the exclusion of East Eurasians) but Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014), who are clearly enamored with mtDNA hg X2, are strangely taciturn about them. Their treatment of “autosomal evidence for pre-Columbian West Eurasian admixture” is just 1.5 pages long! This reticence to delve deep into what has emerged as the strongest genetic evidence for non-East Eurasian affinities of New World populations can be explained by the mere novelty of the whole-genome data and the complex statistics behind it. But most likely Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014) glanced over the growing body of studies simply because they know that they disprove the sexiest parts of the Solutrean hypothesis, namely the trans-Atlantic crossing and the unique link between southwest Europe and North America."
Childish insults again. Whenever you are shown to be the ignorant fool you truly are, you revert back to childish character attacks. Guess if you can't beat the evidence, sling mud, huh? Pathetic. You are wasting both of our time.
You consistently beat yourself by providing evidence that counters your own White Superiority theories. It's absolutely hilarious! You set me up and I keep knocking them outta the park! Thanks bud!
BTW, calling me a nigger repeatedly does not hurt me in any way. I'm White. However, it does lower you down to the level of a child throwing a temper tantrum because he is repeatedly shown to be wrong. Sad little man.
Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the apesuperfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)
See above for your direct quote.
I've already told you that I don't give a fuck what you "believe in", moron.
Seriously? What point are you trying to make? That is from two sources. You said Graecopithecus freybergi was human and I proved you wrong. It is more closely related to apes. While evolution theory places humans in the same category, I do not subscribe to that theory. You are the one saying that we didn't come from Africa and that this fossil of an ape proves that. It's classification is highly disagreed upon in the scientific community. If anyone is conflating humans and apes, it's you bud.
The real test is always: "which culture survives and thrives?"
That battle has been playing out for hundred of thousands of years in human society.
Look at Japan. They had a native culture that lived on the island before the modern Japanese arrived. Where did they go? They were slaughtered and the Japanese took the land for themselves. Obviously the Japanese were the dominant and superior culture. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to take over the island.
Just because Whites have an advantage in technology does not make us a "superior" race. In fact, history proves we are by far the most violent. Get off your high horse and brush up on your history skills bud.
So you are proud of murder/pillage/rape when it's your ancestors but decry those same things when others of a different race do it? Way to out yourself as a raging hypocrite bud.
My ancestors did it when they first came to this country. They established a beachhead and then created a white nation. Once the natives were all gone, the whites were civilized towards each other. Sure, there were occasional murders. But, for the most part, crime was very low. As more niggers and spics started to infiltrate white culture the crime rate went up. The only way to fix it is to remove the non-whites. White people like peaceful, organized, and harmonious societies. Mixing other races in with them only creates problems.
So whites are not going into other peaceful countries and destabilizing, murdering, pillaging, raping, etc. at this very moment? Is it not our race that is sending our troops to carry out these very acts in the name of "liberation,' "democracy," and "freedom?" Doesn't seem peaceful, organized, and harmonious to me. If you see it that way, you are confirming you are delusional.
Those "whites" you're referring to are being ordered around the globe by Jews. American history from 1776-1860 was pretty much us staying here in our own country and worrying about our own problems. Then, the Jews came along and took over central banking. Ever since then, we've been fighting on behalf of the bankers and corporations (run by Jews).
And your point? Is it "Our White race is so superior we can't see the trickery used by Jews to control us to fight their wars and to keep us slaves to their money?" Doesn't make us sound superior. Also, last time I checked, most Jews are White so I guess their atrocious acts get to be counted along with ours.
And please note, not all Jews are controlling and manipulative sadists. These are the Khazarian Jews who are really not considered real Jews but Sadists disguised as Jews who run the NWO.
Then why do they refer to themselves as "Semites"? Isn't there a genetic purity standard to get into Israel? Does Israel see itself as a "white" nation?
Does it matter? Genetically, they are White. If you can't see that, time to see the optometrist as your eyes must be failing. Jews are not a separate race genius.
"From the earliest days of the American republic, Jews were technically considered white, at least in a legal sense. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, they were considered among the “free white persons” who could become citizens. Later laws limited the number of immigrants from certain countries, restrictions which were in part targeted at Jews. But unlike Asian and African immigrants in the late 19th century, Jews retained a claim to being “Caucasian,” meaning they could win full citizenship status based on their putative race."
"The vast majority of American Jews—94 percent, according to Pew—describe themselves as white in surveys."
They were not deported after slavery ended because of the Jews. They all know that's what needs to happen to them and that they can't build the civilization that is here in the west on their own so the put on a show and band together for protection to try to stay. Even their basic economic sense is that money is a finite resource that everyone must fight over, and working harder doesn't create more money. They fail to understand profit from labor and are abused by the Jews continually for this.
many did leave they were given the option, thats the funny thing. its white peoples fault that the freed slaves descided to stay in the USA, figure that one out
"Give them"? How long have we been giving them stuff? Since we met them? If they want that stuff they have to go out and get it for themselves. Why is it always the white man's job to give them stuff? When do they take responsibility for their own society?
Giving an opportunity is not equal to giving 'Stuff.'
And they cannot thrive in a society which suffocates them with prohibitive business laws. They don't have the equivalent of trillions in OLD MONEY with which to erect institutions which dominate their outcome potential. Their conservative black leaders have been systematically assassinated and only now, ONLY NOW, has the camera crew shown them any honest coverage.
It will take time to heal the core issues that have ended us up here.
Hatred is timeless and I'm sure you'll be cheerleading for it until your very last breath, but you can't hold a candle to the reality I bring to this discussion. Your attempts at doing so expose your lack of intelligence and leadership.
I have always wanted to do a social experiment. But, many would claim it's "racist" or unethical. Pick two leaders: a black and a white one. Let them pick a team of 200 people of their own race and their own choosing. Give them equal plots of land with equal resources. Then, leave them alone for 100 years. Let them manage and run their settlements however they want with no outside help or assistance. In 100 years review each settlement to determine who has achieved the most progress.
My money is on the white settlement. White people are smarter, more ambitious, more organized, more logical, and more creative. The black settlement would run fine for the first 5 or 10 years. But, eventually, they would start to fall apart. The leadership would fail. The people would become lazy and violent. And, nobody would want to work. Eventually it would devolve into chaos, anarchy, and turn into a failed state. You can see an example of this in history by checking out the history of Liberia. Niggers are not smart enough to build and maintain a complex society for any length of time.
I will refer you to a post that I just finished typing elsewhere in this thread,, and understand that you aren't wrong.
European race pool has had enormous environmental advantages. This may be counter-intuitive, but here's why:
When human beings are exposed to sub-homeostatic temperatures, the body (through hormones and glandular secretions) experiences a thermogenic response. I won't list the laundry unless you show genuine interest in knowledge. In any case, this particular hormonal response causes a chain reaction which converts adipose tissue into free-fatty acids, and subsequent ketone bodies. Ketones cross the blood-brain barrier and possess neuro-protective properties. Further down the chain of chemical conversions, specific ketone bodies interact with gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors within the brain, dominant within the frontal cortex which is the center of personality and temperament.
If you have any experience with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) you will know that it enhances self-control and greatly reduces synaptic misfirings responsible for personality disorders, thus increases emotional awareness and expands intellectual capacity.
Whites have won the intellectual lottery by the reality that they existed in a persistent state of GABA production and re-uptake. White greatness was forged by ICE and TUNDRA. The stress of survival, along with endogenous nootropic conditions, caused Whites to unify and organize themselves earlier than of people in more temperate climates.
On the inverse pacific islanders, Africans, and south Asians were not in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits of exhaustion. They became athletic, but not nearly as intelligent or cohesive.
Sorry, not going to circle jerk with ignorant people who don't interpret facts as being useful. Not enough ethnic slurs and calls for murder/deportation in my input. I'm just not with you if you're dependent on that outcome.
I noticed you didn't address the "mud huts" comment. Germans used to be barbarians living in the wilderness. They went on to build vast cities and create things like machines, architecture, art, music, and much more. What have the Africans done in the last 1000 years? Wait for handouts from the white man? How come niggers never built their own Wakandan Utopia? Where is their art, music, literature, technology, architecture or future? Why are niggers always living day-to-day? They don't seem to understand the concept of "cause and effect". They just wait for whitey to come along and fix things and give them handouts.
Okay. More ignorance to slay. This is turning out to be a very productive day.
Mud huts VS the advanced psyche Europeans. This makes my day.
Little do you know, that's a guarantee, that the European race pool has had enormous environmental advantages. This may be counter-intuitive, but here's why:
When human beings are exposed to sub-homeostatic temperatures, the body (through hormones and glandular secretions) experiences a thermogenic response. I won't list the laundry unless you show genuine interest in knowledge. In any case, this particular hormonal response causes a chain reaction which converts adipose tissue into free-fatty acids, and subsequent ketone bodies. Ketones cross the blood-brain barrier and possess neuro-protective properties. Further down the chain of chemical conversions, specific ketone bodies interact with gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors within the brain, dominant within the frontal cortex which is the center of personality and temperament.
If you have any experience with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) you will know that it enhances self-control and greatly reduces synaptic misfirings responsible for personality disorders, thus increases emotional awareness and expands intellectual capacity.
Whites have won the intellectual lottery by the reality that they existed in a persistent state of GABA production and re-uptake. White greatness was forged by ICE and TUNDRA. The stress of survival, along with endogenous nootropic conditions, caused Whites to unify and organize themselves earlier of people in more temperate climates.
On the inverse pacific islanders, Africans, and south Asians were not in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits of exhaustion.
They became athletic, but not nearly as intelligent or cohesive.
There's your answer. If you have knowledge on your side, you don't need hate.
Thanks for giving the medical explanation as to why the white race is superior to every other race and niggers are inferior to every other race. At least your admitting it. Faggot.
I'm the one you're responding to and I completely agree. I never have and never will argue against this.
My work is to bring awareness so that there's no 'Chosen People' complex.
Whites are the most intelligent, efficient and cohesive people. This is a genetic advantage. Period.
White brains and bodies are primed for higher philosophical thought and rationalization. Period.
You'll hear no argument from me on that. I think you can understand why someone with decades of research on exactly this subject would want to help others raise the bar, put this debate to bed without resorting to 'Nigger this, nigger that.' The truth sells itself. I want people to know EXACTLY why white people are exceptional, so that hate groups can't co-opt and exploit the weak minded individuals in the pack.
I've risked my health for my research. That's my gift to others. Information is currency.
They are biologically different. I'm one of the few people toting that science on this board. So here it is again...
Highest testosterone level of all races = Increased aggression and reduced impulse control
(This is verifiable) (Steroids exist)
On average, a smaller frontal neo-cortex = Behavioral filtering takes place primarily in this region of the brain
You're preaching to the choir if you talk to me about science. I could continue with anthropological insights but in the interest of time, and the awareness that some racists ONLY want to hate, I'll spare myself.
I do not hate black people nor do I want them disappeared. I want their shortcomings to be acknowledged and their strengths to be expressed through meaningful outlets.
And as much as it grinds some peoples' gears, interracial blacks, as long as the family unit is preserved, tend to breed out their setbacks.
These issues can be resolved through comprehensive legislation and spiritual healing. I see no justice in anything less.
Stuck on repeat apparently or unable to generate an original thought...either way, still displaying your own 3rd world intellect you love to criticize others for.
Again, not a Jew but nice try bud. I see you are very triggered right now. I never said I knew where you are, I said you are displaying the same 3rd World intellect you criticize and that you should go and join them. If you are already living in a 3rd World country, I apologize as you are exactly where you belong then.
Absolutely not. I'm pointing out the stupidity of your statement and your apparent lack of intelligence. If you believe 3rd World civilians lack intellect, you have proven you will fit right in.
I can see this concept is very hard for you to comprehend which is why you need constant clarification and continue to resort to name calling out of frustration. Take the time to slow down, read carefully, and think before responding again.
Oh wow, one controversial book that actually states "which the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by BOTH inherited and ENVIRONMENTAL factors."
Kinda deflates the sails right out of your argument right there based on that one sentence if that's the best you got.
MOSTLY heritable. There is the separated twin evaluation. Environment has limited influence. IQ is highly heritable from parents to children. The genes have even been identified
Where are these studies you speak of? In your one controversial book? I can show you just as many sources that show environment and access to education are a bigger role in IQ than DNA.
I never disputed that genes can influence intelligence. However, access to education and environmental factors "PROFOUNDLY" shape intelligence. You are attempting to argue a person's DNA/skin color are the main factors. They are not.
"(Environmental factors such as education and stress also PROFOUNDLY shape intelligence and mental health.)"
There are genes that influence intelligence. However, we are not limited to our genes. Two really dumb people can have a smart child. Just as two small people can have a really tall child. Environmental factors and access to a quality education are HUGE factors that help determine intelligence. Thus, as much as you would like to believe it's all in the genes/DNA (or color of a person's skin), it is not.
Pretty sure that is exactly what you meant when you said this:
"The data show that genetic Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics score lowest on IQ tests, wherever in the world they happened to grow up"
"However, there are genetic IQ differences among racial groups"
There are also educational and environmental factors effecting intelligence. A race (especially the Black race) is not limited by their DNA/genes. They are limited by their ability to access a quality education as well as other environmental factors holding them back.
It would be reasonable to expect racial groups to perform differently in academics, employment, business, and criminal activity based on IQ differences.
Your problem is you limit it to only DNA being the cause for this without adding much needed context such as environment, educational access, social support, having one or both parents, role models, poverty, etc. You try to limit it to the color of a person's skin but it goes far beyond that. You and I will never experience the same factors holding back the African race. The difference is I can understand and empathisize with their plight and you are unwilling to.
No, I don't limit it to DNA only. Go back and look again. And I've lived among blacks. The differences are apparent in real life interactons. There are IQ differences among racial groups, and you can't wish that away, lib.
Now you are just being dishonest...at least be consistent with your racism.
Your own words:
"They are biologically different. Blacks around the world score lowest of any racial group in IQ tests."
"3rd world people belong in 3rd world nations."
"The data show that genetic Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics score lowest on IQ tests, wherever in the world they happened to grow up"
You are making the case that they have low IQs because of the color of their skin, regardless of environmental factors or educational access.
"And I've lived among blacks."
I love HOW you keep using this as if your own experience with a small sample somehow gives you the right to paint an entire race with one brushstrokes. As I told you before, I currently live with Black people, in fact half of my family is made up of smart, intelligent black people. I have also worked with numerous Black people as well as went to school with them. My experience counters yours yet I am not painting the entire Black race in a positive light. There are bad apples in every race.
"There are IQ differences among racial groups, and you can't wish that away, lib."
Ah, the name calling. Always comes when a person has no leg left to stand on. First off, not a lib. Second, in your world view, all whites should be geniuses and there shouldn't be a single intelligent person from a different race. Fortunately, history as well as the statistics you love so much, proves you wrong time and time again.
Name calling and putting words in my mouth?!?! Someone sure is triggered. Not disputing genes play a role. However, it is not about race. Environmental factors and access to quality education are PROFOUND (the words of your article, not mine) and more important to determining IQ than the color of a person's skin.
At the very least you are not denouncing/shifting your own racist stance anymore. Guess that's progress...
You can keep calling me lib but know it doesn't bother me. I am neither liberal nor conservative. Label yourself a race realist to make yourself feel better but in reality you are a racist who ignores critical evidence/data/factors in order to fit your own racist interpretations into your narrow-minded views.
Nope, never have. What you keep leaving out is that the biggest, most PROFOUND (again from your article) reasons for the divide are educational access and environmental factors. Genes may play a role, but they are not nearly as significant as you want to believe.
Are you saying educational access and environmental factors have no bearing on the divide in IQ scores in regards to race?
No, I believe environmental factors and educational access influence IQ in all races, not just the ones different from me. I also know that these same factors tend to skew IQ scores of races other than White lower as they do not have the same access to healthy environment and high education we have. I do not believe their skin color makes them less smart than us, which is what you believe. You hold that up on a pedestal. Do you believe a person's skin color makes them less smart?
Skin color is part of race, but so is intelligence. And no, I don't believe there are brain cells in the skin. Stop making that childlike claim. You are a race realist.
Then what is your argument? Of course genetics plays a part in every human regardless of race. The biggest factors influencing intelligence are environmental, educational, and economical. If you agree with that then the color of a person's skin does not matter in regards to IQ and this whole conversation was pointless.
And no, I am not a race realist, just a realist. Learn the difference.
You are attempting to define a race based on the DNA/genes and saying it gives them low IQ scores. You made it about the color of a person's skin, not me. Do you understand?
Do you understand that you make race the defining factor when determining intelligence when there are much more PROFOUND (again your article) reasons effecting IQ relating to the environment, access to high quality education, and economic status? Do you understand that race is a small part of the equation? Do you understand that given the same access to a high quality education, better housing/economic status, and a healthier environment, a Black person is just as likely to succeed and be as smart as a White person?
We both know you don't, and probably never will, understand because you lack the ability to look at all factors and see things from the other person's perspective. You lack empathy.
Yes, and they are profoundly influenced by educational, environmental, and economic factors...not the color of a person's skin.
Are you stating that given the same high quality access to all 3 of those factors, a Black person will not do as good as a White person?
You do realize that there are Whites with very low IQs, right? Does that mean we are all dumb? Did they lose out on our amazing White DNA even though they are also White? Or maybe they were born into poverty. Or maybe they come from a broken home. Or maybe they live in a constant state of fear due to the environment they live in. Or maybe they go to a bad school. Or maybe they can't go to school because they have to get a job to take care of a sick relative or raise a sibling.
You are showing true ignorance on this subject bud.
The bell curves of IQ groupings are overlapping. There is a range of IQ for each group, but the white group range has overall higher IQs than the black group range.
You keep saying this while ignoring the 3 biggest factors determining IQ. Are you really saying that the majority of Blacks have the same access to high quality education, environment, and economic status that the majority of Whites enjoy? If so, you are at worst definitely delusional and at best extremely ignorant. Which one are you?
Nope, I said that genes (not race) is a factor but not the biggest. I see you avoided my example or have no answer for Whites with low IQs. Is genetics primarily the reason for their low IQ scores or is it due to poor education, environment, and economic status?
I said there are ranges in racial groups. The black group scores lower than any group, wherever in the world they are. There are both genetic and environmental reasons, but you overlook the genetic. Why?
Because when you look at the races, the access to high quality education, environment, and economic status is not the same in regards to what Whites are privileged with in general. You are trying to compare apples to apples when it's apples to tomatoes. You cannot compare them equally unless all aspects are accounted for. You focus only on race as the prominent determination in IQ score and that is oversimplifying and completely ignorant way to view things.
So you believe the majority of Blacks in America, Africa, and Europe are living above the poverty line and have the same access to high quality education most Whites have access to?
Muslims, Indians, and Hispanics also, for the most part, live below the poverty line. You can't be serious with this stuff...
Muslims / Arabs. Tell me, do you think the genetics for inferior or superior intelligence are equally distributed among all racial groups of the world?
I cannot believe that this is your evidence. Are you serious?!?! The guy literally says from the start that evidence isn't important and then goes on to overgeneralize and oversimplify everything. Why do you believe he is an authority on race and IQ anyways? All you did was present your White Supremacist spokesman whom you admire that you spew forth the same ill-conceived talking points from. Do you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your claims?
"So what is the evidence for racial differences in intelligence? Actually, that's the wrong question. The right question is why would anybody think Whites and Blacks, for example, have the same average level of intelligence?"
He straight up implies evidence is not important and that everybody should not worry about actual evidence as it is stupid to assume there is no difference in intelligence levels between the races.
You really can not be this brainwashed not to see this. Time to wake up to reality bud.
15618686? ago
ATTENTION ALL NEW VISITORS:
THE ABOVE ACCOUNT IS A VERIFIED "RACE BAITING" SHILL TRYING TO DECEIVE YOU INTO FALSELY BELIEVING THE Q MOVEMENT IS A RACE-BASED/ETHNICITY-BASED MOVEMENT AT ALL.
THE SHILLS ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS SPEAK IN TRIBAL WARFARE NARRATIVE AND RHETORIC, THIS TRIBE OF PEOPLE ARE ENEMIES WITH THAT TRIBE, BASED ON ETHNICITY OR RACE OR GENDER OR RELIGION OR AGE.
NEVER DO THE SHILLS USE EXCLUSIVELY THE REALITY OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE AND VALUES.
THEY WANT YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE DIVIDED INTO ALLEGEDLY ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY INCOMPATIBLE AND ANTAGONISTIC...APPEARANCES.
THEY ARE PSYCHOTIC.
WHY DO THEY SHILL LIKE THIS, WHICH THEIR EVIL RHETORIC IS GUARANTEED TO CAST GUILT AGAINST AN INNOCENT INDIVIDUAL BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE?
TO TURN YOU AWAY FROM THE ACCELERATING GREAT AWAKENING TAKING PLACE WORLDWIDE THAT THEY ARE DEATHLY AFRAID OF CONTINUING TO ACCELERATE.
WHY?
BECAUSE THESE SHILL'S PUPPET MASTERS ARE THE VERY ENEMY Q IS TAKING DOWN AND THE WORLD IS LEARNING ABOUT
ANY TIME YOU SEE ANY POSTER SUBMIT OR MAKE A COMMENT LIKE THIS ONE, WHICH MAKES SWEEPING JUDGMENTS OF AN ENTIRE ETHNICITY AS GUILTY, WHILE REFUSING TO FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON INDIVIDUAL CHOICES AND VALUES, ARE 100% GUARANTEED SHILLS WHO ARE TRYING TO DIVIDE THE MOVEMENT THAT SCARES THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS OUT OF THE COCKROACH SHILLS.
THE REAL Q:
HTTPS://QANON.PUB
"THEY WANT YOU DIVIDED BY RACE" - Q
"THEY WANT RACE WARS" - Q
"THEY WANT YOU DIVIDED BY RELIGION" - Q
"PATRIOTS HAVE NO SKIN COLOR" - Q
THESE RACE BAITING SHILLS DO NOT REPRESENT THE Q MOVEMENT, THEY ARE ENEMIES OF THE GREAT AWAKENING.
EVERYONE WHO LOVES AMERICA AND LOVES AMERICANS ARE WELCOME HERE, REGARDLESS OF APPEARANCE!
THE SHILLS ARE PANICKING.
HOW TO IDENTIFY THESE SICK FUCKING SHILL PIECES OF SHIT WITH /100% ACCURACY:
https://voat.co/v/QRV/2858861
.,.,.,.,...
15616628? ago
Has nothing to do with Q. Slide thread.
15614066? ago
Although the point is that this race has this issue it is also more stark when you look at the rate of crime of just young black men alone. This single group is way way over represented in that category committing most of the crime blacks do and only being 2-3% of the population. This basically justifies profiling as part of police being effective. You could say they are the ones least deserving of any chances. You may wish to say they deserve 0 or 1 at most.
15612511? ago
Most of us know this already. Why is this here? We are trying to unit you you fucking shitposting shill. Take this shit back to /b/ you circlejerking faggot.
15612715? ago
Boomers won't accept racial differences and they think Jews are "God's chosen people". They need to learn the truth and wake up.
15612558? ago
Boomers need to know. You don't have to look at it, triggered snowflake
15616623? ago
What on earth does it have to do with Q again? Stop shitting up the board with this baiting bullshit. Coontown has to be active somewhere, go dump this shit there.
15612053? ago
whats a weapon and gambling violation rate?
15612001? ago
This has nothing to do with the Q movement
15612033? ago
It's a redpill. There are racial differences. People need to know.
15612223? ago
All you are showing everyone here is how overtly racist and ignorant you truly are. There are bad apples in every race. We are not superior over any other race. Time to refill yourself bud.
15615657? ago
you should just kill yourself. every race is superior to the black race. you just want to virtue signal and ignore the fact that the blacks heve contributed nothing to this world except for suffering and violence. do you honestly believe that you could live in the South side of Chicago for a week? or any black neighborhood for that matter? you would be a victim. I honestly hope that you become a victim of a violent crime at the hands of a nigger. your views are a slap in the face to every white person who is forced to carry the financial burden of niggers in society. a slap in the face to every white person victimized by nigger crimes. a slap in the face to every white person who sees the damage niggers have caused to communities. a slap in the face to all the white people who have, over the years, watched safe neighborhoods become dangerous because niggers are near. fuck you. I hope all of your female relatives get violently raped by niggers. I hope they make you watch before raping your nigger loving ass too. fuck you.
15619337? ago
You are one seriously sick person. I hope you get the help you desperately need.
15619781? ago
Go fuck yourself nigger lover.
15620370? ago
I happen to love all races you sad little person.
15612793? ago
You have been conditioned by the media to be blind to the true nature of different races. Statistics do not lie. What you have come to believe as reality is actually a fantasized version of the black man. They are in all respects inferior to white man on average.
15613261? ago
You have been conditioned by racist thoughts/ideas probably passed onto you by racists within your family. I am surrounded by black people who are nothing but loving, intelligent people. You are scared of the pigment of a person's skin. Break your own conditioning and stop living in a world of fear and hatred. You will be a much happier person.
15613604? ago
The fact is that those black people, if you are even telling the truth, are not a true representation of the black community. Those are the outliers. Period. You cannot define a specific group our state a group tends to do something based on outliers. The reality is that most black people are extremely racist, homophobic, narcissistic, extremely violent, and borderline retarded. They have no care or concern for their community, or ours. Why do you think all ghettos are trashed? Why, if you took guns away from teenage and young twenty black man gun deaths and getting would drop to almost nothing? Educate yourself on the reality of the situation before you judge others.
On a personal note, I happen to grow up in an extremely left leaning household. However, I went to public school in an inner city and experienced all this racism and subhumanism first hand for many years. I went to school with the majority. You clearly did not.
15613973? ago
You are labeling an entire race on your experience with a public school?!?! You have a very pessimistic view of humanity and race in general if you believe you can define the majority of a race with all the derogatory phrases you use to describe them based on your experience in public school. Stats can be manipulated. There are many compounding factors other than the African American biology that defines their current difficulties in life that may lead to crime in some (NOT ALL or even MAJORITY) of them. You are in the minority in your views on race. Stop trying to pollute this sub with your fear, bigotry, racism, and hate.
15617202? ago
Since you probably won't do your due diligence and find sources on your own, here are two from the most impeccable sources, Harvard. On mixed race individuals, and the differences between white and black people. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/plight_of_mixed_race.pdf Here's a direct quote: 'We characterize typical black behaviors as those behaviors of which blacks do significantly more than whites... These are: getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'
On diversity, another Harvard study gives numerous examples of how detrimental it is to society https://macaulay.cuny.edu/eportfolios/benediktsson2013/files/2013/04/Putnam.pdf
Please read and let's discuss.
15619585? ago
Seriously? Harvard (Porcellian) and Yale (Skull and Bones) are hardly the bastion for truth. Also, according to the first paper, mixed children adhere more closely to their white counterparts than black.
Where is the data that backs up the statement below?
"These are: getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'"
These are things people of all races do not just blacks. You really are showing off your ignorance.
15619906? ago
That's exactly the point. They provide data that goes directly against their intended strategy of white genocide, so it should be listened to even more.
15620649? ago
"They provide data that goes directly against their intended strategy of white genocide, so it should be listened to even more."
All this proves is that they adhere more to their white background than black. Therefore, the activities they engage in would be linked to their white side, not their black side.
Please point of the data for blacks "getting into trouble with one’s teacher, trouble paying attention, trouble with homework, trouble getting along with other students, watching TV, fighting, committing violent acts, having sex, and contracting an STD.'
I find it difficult to believe they are keeping statistics based on race of kids getting into trouble with teachers, not paying attention, watching tv, having sex, etc. If they claim they do, there is no way it wouldn't be highly flawed.
15620768? ago
Holy shit, it's in the fucking study. Read the fucking study.
15621039? ago
I did, and they admit the data sample (from 94-95) is small and lacking and they had to supplement it with the 2000 US Census data. Looks like they created their own data to fit their narrative. Also, much of the data comes from at-home questionnaires done by parents. This is subjective data and not very reliable.
In other words, find better sources to justify your racist delusions bud.
15621617? ago
Better than Harvard...
15621697? ago
Huh? Your study is apparently from Harvard...
15616716? ago
Again, you completely fail to recognize that facts are on my side. I certainly understand that waking up to race is a difficult and uncomfortable task, but these are the realities. I'm guessing by your responses that you don't see how destructive diversity and race mixing are either. These two strategies are implemented to destroy western civilization and have been quite successful. Learn Your history and who is responsible for these atrocities. The push for diversity lead to the mass feminization of European men and the rape of their women and girls. You cannot change the character of certain groups of people. Muslims are pedophiles and hate gays. Africans are retarded savages. Chinese are uncompassionate breeders.Indians are immature street shitters. If you want sources for my claims I would be happy to provide only the most impeccable references for your edification.
15619456? ago
Please provide sources rather than broad generalizations and stereotypes. You try to paint an entire race with one stroke. Guess what? The same could be done for the White race as we have committed the most genocides and started the most wars out of any race. Whites could be considered and labelled mass murderers. Guess we should all be labeled as such due to the bad examples of some in our race, huh? Grow up.
15619874? ago
The largest mass genocide was done by the Jews in Bolshevik USSR which saw the deaths of 60 million Christians. The second was the cultural revolution on China with 40-50 million. Before that Muslims killed over 150 million Africans in their slave trade that continues to this day. Before you slander the only race that ever sought fit to end slavery and created the world's most idyllic civilizations, it would be a good idea to learn your history.
15620577? ago
Guess Jews are not White now?
You are conveniently leaving out the genocide by Whites of the Native Americans.
"According to historian David Stannard, over the course of more than four centuries from the 1490s into the 1900s, Europeans and white Americans "engaged in an unbroken string of genocide campaigns against the native peoples of the Americas."[47] The indigenous peoples of the Americas experienced massacres, torture, terror, sexual abuse, systematic military occupations, removals of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories, forced removal of Native American children to military-like boarding schools, allotment, and a policy of termination.[48]"
"During the American Indian Wars, the United States Army carried out a number of massacres and forced relocations of Indigenous peoples, acts that some scholars say constitute genocide. The Sand Creek Massacre, which caused outrage in its own time, has been called genocide. General John Chivington led a 700-man force of Colorado Territory militia in a massacre of 70–163 peaceful Cheyenne and Arapaho, about two-thirds of whom were women, children, and infants. Chivington and his men took scalpsand other body parts as trophies, including human fetuses and male and female genitalia.[85]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Let's also coveniently neglect the Crusades, the World Wars, and all the wars Whites have started in the ME.
You can not honestly believe our race is clean in all this and non-violent. History proves you wrong.
15620859? ago
Who said we were clean? Just never said we were the worst or even remotely close. We also ended slavery, so... There's that.
World wars were instigated and started by the Jews do that Israel could be founded. Look up the balfour declaration between the Rothschilds and England.
15621492? ago
I understand what these "Jews" claim yet they are genetically white. You are trying to do the same thing they are by saying their crimes are not ours because they sometimes say they are not White.
"Gotta up those numbers to get to 60 million friend. Current genocide of word is much higher than that."
I never limited the atrocities caused by Whites to genocide. That is you.
"These were in response to the Muslims invading and genociding white Europeans for 400 years. They were more than justified."
We're they (or any mass killings) really justified? No, they were not.
"In other words, the spread of Islam was a very different affair from the crusades. The crusaders aimed to recapture a sacred place from a religion that they barely understood and that they viewed as fundamentally evil. Muslims built an empire.
That is what made the crusaders and their scorched-earth piety so shocking. Here were Christian armies who heedlessly slaughtered entire populations, not in spite of their religion but because of it. After the First Crusade ended, and once the Christians began trying to build settlements in the Middle East, their attitudes necessarily changed. But the crusade itself had introduced into the region a sort of total religious warfare that had not been seen since Old Testament days."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1146871/amp
Not saying Muslims didn't commit any atrocities (they did) but the Crusades were far darker and bloodier and was in regards to taking back Jerusalem.
As for the WW's, I know they were instigated by the "Jews" for Israel. Yet again, you give these Whites leeway. They are White and the men sent to war were White. The blood is on our hands.
"We also ended slavery, so... There's that."
And it took a bloody war to stop, divided half our country, and blacks were (and still are) treated unfairly to this day by the likes of you.
15612741? ago
Whites are obviously superior. That is why all the minorities want to come and live in America and Europe. We have built incredible civilizations from nothing. The niggers and spics want to be a part of that too even though they are inferior and incapable of building or running such a civilization on their own. They need whites. Without us, they fall apart and fight.
15613211? ago
Except Native Americans actually established a civilized society before whites arrived in America. Also, whites have destabilized/destroyed many countries such as Africa, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, Japan, etc. If anything, whites are a big reason why third world countries can not get ahead. Native Americans have never recovered from our invasion. You're delusional if you believe we are better.
15616575? ago
No, they didn't.
Europeans were the first people in the Americas.
Indians are not native to America.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9110838/Stone-age-Europeans-were-the-first-to-set-foot-on-North-America.html
15619399? ago
And once again you are wrong. This is just getting embarrassing for you.
"Up until the 1970s, these first Americans had a name: the Clovis peoples. They get their name from an ancient settlement discovered near Clovis, New Mexico, dated to over 11,000 years ago. And DNA suggests they are the direct ancestors of nearly 80 percent of all indigenous people in the Americas.
But there's more. Today, it's widely believed that before the Clovis people, there were others, and as Bawaya says, "they haven't really been identified." But there are remants of them in places as far-flung as the U.S. states of Texas and Virginia, and as far south as Peru and Chile. We call them, for lack of a better name, the Pre-Clovis people.
And to make things more complicated, recent discoveries are threatening to push back the arrival of humans in North America even further back in time. Perhaps as far back as 20,000 years or more. But the science on this is far from settled.
Back to the Europeans
So for now, the Clovis and the Pre-Clovis peoples, long disappeared but still existent in the genetic code of nearly all native Americans, deserve the credit for discovering America."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.voanews.com/amp/3541542.html
15619707? ago
Why would I be embarrassed by some shitty article with the "editor of a magazine" about his pet theories.
You're an idiot. lol
15620350? ago
"And to make things more complicated, recent discoveries are threatening to push back the arrival of humans in North America even further back in time. Perhaps as far back as 20,000 years or more. But the science on this is far from settled."
Hmmmm...science is far from settled...meaning debatable. The evidence we do have that is settled shows people 80% linked to Native Americans were the discoverers of America, not Europeans. Try again bud.
15623221? ago
Yes, the recent discoveries of stone age European implements pushes that timeline back.
The native American crap is out the window, it is unsettled by the new evidence.
I find it amusing that you expect me to forget your Clovis people bullshit as if nothing happened, as though your credibility remains intact. lol
"Try again" indeed, lying faggot.
15623724? ago
Continuing Controversy
Although evidence supporting the PCMM and the existence of pre-Clovis has grown since 1999, few coastal Pre-Clovis sites have been found to date. Coastal sites are likely inundated since the sea level has done nothing but rise since the Last Glacial Maximum. In addition, there are some scholars within the academic community who remain skeptical about pre-Clovis. In 2017, a special issue of the journal Quaternary International based on a 2016 symposium at the Society for American Archaeology meetings presented several arguments dismissing pre-Clovis theoretical underpinnings.
Not all the papers denied pre-Clovis sites, but several did.
Among the papers, some of the scholars asserted that Clovis was, in fact, the first colonizers of the Americas and that genomic studies of the Anzick burials(which share DNA with modern Native American groups) prove that. Others suggest that the Ice-Free Corridor would still have been usable if unpleasant entryway for the earliest colonists. Still others argue that the Beringian standstill hypothesis is incorrect and that there simply were no people in the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum.
Archaeologist Jesse Tune and colleagues have suggested that all of the so-called pre-Clovis sites are made up of geo-facts, micro-debitage too small to be confidently assigned to human manufacture.
It is undoubtedly true that pre-Clovis sitesare still relatively few in number compared to Clovis. Further, pre-Clovis technology seems extremely varied, especially compared to Clovis which is so strikingly identifiable. Occupation dates on pre-Clovis sites vary between 14,000 cal BP to 20,000 and more. That's an issue that needs to be addressed.
https://www.thoughtco.com/guide-to-the-pre-clovis-americas-173068
Note: nowhere in article do they talk about the possibility that Pre-Clovis were European.
15623623? ago
Your evidence is debatable and not settled one bit. The Clovis and Pre-Clovis (80% linked to Native Americans) is verifiable, not debatable, and settled. Therefore, you have no credibility bud.
15624016? ago
Doesn't explain the presence of stone age European tools found on the East Coast. lol
You just keep posting different articles that don't in any way contradict what I posted.
You have no credibility, "bud".
15625060? ago
You are basing your argument on assumptions. You have no idea, nor does anyone else, when or if those tools originated from Europeans. In fact, the article I posted said they might not even be tools to begin with and are possibly just from natural erosions. Here, read carefully again:
"Among the papers, some of the scholars asserted that Clovis was, in fact, the first colonizers of the Americas and that genomic studies of the Anzick burials(which share DNA with modern Native American groups) prove that. Others suggest that the Ice-Free Corridor would still have been usable if unpleasant entryway for the earliest colonists. Still others argue that the Beringian standstill hypothesis is incorrect and that there simply were no people in the Americas prior to the Last Glacial Maximum.
Archaeologist Jesse Tune and colleagues have suggested that all of the so-called pre-Clovis sites are made up of geo-facts, micro-debitage too small to be confidently assigned to human manufacture.
It is undoubtedly true that pre-Clovis sitesare still relatively few in number compared to Clovis. Further, pre-Clovis technology seems extremely varied, especially compared to Clovis which is so strikingly identifiable. Occupation dates on pre-Clovis sites vary between 14,000 cal BP to 20,000 and more. That's an issue that needs to be addressed."
You whole argument is based on "what if?" whereas mine is on "what has been proven." Again, you lack credibility.
15628260? ago
Your argument is based on theories as well.
15628605? ago
For the last time as your argument is extremely weak, read this article carefully and you will see that Pre-Clovis and Clovis are genetically related - in other words - not White as your delusional mind would like to believe.
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/science/25archeo.html
An important excerpt:
"The new findings, the Waters Group reported, "suggests that although the ultimate ancestors of the Clovis ultimately originated from northeast Asia..."
Northeast Asia...that would mean they weren't White bud. Back to the drawing board for you!
15628634? ago
You're just posting other articles with other theories. Give it up.
15629184? ago
So let's assume, for arguments sake, Whites colonized America first before the Native Americans like your one book says. Where did they go? Did their DNA change into Native Americans or...use logic here...were the Pre-Clovis actually 80% DNA match for Native Americans as all evidence suggests?
We both know the answer. You are arguing a losing, and somewhat pathetic, argument. Better to give up and save what little face you can vs. continuing to cry "Nuh-uh, Whites discovered America before the Native Americans!!!" like a grade-schooler ready to cry to his Mommy because things aren't exactly the way he wants them to be.
15630820? ago
Genocided by asian scum.
15631286? ago
Wow, that is some epic goalposts moving mixed with some creative revisionist history. Unfortunately a 4 year old could come up with a better explanation. Whites are not indigenous to America and at the very least, Native American are genetic descendants of the indigenous tribes that came before them. European DNA does not mean White DNA. You lose this argument as you have no legs left to stand on bud.
15632384? ago
That's exactly what it means, jew boy.
The mere fact that Indians are 1/3 European renders your argument null and void let alone the presence of European stone age implements
15636445? ago
First off, not a Jew but it appears you are triggered since you continually resort to name calling.
Second, not surprisingly, you are wrong yet again!
"Europeans have not always been light skinned, and Caucasians are in fact a fairly new development on the continent, relatively speaking.
According to a new study reported in Science Magazine, it has been found that Caucasions are the product of “a patchwork of evolution in different places” across Europe, while scientist have discovered three genes that produce light skin – both of which have played a part in the lightening of Europeans’ skin colour over the past 8,000 years.
Since researchers began to sequence the genome of ancient populations last year, it has been discovered that Europeans today are the product of hunter gatherers and farmers of at least three ancient populations having mixed together during their migration to the continent over the past 8,000 years.
By comparing key parts of DNA across the genomes of 83 ancient humans from European archaeological sites with recent ones from the 1000 Genomes Project, Iain Matheison of Harvard University’s lab of population, and geneticist David Reich, discovered the genes linked to skin pigmentation that had survived the natural selection process across Europe.
When modern humans first travelled from Africa to the continent around 40,000 years ago they had darker skin, which was still seen in Spain, Luxembourg and Hungary around 8,500 years ago.
These humans lacked two genes – SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 – which lead to the depigmentation and lightening of the skin."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/how-europeans-evolved-to-have-white-skin-starting-from-around-8000-years-ago-10160120.html%3famp
The funny thing is, we Whites (if you believe evolution) evolved from Africans. So really, you are part black as well bud so you really just hate yourself but that part is pretty much obvious by now.
15659246? ago
First of all, irrelevant, no one said anything about pigmentation.
Second of all, bullshit, evolution takes much longer.
Out of Africa was debunked years ago when the oldest pre human remains were found in the Balkans.
They're just looking at DNA and coming up with theories, it doesn't prove anything.
15659406? ago
"First of all, irrelevant, no one said anything about pigmentation."
Your whole argument is that Whites discovered America genius! Pigmentation is the only thing that matters to your racist mind.
"Second of all, bullshit, evolution takes much longer."
Source?
"Out of Africa was debunked years ago when the oldest pre human remains were found in the Balkans."
Again, source? Here's one that says otherwise from Jan. 2018.
"Homo sapiens first appeared in Africa, with the earliest-known fossils roughly 300,000 years old. A key milestone was when our species first ventured out of Africa en route to populating the far corners of the globe.
Until now, the oldest Homo sapiens fossils outside Africa had come from two other cave sites in Israel, including one also on Mount Carmel, about 90,000 to 120,000 years old.
The new discovery supports the idea that humans migrated out of Africa through a northern route, the Nile valley and the eastern Mediterranean coast, and not a southern route across the Bab al-Mandeb strait, the southern coast of Saudi Arabia, the Indian subcontinent and East Asia, said Tel Aviv University paleoanthropologist Israel Hershkovitz, who led the study."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1FE2SY
"They're just looking at DNA and coming up with theories, it doesn't prove anything."
I would think DNA proves a lot more than simple tools that may not even be tools to begin with. You are absolutely obsessed with a person's DNA unless that evidence counters your view of White Superiority. I can read you like a book bud.
15659712? ago
Whites, meaning Europeans moron.
You're behind the times.
https://www.natureasia.com/en/nmiddleeast/article/10.1038/nmiddleeast.2018.15
15660138? ago
"Whites, meaning Europeans moron."
And as I proved to you already yet your simple mind apparently cannot comprehend, European does not mean White. Even if it did (it doesn't), Pre-Clovis are still 80% genetically linked to Native Americans throwing out your "Whites (or Europeans or however you want to justify it in your mind) discovered America first" argument.
"260,000 years old found in China"
The article I linked to you stated homo sapiens migrated from Africa 300,000 years ago, thus predating your 260,000 in China.
"7.2 million years old found in Balkans. lol"
"The first hominin species, a line that eventually leads to humans, MAY HAVE emerged in Europe 7.2 million years ago and not Africa—the most widely accepted starting point for our ancestors."
"The study has been met with skepticism because the vast majority of fossil evidence appears to suggest our ancestors emerged in Africa and migrated outwards."
"But the fossilised hominim is not necessarily our earliest ancestor and may have separated from some other early species that would eventually go on to become Ardipithecus."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/first-hominin-europe-east-africa-human-evolution-613494%3famp=1
Sadly, you seem to misunderstand your evidence. These are not even human remains. Just another species of chimpanzees that may point to the ever-elusive "missing link" between humans and monkeys. Still, this does show, if true, we all come from the same beginnings/species, so your continued criticism of anyone who isn't White is just flat out stupid as we are all one and the same.
15660222? ago
Well, Europeans happen to be white. Imbecile.
They are pre-human remains, they are not chimpanzees you idiot.
15660539? ago
"Well, Europeans happen to be white. Imbecile."
Which I already proved to you was not the case until very recently (i.e. 8,000 years ago), and even then, not all Europeans are White genius.
"Fight, because the whites and asians interbred"
If that is the case, then less than 20% would be "White" DNA. Can you prove the other 20% Pre-Clovis DNA was White and not Asian as believed by most scholars? The other 80% is a perfect match for Native Americans who had no White DNA.
"They are pre-human remains, they are not chimpanzees you idiot. Try an anthropology class sometime. lol"
Pre-human: In other words, not human. Gotcha. And he says I'm the moron. Here is a little more info for you:
"Both are bold and highly disputed claims. But the fossil itself is a rare specimen of an APE from around the time of the last common ancestor of CHIMPANZEES and humans."
"Other experts on human prehistory disagree, pointing to extensive fossil evidence that hominins, meaning non-ape humans and their ancestors, originated in Africa and migrated north."
“David Begun has repeatedly proposed that the African ape and human clade arose in Europe and that gorillas, chimps and humans arose from an early European member of this group that migrated into Africa,” said Jay Kelley, a paleontologist at Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins. “This 'back into Africa' scenario has garnered few if any adherents.” The “near consensus,” Kelley said in an email, is that “the hominin lineage arose in Africa.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/05/22/ape-that-lived-in-europe-7-million-years-ago-could-be-human-ancestor-controversial-study-suggests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7f93fd5a1761
You should really read the whole article as there are many more valid points calling out the claims made about your "evidence."
"You should read the headline, you moron. lol
FIRST HUMAN ANCESTOR CAME FROM EUROPE NOT AFRICA, 7.2 MILLION-YEAR-OLD FOSSILS INDICATE"
First, that was in reference to your 260,000 China evidence. Second, here's a different headline for you:
"Ape that lived in Europe 7 million years ago could be human ancestor, controversial study suggests"
Hmmm, guess headlines aren't the end-all, be-all of evidence. Maybe do some more research before you go all gung-ho on faulty "evidence" and then label someone a "moron" who proves you incorrect. It makes you look like the "moron" bud.
15660658? ago
You're just posting different articles with different opinions.
None of it disproves anything I've posted, moron.
15660742? ago
You are posting controversial articles as if they are fact and when I call you out with evidence proving the consensus is against your "evidence", you whine and throw insults like a little child. I think this debate is settled. Nice try bud.
15661023? ago
All views on this subject are controversial.
You are the one posting controversial articles and presenting them as fact.
15661145? ago
As hilarious as calling Apes (which pre-humans are) human? Guess you are also a moron bud.
15661336? ago
They're neither apes nor human.
That's what you do, cocksucker.
15661566? ago
In the article it clearly states they are Apes...
"But the fossil itself is a rare specimen of an ape from around the time of the last common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans."
...maybe learn to read?
15661670? ago
Wrong,
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170523083548.htm
Graecopithecus freybergi are not apes, they are hominin.
15661981? ago
Here again, you are showing your lack of research. Same article I provided you earlier:
"For the loose tooth, the thickness of the enamel ruled out other, better-documented ancient apes, the scientists said, such as Ouranopithecus. But they could not prove with absolute certainty that the tooth came from Graecopithecus freybergi."
They are not even certain it came from the source they are claiming! For arguments sake, let's say it is:
Graecopithecus freybergi:
It is in the subfamily: Homininae, also called "African hominids" or "African apes", is a subfamily of Hominidae.[1][2
"The Homininae cladogram has three main branches, which lead to gorillas (through the tribe Gorillini),"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus
Not hominini. Homininae. Thus an Ape. Do better research bud.
15662256? ago
Now you're really reaching...which lead to gorillas.
Give it up. lol
15663331? ago
So your counter is "Nuh-uh!" and more name-calling? Again?!?! Without providing counter source/evidence?!?! Did you even read the source I linked you? Granted, it's Wikipedia yet the info is valid. I can find more sources proving your ignorance if you'd like.
In any case, this conversation is long past reeking of immature childishness on your part so further discourse really isn't warranted. Enjoy ignorance as I hear it's bliss!
15664214? ago
I did, unfortunately, it doesn't say what you want it to say. lol
15664649? ago
It absolutely does. Get some glasses bud.
15670201? ago
I've already explained why it does not. lol
15670338? ago
No, you definitely didn't and the evidence I provided straight up proved you wrong and you had nothing to counter it with. Where was my evidence wrong bud?
15670355? ago
I did counter and you had nothing, that's where we are. lol
15670667? ago
"which lead to gorillas != apes"
Oh really?
The Graecopithecus freybergi belong to the subfamily Homininae, also called "African hominids" or "African apes."
"Gorillas are ground-dwelling, predominantly herbivorous APES that inhabit the forests of central Sub-Saharan Africa."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla
"Gorillas are a sub group of the family of great apes."
"Apes belong to the family of primates called hominoidea. The family of hominoids is classified into two groups; the hominidae and the hylobatidae. The hominidae consists of chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans. These primates are collectively known as the ‘great apes’.
"Gorillas are apes that belong to the hominoid family."
http://www.differencebetween.net/science/nature/difference-between-apes-and-gorillas/
Care to try again?
15670710? ago
Doesn't say that. lol
15670889? ago
"Doesn't say that. lol"
What the hell are you even talking about? Read the subfamily Homininae genius. Here is the link to Graecopithecus freybergi where you can find it's subfamily:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graecopithecus
Here is the link to it's subfamily homininae:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homininae
It definitely does say what I wrote. Try again.
"Now you are on record as conflating humans with apes. Idiot."
This is according to evolution theory and the evidence presented for it. I never said I believed in evolution. If you don't like Wikipedia, try Britannica:
"Hominidae, in zoology, one of the two living families of the apesuperfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo)."
https://www.britannica.com/animal/Hominidae
You keep calling me an idiot yet over and over again you are wrong. I'm pretty sure you are proving yourself more deserving of that moniker with each new comment.
15670912? ago
Rendering your argument meaningless. It means jack nothing. lol
Fuck you and your beliefs.
15670928? ago
Now you don't make any sense. Two sources include humans with Hominidae. What are you disputing?
15670941? ago
He thinks since Graecopithecus are Hominidae, that they are are just ape and shouldn't be counted, when modern humans are included. lol
15670975? ago
"he's a moron."
Says the guy who thinks gorillas are not apes.
15670991? ago
Says the guy who thinks humans are apes. lol
Any idea what a worthless little turd you are?
15671007? ago
I never said humans are apes. In fact, I said I don't believe in evolution. You are calling me names and you can't even get my argument right? LMAO!
15671161? ago
Actually you did, you said that since Graecopithecus are linked to subgroup Homininae, that they are just apes, when Homininae includes humans.
That's why I'm calling you names, because you're a moron.
15671241? ago
Except Graecopithecus freybergi is not human, it is more closely related to an ape. Here is a better explanation:
"Regardless, humans didn’t evolve 7 million years ago. Sahelanthropus and even Lucy do not look like anyone you would call “human.” Humans have only been around for about 3 million years, and our own specific species is only about 300,000 years old. Even if Graecopithecus turns out to be themissing link–the true ancestor of both modern chimps and modern humans–that still does not change where humans evolved, because Graecopithecus narrowly missed being a human by 4 million years."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/evolutionistx.wordpress.com/2017/07/05/no-graecopithecus-does-not-prove-humans-evolved-in-europe/amp/
I would read the whole article if I were you. You may just learn something other than name-calling.
Just for fun, here is some more info shedding quite a bit of doubt about your 7.2 million year old "human" from the experts.
"Not everyone is convinced by the research. “I really appreciate having a detailed analysis of the Graecopithecus jaw—the only fossil of its genus so far,” Rick Potts, head of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program tells Guarino. “But I think the principal claim of the main paper goes well beyond the evidence in hand.”
Jay Kelley, a paleontologist at Arizona State University's Institute of Human Origins also tells Guarino that the tooth evidence is not as significant as it seems. He says some of the earliest-known hominins didn’t have fused teeth roots and some later human ancestors did, meaning it’s not strong evidence that El Graeco is an early pre-human.
Potts agrees. In an email to Smithsonian.com, he says he’s not convinced by the tooth evidence, especially since so few samples were studied. Instead of being an early pre-human, he says it’s likely El Graeco is related to EUROPEAN APES. “Analyses by other research groups…suggest that Graecopithecus—known only from the single mandible with hardly any tooth crowns preserved—is closely related to the much better documented Ouranopithecus, also a late Miocene ape found in Greece,” Potts writes.
Potts also says that the location doesn’t add up as the place where apes and pre-humans split. “A hominin or even a hominine (modern African ape) ancestor located in a fairly isolated place in southern Europe doesn’t make much sense geographically as the ancestor of modern African apes, or particular the oldest ancestor of African hominins,” he writes."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/controversial-study-claims-apes-and-human-ancestors-split-southern-europe-180963426/
In summary: Find better evidence to support you moronic racist views.
15671263? ago
So now you've abandoned that argument and you're posting some other wall of text of some researcher's speculation that I'm supposed to read in my copious spare time.
Summarize your argument or fuck off. lol
15676113? ago
Huh? I've always doubted your argument that Graecopithecus freybergi was human. That's been my point all along. I have shared proof that it is more closely related to Apes and that Pre-human is not human. There is controversy surrounding the discovery and conclusions from it within the scientific community.
I can't help it if you hinge your racists belief on faulty "evidence" nor can I help it if you can't follow along. Try to keep up with the class bud otherwise you are gonna be held back.
15676155? ago
You have shared no proof that Graecopithecus are any more related to apes than humans. lol
15676275? ago
Actually I did...you just need to go back to school and brush up on your reading and comprehension skills bud.
15676306? ago
No, we've been over this exhaustively. lol
15676390? ago
You are correct. We went over it and you were proven wrong. Graecopithecus freybergi is in the same subfamily referred to as the African Apes. It existed some 4 million years before the closest possible human ancestor and humans as we know them didn't exist until 300,000 years ago. Thus, Graecopithecus freybergi is not human and all evidence points that our ancestors descended from Africa.
Oh, and you were also wrong about Native Americans not being indigenous to America, Europeans being only White, and gorillas not being apes. Your batting average is really low right now. You should quit while you are waaaay behind.
15677108? ago
And modern humans, moron.
They crossed from Asia, after the whites had been here 5000 years or so. That's why 20,000 year old European stone age tools were found and why indians are 1/3 European.
Europeans are European.
I'm batting 1000.
15678355? ago
Wow, you really love in a delusional world where direct evidence that doesn't fit into your narrow-minded racist world view is just ignored.
"And modern humans, moron, rendering your point moot."
While humans may belong to the same subfamily, they did not exist for over 7 million years later. Modern humans didn't exist until 300,000 years ago. Thus, Graecopithecus freybergi is not human. It has more in common with European Apes.
"Potts (HEAD OF SMITHSONIAN HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM) agrees. In an email to Smithsonian.com, he says he’s not convinced by the tooth evidence, especially since so few samples were studied. Instead of being an early pre-human, he says it’s likely El Graeco is related to EUROPEAN APES."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/controversial-study-claims-apes-and-human-ancestors-split-southern-europe-180963426/
"They crossed from Asia, after the whites had been here 5000 years or so."
Actually, the Native Americans are direct descendants of both Clovis and Pre-Clovis. The Pre-Clovis migrated from Northeast Asia and share 80% DNA match with Native Americans.
"Recent ancient DNA studies indicate that approximately 13,000 years ago, two clades (genetic groups) of peoples emerged; one exclusively consisting of northern Native Americans, and one consisting of peoples from North, Central, and South America, including the 12,800 year old Anzick childfrom a Clovis burial site in Montana. All genetics research to date has affirmed the shared ancestry of all ancient and contemporary indigenous peoples of the Americas, and refuted stories about the presence of “lost tribes”, ancient Europeans, and (I can’t believe that I actually have to say this) ancient aliens."
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/15/no-lost-tribes-or-aliens-what-ancient-dna-reveals-about-american-prehistory
The "European tools", as I pointed out previously, mote than likely are nothing more than rock fragments from erosion.
"Europeans are European, no one has proven that they ever had dark skin."
Ok, final time:
"When it comes to skin color, the team found a patchwork of evolution in different places, and three separate genes that produce light skin, telling a complex story for how European’s skin evolved to be much lighter during the past 8000 years. The modern humans who came out of Africa to originally settle Europe about 40,000 years are presumed to have had dark skin, which is advantageous in sunny latitudes. And the new data confirm that about 8500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary also had darker skin: They lacked versions of two genes—SLC24A5 and SLC45A2—that lead to depigmentation and, therefore, pale skin in Europeans today.
But in the far north—where low light levels would favor pale skin—the team found a different picture in hunter-gatherers: Seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden had both light skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. They also had a third gene, HERC2/OCA2, which causes blue eyes and may also contribute to light skin and blond hair. Thus ancient hunter-gatherers of the far north were already pale and blue-eyed, but those of central and southern Europe had darker skin.
Then, the first farmers from the Near East arrived in Europe; they carried both genes for light skin. As they interbred with the indigenous hunter-gatherers, one of their light-skin genes swept through Europe, so that central and southern Europeans also began to have lighter skin. The other gene variant, SLC45A2, was at low levels until about 5800 years ago when it swept up to high frequency"
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin
"Nigger or jew, which is it? Identify yourself."
Again with the name calling. Triggered much. Being wrong all the time does that. Since you continually add nothing new to conversation but insults and I have to keep repeating myself to you for clarification, I think this conversation has reached it's limit bud. Enjoy your racist delusions of grandeur.
15694391? ago
TLDR lol
15695816? ago
That's fine...I already assumed after our conversation that you couldn't read or comprehend at a 1st grade level. Thanks for confirming my suspicions!
15695950? ago
No it doesn't. lol
15696112? ago
And I've refuted all of your attempts bud. Evidence doesn't lie. Continuing to ignore anything that doesn't fit into your tiny White superiority worldview is a waste of your time? You are like an Ostrich with its head stuck in the sand. Just continue to cover your ears saying "Nah nah nah nah nah...not listening!" It will get you far in life...
15696220? ago
You haven't refuted anything.
All your arguments are garbage.
15696430? ago
Back to your trusty "Nah nah nah nah nah not listening!" I see. Good for you. I did refute everything but you couldn't see it because you either:
A. Didn't read the evidence B. Couldn't comprehend the evidence C. Couldn't read or comprehend the evidence
The correct answer is C.
Hope childish insults and temper tantrums continues to work out for you in life.
15702253? ago
I'm listening, but all your theories have been garbage so far and I've explained why.
If you post anything further, make it succinct or don't waste my time.
15704039? ago
"I'm listening, but all your theories have been garbage so far and I've explained why."
You've done nothing of the sort. First off, they aren't "my theories" and are the prevalent theories backed by evidence and the scientific community. Second, your responses have been "Nuh uh" with no evidence backing up why you say it's wrong. I'm not just taking your word for it. I've provided plenty of evidence/articles/experts supporting what I say. You provided one controversial article that has been refuted by experts in the same field. Learn how to support your argument and then I will listen. Until then, I will assume you have nothing else to add to back up your claim and that the debate is settled.
15709924? ago
Some of them are the theories of the researchers in the particular article you googled in desperation, the rest are completely harebrained like the one where Graecopithecus are not human because they inhabit a subgroup that also includes humans. lol
15713651? ago
Another expert in the field completely demolishing your White Superiority fantasies:
"Dr Julien Benoit, a vertebrate palaeontologist and palaeobiologist who has worked extensively on the African continent and was not part of the European research team, chatted to The Conversation Africa about the findings."
"For starters, the material isn’t well preserved. It consists mostly of a jaw with no complete teeth preserved. That’s a problem because the teeth’s anatomical characteristics are the most important element when classifying any primate, including humans.
The authors claim that the jaw’s fourth premolar root is similar to that of a hominin’s. This is not a character that is conventionally used in palaeoanthropology, especially because not all hominins have similar tooth roots. This character is rather variable – and the authors go on to acknowledge this – so it’s unreliable for classification.
They also argue that the small size of the incomplete canine tooth (as suggested by the size of its root) would put this fossil close to hominin ancestry. This is based on the assumption that hominins are the only apes with small canines. This, again, is not true. In Europe, where apes have a very rich fossil record, there’s an ape called Oreopithecus which has small canines but is not related to humans at all.
This is an example of independent, parallel evolution: when one species evolves similarities to another without being related to it. For instance, dolphins look like fish, but they’re not. This is probably the same thing for Graecopithecus and hominins.
I agree with many of my colleagues, who think that this new jaw represents an Ape species that is not related to humans. It might belong to a species like Oreopithecus, which evolved human-like features – such as the fusion of the fourth premolar roots and small canines – in parallel to our lineage.
Finally, the study is lacking a phylogenetic analysis. This is a statistical method used to reconstruct a reliable evolutionary tree. To say that a fossil species is an early hominin without performing this kind of analysis is like giving the result of an equation without actually doing the maths."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconversation.com/amp/theres-not-enough-evidence-to-back-the-claim-that-humans-originated-in-europe-78280
BOOM! White Superiority fantasy destroyed. LOL, any other compelling evidence little guy or can the grown-ups move on without further interruptions?
15716273? ago
TLDR. lol
15716383? ago
It's called an excuse and being lazy. What are you doing here if you can't read?
15716402? ago
Post a succinct argument and perhaps I'll read it.
I've already heard enough from you, what I've seen so far is drivel.
You're a worthless nigger loving piece of shit.
15716438? ago
Excuses and insults. Triggered and epic fail! Care to try again with actual evidence backing your claims or are you finally tapping out bud?
15716450? ago
No, I've already presented the evidence.
Your theories simply don't hold water.
You just keep posting articles you don't understand.
When one theory gets exposed, you simply post another article, it's tiresome.
15716549? ago
LOL, the only thing you've exposed is your lack of reading and comprehension skills. Go get an education bud!
15725592? ago
I certainly haven't been "taken to school" by you.
All you have are opinions.
You can't refute the evidence that Europeans were here first or that Indians are 1/3 European.
15727928? ago
Actually, you have been consistently schooled and I already refuted your "evidence" multiple times. Since you have clearly lacked the ability to comprehend anything that destroys your White Superiority fantasies, I will not waste my time presenting the evidence again. When you wake back up to reality and learn how to read/comprehend, go back through this conversation and you will be embarrassed how sad your excuses are. You have no evidence at all except for controversial theories whereas I presented direct evidence as well as respected people in the fields calling out your "evidence." History, consensus, and actual evidence are on my side bud.
15727938? ago
Argument by Assertion
What a retard.
15728009? ago
Argument from Ignorence.
You can throw out whatever debate excuses you want, you have no legs left to stand on. What a sad little child.
15728035? ago
No, you merely asserted that I've been schooled when I have not.
15728117? ago
I can really do this all day but to save you the embarrassment, please provide 1 source with experts outside of your study saying with 100% confidence that your theory stands.
15728158? ago
You have been doing this for days, you are an embarrassment.
I already did, several times.
15728242? ago
No you did not. Your counter to every article with experts criticizing and calling out your delusional theory was either "Nuh uh," "tl;dr," or "He's a nobody." You only provide your opinion without sources backing you up. It's really been like debating a child.
15728273? ago
Yes, I did back everything up and you had no answer other than posting other articles opining on other things.
Of course, after several days, I stopped reading your walls of text, I'm not under any obligation to do so.
You can go fuck your mother, sport.
15728305? ago
LOL, you lost the debate when you decided you couldn't read the evidence and started ignoring anything that proved your fantasy a lie. You know who cover their ears when they don't want to hear something? Children. Don't debate if you won't look at evidence counter to your own viewpoint. Otherwise, this is just an insult fest that has run it's course.
15728328? ago
This is not my job you little nigger asshole, I'm not obliged to respond to you at all.
15728580? ago
I see anyone you disagree with is a "nigger." Such childish name calling. Guess it makes you feel superior in a pathetic way. You can quit any time.
15728767? ago
You're either a nigger or a jew, which is it?
15729069? ago
Your are either ignorant or stupid, which is it?
15716492? ago
LOL, more excuses?!?! I've refuted your "evidence" and my argument is backed by the scientific consensus as well as a hundred years worth of evidence. Can your White Supremacist fantasy say the same? Nope! LMAO!
15725581? ago
Actually, you didn't.
20,000 year old stone ageEuropean implements were found on the East Coast and Indians are 1/3 European. lol
Most Indians have the same amount of European blood as your fake nigger ass. lol
15712530? ago
"Some of them are the obscure pet theories of the researchers"
LOL, and yet that's all the article you shared is...a pet theory and a controversial one at that. Not accepted as fact or as even likely within the scientific community.
Again, you have nothing to back up your refutations. Not shocking at this point. Are you really saying Graecopithecus freybergi are human? They may not even be pre-human. First, humans did not exist 7.2 million years ago. We came about at most 300,000 years ago. Thus Graecopithecus freybergi are not human. As the leader of the Human Origins program from the Smithsonian said, they are more likely related to European apes. Head of Human Origins from the SMITHSONIAN!!! You've heard of them right? Pretty prestigious. Do you have anything outside your one controversial article backing your claim it's human? Nope, you don't. Case closed. Go back to your White Superiority fantasyland little child.
15716293? ago
And others think he is wrong, he's no one special.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.
15716413? ago
Again, no sources backing your claims up. I've provided more than one source/expert backing up my claims yet you are too lazy to read/refute. It's obvious you can't as no one agrees with you/them. Epic fail bud!!!
15716421? ago
I refuted them thoroughly and provided sources, you're simply illiterate.
No doubt you are some flavor of nigger yourself, which is to say, a chimp.
15716535? ago
You provided one source which I refuted with plenty. More insults. Shocking. Insults are thrown by the simple-minded. Now it's obvious why you can't understand what I've presented you as your 3rd world mentality you hate so much is too slow to keep up. Sad.
15725588? ago
Posting a bunch of opinions from nobodies who work at a museum does not a refutation make. lol
15727867? ago
Excuses again?!?! Your ignorance is absolutely astounding! Here's who you are calling a "nobody:"
"Richard B. Potts is a paleoanthropologist and has been the director of the Smithsonian Institution Museum of Natural History'sHuman Origins Program since 1985. He is the curator of the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins at the Smithsonian.[1]
Potts graduated from Temple University in his home town of Philadelphia.[2] In 1982 Potts received his doctorate in biological anthropology from Harvard University. Prior to joining the Smithsonian Institution he taught at Yale University and was its Peabody Museum of Natural History curator of Physical Anthropology.[1] He has been involved with early human excavation sites in Africa and Asia. His focus is on how human adaptation and evolution was in response to continuous changes in their environment over time.[1]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Potts
Seriously, you really need to give up as your lack of reading, comprehension, and research skills are really painting a sad little picture of delusion and laziness.
15727913? ago
Argument from Authority
Walked right into that one, numbnuts.
These people are morons.
15727980? ago
Uh, genius, (don't get excited...using the term sarcastically) you called him a nobody after I presented his quotes questioning your "evidence." You really don't live in reality, do you? You call out my experts as nobodies and when I prove to you he actually is a "somebody" well-versed in his field, you go back to giving the "Nah nah nah nah nah...not listening!" argument again. Childish.
15728014? ago
I baited you. lol
Your argument relies on opinions of people you deem to be experts. None of it conclusively contradicts anything I've said.
15728093? ago
Except he did contradict you and he is an expert. What version of reality do you live in where you look at his credentials and think "He's not an expert"? The only thing you continue to prove is that you can't read or comprehend new information given to you unless it has big bright colorful words on thick cardboard pages with plenty of colorful pictures.
15728123? ago
I've presented articles by experts as well, nothing he said contradicted anything I've said.
Indians are 1/3 European
Europeans were in America first
That is all.
You conveniently forget that your assertions about pre-humans were proved laughably false.
I mean you don't even know the first thing about anthropology, you're really fucking stupid.
15728205? ago
"I've presented articles by experts as well,"
Which ones? I saw one. Highly controversial and called out by experts in the same field.
"Several salient points:
Indians are 1/3 European
Europeans were in America first"
Provide evidence other than your ignorant views bud.
"You conveniently forget that your assertions about pre-humans were proved laughably false."
Be honest. You sadly already admitted to the fact that you don't even read the evidence I provide. You have been proven wrong time after time and you don't even know because you were too lazy and full of excuse after excuse to read what I posted.
Face it bud, you lost before it even began.
15728238? ago
Already have, go back and read them, fuck face. Your views are also highly controversial but none of them contradict those two points.
I've been doing this for days, nothing new will be presented.
This is a joke to me at this point, nothing you say is being taken seriously so unless you enjoy being mocked, you may want to move on.
15728272? ago
LOL! I read your ONE piece of "evidence" and refuted it thoroughly with many experts and articles criticizing it. LMAO! Maybe you should reread your comments and see how lacking in sources/substance your argument has truly been.
15728291? ago
Actually, you didn't.
Nothing refutes that Indians are 1/3 European or that stone age European tools were found in America.
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans
15728553? ago
BOOM!!! Two newer articles confirming East Asian ancestry of Native Americans.
"East Asian Origins Confirmed
Anzick-1’s DNA allowed researchers to confirm genetically, for the first time, that all native peoples of North and South America descended from ancestors who arrived via land bridges from East Asia, possibly in a single migration. While there has been ample archeological evidence of the East Asian origin of Native Americans, conclusive proof based on DNA had been absent until now. Even a recent study comparing the genes of ancient Siberian remains with those of modern Native Americans had not been as conclusive.
The sequencing of Anzick-1’s genome, however, revealed the child was part of a line that was directly ancestral to 80 percent of all American native peoples, and close cousins to the remaining 20 percent.
In addition, analysis of the child’s mitochondrial DNA indicated Anzick-1 belonged to what’s known as the D4h3a haplogroup, or lineage. The finding is important — and surprising, according to researchers — because the D4h3a line is considered to be a “founder” lineage, belonging to the first people to arrive in the Americas. Although rare in most Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada today, D4h3a genes are found more commonly in native people of South America, far from the Montana cliff beneath which Anzick-1 was laid to rest."
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-brief/2014/02/12/earliest-american-genome-proves-siberian-origins-for-native-peoples/
"Genomic comparisons suggest that USR1 and USR2 were related—probably first cousins—and that the USR1 genome is most closely related to contemporary Native American genomes. The researchers inferred that USR1 is part of a unique population they call Ancient Beringians, who descended from the same ancestors, but stopped interacting and sharing DNA with the populations of other Native Americans between 18,000 and 22,000 years ago. Genetic analysis of the proportions of components of the USR1 genome shared with Native Americans, Siberians, and East Asians also showed that a single founding population of all Native Americans split from East Asian ancestors gradually between about 25,000 and 36,000 years ago."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/all-native-americans-descended-from-one-ancestral-population-30457/amp
15728992? ago
So basically what you and these assholes have done is to shit on the trans atlantic hypothesis while ignoring that the people who crossed the land bridge were both asian and European.
What a faggot, fuck you.
15729484? ago
Again, European does not mean White genius. These Eurasians - the Altai - were not White.
"After more than a century of speculation, an international group of geneticists has conclusively proven that the Aztecs, Incas, and Iroquois are closely related to the peoples of Altai, the Siberian region that borders China and Mongolia.
Scientists have suspected for a long time that Native Americans are closely related to the peoples of Altai. The theory of the Altai peoples migrating from Siberia across Chukotka and Alaska, down to the Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America, appeared almost a century ago."
https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2016/02/23/its-official-native-americans-and-siberians-are-cousins_569517
They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia. The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.
"Using evolutionary models, the researchers showed that the ancestors of the first Native Americans started to emerge as a distinct population about 35,000 years ago, probably in north-east Asia. About 25,000 years ago, this group mixed and bred with ancient north Eurasians in the region, the descendants of whom went on to become the first Native Americans to settle the New World."
"Connie Mulligan, an anthropologist at the University of Florida, said the findings pointed to a single migration of people from Asia to the New World, but said other questions remained. “How did people move so quickly to the southernmost point of South America and settle two continents that span a huge climatic and geographic range?” she said."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/03/ancient-dna-reveals-previously-unknown-group-of-native-americans-ancient-beringians
15729501? ago
Yes, it does, they clearly said from Germany, Europeans are white. lol
Non-Sequitor. One half of her DNA came from the past, the other half from the future. Amazing. lol
And 1/3 European, guess they forgot. lol
15729628? ago
You are relying on one tiny unproven sentence to hinge your argument on. Sad.
"Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany."
LIKELY - i.e. not confirmed. Newer evidence shows the Siberian ancestors to be the Altai - no German ancestry. Completely Asian. BOOM! Debunked again!!!
15739079? ago
It is confirmed that the DNA is European, not Asian.
15741876? ago
"It is already confirmed that the DNA is 1/3 European and the physical evidence backs this up."
Proved you wrong yet again in my previous comment with numerous articles with no political slants shutting down your Solutrean theory based on this DNA evidence. I know you don't like to read but please take the time to see my previous comment as you may learn it's best not to hinge your argument on one article with wrong information when there are numerous articles stating the opposite thus proving you wrong. A little research would go a long way towards making you look less lazy/ignorant.
15741926? ago
No, you didn't.
The Solutrean theory has not been shut down, though it is non-essential.
There is simply not enough DNA evidence (yet). The physical evidence exists.
They child's ancestors were Asian and European.
Yes, the articles were politically slanted as they referenced the same evidence simply not accounting for half of the child's DNA. lol
15742119? ago
"Where's the other half of her DNA, moron? Did her descendants get in a time machine and fuck her mother? lol"
First off, the Montana boy is a "he" not a "she" so your source (whatever it is) is wrong right away. Second, are you too blind to realize you answered your own question?!?!
"The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans."
The rest of the DNA is Native American...i.e. NOT WHITE! LOL!
15742348? ago
There is no such thing as "Native American" DNA moron.
Native Americans are 2/3 Asian, 1/3 European.
15742550? ago
"There is no such thing as "Native American" DNA moron."
I'm the moron?!?! LMAO!
"Native American DNA
North and South America were settled by at least three waves of migrants from Asia, who occupied the Americas from Canada to the southern tip of Chile. North America was initially occupied by people who came from Siberia and coastal North Asia.
Far fewer than 1,000 people crossed the Bering land bridge, and Native Americans appear to derive from this initial wave of migration. Evidence suggests they dispersed rapidly along the western coast of the Americas, perhaps by sea, within a period of only about a thousand years. Not long after humans first appeared in today’s Alaska and the western United States, they settled as far south as the tip of modern-day Chile. For help researching Native American ancestry, see Researching Native American Ancestry."
https://support.ancestry.com/s/article/Native-American-DNA-1460089694467
The real moron is someone who believes in a pure White race.
"When genetic anthropologists examine the full scope of humans, they find that historical patterns in DNA markers make the case that everyone in the world came from a common ancestor who was born in East Africa within the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Plus, groups intermingled so much over the course of history that genetic diversity is a continuum both within American and Europe, through to Asia and Africa, Novembre of the University of Chicago said.
"Genetically, the idea of white European as a single homogenous group does not hold up. The classic geographic boundaries of the Mediterranean, Caucasus, and Urals that have shaped human movement and contact are all permeable barriers," said Novembre. "Most of the genetic variants you or I carry, we share with other people all across the globe…If you are in some ethnic group, there are not single genetic variants that you definitely have and everyone outside the group does not."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/science/white-supremacists-respond-genetics-say-theyre-not-white
"That hierarchy of race that he adheres to begs the question: If other, non-white races are inferior to so-called ‘whites,’ then is there an internal hierarchy within this putative ‘white’ race? Are some ‘white’ groups superior to others that seem ‘less-white’?
For instance, are all Finns superior to all Iberians, who tend to be of a darker skin tone? Is a low-education Swede automatically “better” than an intelligent, highly-educated tan-colored Greek? Alternatively, didn’t a ‘darker’ Latin peoples, the Romans, conquer and civilize less-developed barbarian tribes of Britons?
Britain itself is made up of highly-intermixed peoples, the product of encounters with Romans, Angles, Saxons, Normans, Danes, Gaelic Celts, Jutes, Frisians, etc. We also see this in countries such as Spain, where Moors, Jews, Roma, Celts, Basques, Catalans, African Guanches, and others coexisted and undoubtedly intermixed for centuries. As the early twentieth-century Venezuelan sociologistLaureano Vallenilla Lanz said in 1919, there is no purity of race in Spain."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna694831
15742691? ago
Ancestry.com. lozozlaolaol
15742739? ago
Wonderfully refuted...oh wait...guess posting "lozozlaolaol" doesn't count as a solid rebuttal/source? Try harder little child.
15742764? ago
Your source is garbage.
15742942? ago
Opinions are not sources bud. Try again.
15742958? ago
Your source is a beaner from NBC and ancestry.com. lol
15743010? ago
And how do insults refute what they say?
15747197? ago
The fact that it's their biased opinion with nothing to back it up.
There is nothing to refute.
15749802? ago
Read the articles. There is plenty of evidence/experts mixed in the articles. You would know if you actually read them instead of making childish excuses to ignore them.
15754102? ago
No, there isn't. lol
15755049? ago
Oh wow, another excuse/insult...how original. You really add so much to the conversation. Guess you sure showed me...
15759176? ago
I sure did. lol
15759397? ago
You truly are delusional.
15728952? ago
Clovis people were European. Woops! lol
http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html
15729250? ago
Not very smart, are you?
"This week, she is the second author on a paper in Nature that reports the complete sequence of the Anzick child’s nuclear genome. The sequencing effort, led by ancient DNA experts Eske Willerslev and Morten Rasmussen of the University of Copenhagen, comes to a dramatic conclusion: The 1- to 2-year-old Clovis child, now known to be a boy, is directly ancestral to today’s native peoples from Central and South America. “Their data are very convincing … that the Clovis Anzick child was part of the population that gave rise to North, Central, and Southern American groups,” says geneticist Connie Mulligan of the University of Florida in Gainesville.
If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians. And that could help tribes that want to claim and rebury ancient American skeletons such as that of the 9400-year-old Kennewick Man from Washington state. “This is proof that Kennewick Man was Native American,” says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon, Eugene. Sarah Anzick, whose family is in possession of the infant, says that it is likely to be reburied in May."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy
"The property on which the child was found was owned by the Anzick family, hence the name of the remains. DNA testing of that child, conducted before he was re-interred close to the original burial site, revealed his genetic ties to North and South American natives, as well as ancient Siberians. The results further solidified theories that the Americas were settled in several waves of migrants who crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia to Alaska, some of whom then worked their way south."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/child-s-remains-artifacts-from-oldest-known-burial-site-in/article_b0dddf0e-40da-56d2-8d49-0006888e0298.amp.html
15729284? ago
You're too stupid to realize that we're talking about the same kid and the same research team, the kid is 1/3 European. What a moron. lol
http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html
15729578? ago
I know it's the same kid dingus. I showed his DNA origins, from 2 separate articles, has no ties to Germany but to Asians and one article points out the DNA analysis destroys the Solutrean theory. You are apparently not smart enough to put two and two together. The Siberians Native Americans are traced to are the Altai. No German ancestry.
"Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their Asian genetic lineages up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas.
'Our goal in working in this area was to better define what those founding lineages or sister lineages are to Native American populations,' Schurr said.
The region lies at the intersection of what is now Russia, Mongolia, China and Kazakhstan."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092258/amp/Native-Americans-actually-came-tiny-mountain-region-Russia-DNA-research-reveals.html
15739073? ago
No, you didn't know. Your argument is bullshit, posting a different article doesn't invalidate this one. Sorry. lol
http://www.spiegel.de/international/dna-analysis-shows-native-americans-had-european-roots-a-954675.html
15741760? ago
Again, show me where European = White. Also, you have one tiny comment from one article. Here are numerous articles about the same topic which say that the DNA is Asian:
"The DNA also indicates the boy’s ancestors came from Asia, supporting the standard idea of ancient migration to the Americas by way of a land bridge that disappeared long ago."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/dna-from-ancient-baby-boy-found-in-montana-indicates-asian-ancestry/2014/02/14/32638820-94d4-11e3-83b9-1f024193bb84_story.html?utm_term=.a6a295fe7a69
"He led the effort to read that genome. The genes reveal that early Americans are the product of two lineages that most likely met and interbred in Asia before making the trek across the Bering land bridge.
"So this strongly suggests that there was a single migration of people into the Americas," Waters says. "And these people were probably the people who eventually gave rise to Clovis."
The finding contradicts a long-shot hypothesis that Clovis' ancestors actually came from Europe, not Asia. But it leaves many other questions about Clovis unresolved."
https://www.npr.org/2014/02/13/276021092/ancient-dna-ties-native-americans-from-two-continents-to-clovis
"If correct, the findings refute the Solutrean hypothesis, which postulates that ancient migrants from Western Europe founded the Clovis culture. The data also undermine contentions that today’s Native Americans descend from later migrants to the Americas, rather than from the earlier Paleoindians. And that could help tribes that want to claim and rebury ancient American skeletons such as that of the 9400-year-old Kennewick Man from Washington state. “This is proof that Kennewick Man was Native American,” says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon, Eugene. Sarah Anzick, whose family is in possession of the infant, says that it is likely to be reburied in May."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/02/native-americans-descend-ancient-montana-boy
"No one knew it then, but his DNA would eventually confirm the Asian roots of all of today's Native Americans and rule out a controversial theory that some ancestral populations might have crossed the Americas from Ice Age Europe."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/anzick-child-corvallis-researcher-s-story-part-of-pbs-special/article_69df3093-2e77-5559-bff1-88a7c3265332.amp.html
"Paleogenomic analysis of the remains revealed Siberian ancestry and a close genetic relationship to modern Native Americans, including those of Central and South America.[1][3] These findings support the hypothesis that modern Native Americans are descended from Asian populations who crossed Beringia between 32,000 and 18,000 years ago.[1][3]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzick-1
The funny thing is, I could keep going as there are numerous articles stating the same thing: this discovery proves the Solutrean theory wrong. You sadly keep trying to latch onto one sentence in one article whereas all of the evidence outside of your misinformed article prove you wrong. By harping on this particular case, you actually proved your Solutrean theory wrong and you don't even realize it. LMAO!
15741891? ago
Irrelevant, yet self evident.
Inconclusive, yet still 1/3 European. Doesn't take into account physical evidence of European tools. lol
I see you are back to your walls of text and googling a million different articles. Don't bother nigger.
I won't let you forget that you were quoting different articles on the same study back to me (as you are doing now), essentially arguing with yourself.
Moron.
15742050? ago
"I won't let you forget that you were quoting different articles on the same study back to me"
LOL! I never said it was a different study. I was showing you how your ONE article had the information wrong and that EVERY other article showed you are wrong. Please find ONE other article stating the Montana boy DNA shows what you say it does. Just ONE. I provided 5 more and there are so many others showing the evidence shows the exact opposite of what you say yet you continue to hide behind the "tl;dr" excuse like a ostrich with its head in the sand. Childish. LMAO! I guess your strategy is if the evidence proves you wrong, it's best to ignore and deny, deny, deny!
15742305? ago
Nope, you just found an article on the same study that spun it a different way but failing to explain half of the DNA. lol
15742381? ago
I guess you failed in your quest to find any other sources backing you up so it's back to "Nuh uh." Classic you!
"Nope, you just found an article on the same study"
I found numerous articles and I only shared a few. In any case, you wouldn't know as you didn't read them. All the articles interpret the DNA the same way which is to say the Montana boy proves Asian lineage for Native Americans, not White Europeans (LMAO). You have one sentence from one source saying otherwise and nothing else backing you up. Pretty sad bud.
15742398? ago
Actually, I posted several sources, it's not my fault you can't read, nigger.
You're a chimp.
15742570? ago
Sources? Please show, don't tell. If you had the sources (you don't) you could easily reproduce them. More excuses. Expected sadly.
15742719? ago
Same researcher...same conclusion. You're a chimp.
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans
15742935? ago
LOL!!! Are you serious now?!?!
"Same researcher...same conclusion"
Of course the same researcher will come to the same conclusion genius. Did other experts/sources come to the same conclusions? No.
I posted several articles, which are newer, refuting these claims based on the DNA evidence. You are clinging to one guy.
In any case, Montana boy DNA evidence is newer and more conclusive:
The find offers the first genetic evidence for what Native Americans have claimed all along: that they are directly descended from the first Americans. It also confirms that those first Americans can be traced back at least 24,000 years, to a group of early Asians and a group of Europeans who mated near Lake Baikal in what is now Siberia. And it dispels a controversial theory that the Americas were first populated by west Europeans who somehow crossed the Atlantic Ocean.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129562-100-ancestry-of-first-americans-revealed-by-a-boys-genome/amp/
15743008? ago
I>t also confirms that those first Americans can be traced back at least 24,000 years, to a group of early Asians and a group of Europeans who mated near Lake Baikal in what is now Siberia.
Exactly, Indians are 1/3 European. Dumbass.
15743206? ago
Once again, European does not mean White.
The pathetic part of your argument is that you are attempting to hitch an imaginary 1/3 White European DNA to Native Americans in order to say Whites discovered America first. Let's say for arguments sake, you are right. 1/3 is not a lot and the Native Americans wouldn't be pure White anyways so a "pure White race" did not discover America even by your own false evidence. You are too blind to see how ridiculous your argument is even in the face of copies amounts of evidence proving you wrong
15747278? ago
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans
Sure as shit does, you lying motherfucker.
15749528? ago
Lol, you really are dense. Nowhere does it say they are White. In fact, I just provided in my previous comment to you the same guy, Eske Willerslev, saying the DNA of Native Americans is Asian/Eurasian from Siberia. In other words, NOT WHITE. LMAO, nice try. Back to the drawing board with your ignorant ass.
15754104? ago
It doesn't have to, any idiot knows that Europeans are white.
No, he did not say from Siberia, he said GERMANY. lol
15755168? ago
"any idiot knows that Europeans are white."
Can you show me any sources saying all Europeans are white?
"No, he did not say from Siberia, he said GERMANY. lol"
Take the time to look at this article with the accompanying Native American lineage map supplied by Eske Willerslev. It shows absolutely 0 German links. Guess Eske found new information that countered his one German comment and changed his belief. That's what happens when rational people receive new, credible information that challenges their previous beliefs. They discard false information.
"The genetic analysis points towards a divergence of all ancient Native Americans from a single east Asian source population somewhere between 36,000 to 25,000 years ago—well before humans crossed into Beringia, an area that includes the land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska at the end of the last ice age. That means that somewhere along the way, either in eastern Asia or in Beringia itself, a group of people became isolated from other east Asians for about 10,000 years, long enough to become a unique strain of humanity."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2018/01/alaska-dna-ancient-beringia-genome
15759213? ago
Europeans are obviously white, you say they are not.
The burden of proof is on you.
Heh, wrong. Stupid fucking coon. lol
15759533? ago
"Europeans are obviously white, you say they are not.
The burden of proof is on you"
I already proved it numerous times to you previously so I won't again. Learn to read and comprehend. And you definitely need new eyes as Europeans are definitely not all White. Idiot thinks Europeans are a RACE LMAO!!!
"Heh, wrong. Stupid fucking coon. lol"
Nope, not wrong:
Now though, thanks to work by Morten Rasmussen and many co-authors published in Nature, we have the full genome of a Clovis person who lived c. 10,600 cal BC in Montana, the north-west US. The diagram above shows this individual's genetic affinities. The important dots to look for are the black and grey ones. They show that the part of the world where people are farthest genetically from the Clovis culture are southern Europe and the Near East. This happens to include the area of the Solutrean culture. Case closed.
https://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2014/02/13/genetic-study-kills-off-solutrean-hypothesis
"In addition to extravagant claims based upon problematic dating and superficial similarities between tools, a serious problem with the Solutrean hypothesis is that its claim of an ancient European origin for Clovis also predicts that we would find a significant genetic contribution from ancient Europeans into ancient Native American populations. We don’t. All ancient and modern Native Americans possess mitochondrial (maternally-inherited) and Y-chromosome (paternally-inherited) lineages that are descended from those found in peoples of Siberia. They are not found in ancient or modern Europeans. Comparisons of bi-parentally inherited nuclear markers also show a close relationship between all Native Americans and Siberians, not Europeans."
"The second, like this article in der Spiegal “Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe”, emphasized the Anzick-1’s genetic affinities with the recently published genome from the ancient Siberian “Mal’ta child” (Raghavan et al. 2013) as evidence of European ancestry. (They specifically suggest that he may have German ancestry). That they chose to do so is puzzling. Shared ancestry between an ancient Native American and an ancient Siberian individual from the Lake Baikal region is a totally unsurprising result and fits within our consensus models for the peopling of the Americas. But Spiegal’s interpretation of this as a “European link” to Native Americans is inaccurate. The Mal’ta individual shows shared ancestry with a broad distribution of Eurasian populations, not just modern Europeans. Furthermore, the Mal’ta child lived 24,000 years ago, and the genetic landscape of that time period was almost certainly unlike the genetic landscape of today. To say that the Mal’ta child was “European” is to inappropriately apply a modern description of genetic variation backwards to a time when genetic diversity patterns in Europe likely were very different: by that logic, it would be just as accurate to say that modern Europeans are “Siberian”!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/10/problematic-science-journalism-native-american-ancestry-and-the-solutrean-hypothesis/amp/
Please, continue commenting as you further solidify your ignorance.
15759581? ago
Europeans are white, the only ones that aren't white, aren't from Europe.
You posted a partial article. lol
Montana boy was part German per Willerslev
Sorry, Charlie. lol
15743107? ago
36,000 YBP: The ancestors of the ancient Beringians began to separate from East Asians, but gene flow between them continues until about 25,000 YBP
~25-20,000 YBP: This population experienced gene flow with the ancient North Eurasian population (to which the Mal’ta boy belonged)
~20,000 YBP: The ancestors of the Upward Sun River child diverged from the ancestors of other Native Americans.
~17,000-14,600 YBP: The two major clades (genetic groups) of Native Americans differentiate from one another.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/03/what-the-ancient-dna-discovery-tells-us-about-native-american-ancestry
1/3 Eurasian, not White European. You continually mistakingly believe European means White. EUROPEAN IS NOT A RACE GENIUS! The Eurasian Altai from Siberia are Asian.
"Among the people who may have emerged from the Altai region are the predecessors of the first Native Americans.
Roughly 20-25,000 years ago, these prehistoric humans carried their ASIAN GENETIC LINEAGES up into the far reaches of Siberia and eventually across the then-exposed Bering land mass into the Americas."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092258/amp/Native-Americans-actually-came-tiny-mountain-region-Russia-DNA-research-reveals.html
Dumbass.
15747252? ago
That's right, keep posting more articles when your pet theories get destroyed.
Shuckin and jivin' nigger.
Nope lol
15749459? ago
Right above the section you highlighted is this nugget:
"According to the researchers’ calculations, 14-39 percent of the Native American genetic material comes from Mal’ta."
First, are you seriously saying the ancient Maltese are White? Second, even if they were, only 14-39% of the DNA potentially comes from them. That leaves 61 - 86 percent coming from Asians. To put in grade school terms for you: 1/3 is not as much as 2/3. NOT seeing a lot of White DNA there genius.
In any case, to put your lunacy fringe theories to bed, take the Kennewick Man:
"For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome. Michael Crawford, head of KU's Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and a professor of anthropology, was a co-author on that genetic project.
Raff said it was significant that Kennewick Man was on the West Coast, as it put the oldest and most ancestral lineage of X2a ever recovered in a geographic region more consistent with a migration from Siberia across the land bridge known as Beringia, which no longer exists between Alaska and Siberia, than a migration across the Atlantic. Prior to the sequencing of his genome, Kennewick Man had been used as an argument to support non-Siberian ancestry, because his skull looked different from those of later Native Americans. But his genome, and that of other ancient Americans with distinctive skull shapes, showed that was not true.
"When you look at the complete genome of ancient Native Americans up until now, we see no evidence for ancient European ancestry," she said."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-01-genetic-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor.amp
"Nineteen years after this important body was found, the genome analysis was finally published.
Had he been European (or Japanese or Polynesian), it would’ve been the most revolutionary find in the history of U.S. anthropology, and all textbooks on human migration would have been rewritten. But of course he wasn’t. A fragment of material was used to sequence his DNA, and it showed that lo and behold, Kennewick Man—the Ancient One—was closely related to the Anzick baby. And as for the living, he was more closely related to Native Americans than to anyone else on Earth, and within that group, most closely related to the Colville tribes.
Anzick is firm and final proof that North and South America were populated by the same people. Anzick’s mitochondrial genome is most similar to people of central and south America today."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/a-brief-history-of-everyone-who-ever-lived/537942/
The Kennewick Man and the Montana boy supersede the Malta boy and prove definitively that Native Americans are related to Asians and do not have White European DNA.
To put the final nail in the coffin, the guy you love to quote, Eske Willerslev, debunks his comment and your theory in a newer study:
“This is a new population of Native Americans,” said Eske Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen, whose team recovered the girl’s DNA from a dense part of her skull known as the petrous bone. Details of the work are published in Nature.
Working with scientists at the University of Alaska and elsewhere, Willerslev compared the genetic makeup of the baby, named Xach’itee’aanenh t’eede gaay or “sunrise child-girl” by the local community, with genomes from other ancient and modern people. They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia. The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.
Using evolutionary models, the researchers showed that the ancestors of the first Native Americans started to emerge as a distinct population about 35,000 years ago, probably in north-east Asia. About 25,000 years ago, this group mixed and bred with ancient north Eurasians in the region, the descendants of whom went on to become the first Native Americans to settle the New World.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/03/ancient-dna-reveals-previously-unknown-group-of-native-americans-ancient-beringians
15754117? ago
Once again, your stupidity and niggardly nature reveals itself. You can't even understand what you read. He's saying that Europeans, specifically in the region of Germany, traveled to Mal'ta.
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans
15755296? ago
"He's saying that Europeans, specifically in the region of Germany, traveled to Mal'ta."
You are really dense and have severe confirmation bias. It says nothing about the DNA coming from Germans. Here are 2 quotes from your article:
"The really sensational news, however, is that a large proportion (about a third) of all living Native Americans are descendants of the Mal’ta people."
"According to the researchers’ calculations, 14-39 percent of the Native American genetic material comes from Mal’ta."
In any case, this was a study from 2013. The Kennewick Man (2015) and Montana boy (2014) proved definitively that Native Americans have no European DNA.
15759242? ago
I baited you again, it says so in another article. God, you are fucking stupid. Every time! 8D chess. lol
https://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/03/new-evidence-supports-solutrean.html
15759563? ago
"Some of the boy's ancestors are likely even to have lived in present-day Germany."
Idiot.
The second, like this article in der Spiegal “Montana Boy: Bones Show Ancestral Links to Europe”, emphasized the Anzick-1’s genetic affinities with the recently published genome from the ancient Siberian “Mal’ta child” (Raghavan et al. 2013) as evidence of European ancestry. (They specifically suggest that he may have German ancestry). That they chose to do so is puzzling. Shared ancestry between an ancient Native American and an ancient Siberian individual from the Lake Baikal region is a totally unsurprising result and fits within our consensus models for the peopling of the Americas. But Spiegal’s interpretation of this as a “European link” to Native Americans is inaccurate. The Mal’ta individual shows shared ancestry with a broad distribution of Eurasian populations, not just modern Europeans. Furthermore, the Mal’ta child lived 24,000 years ago, and the genetic landscape of that time period was almost certainly unlike the genetic landscape of today. To say that the Mal’ta child was “European” is to inappropriately apply a modern description of genetic variation backwards to a time when genetic diversity patterns in Europe likely were very different: by that logic, it would be just as accurate to say that modern Europeans are “Siberian”!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/10/problematic-science-journalism-native-american-ancestry-and-the-solutrean-hypothesis/amp/
15759615? ago
Means nothing, based on nothing. The opinion of an idiot.
15762666? ago
So stupid you can't do one ounce of research. The article was written by Jennifer Raff. Here is her profile:
JENNIFER A. RAFF, PHD
Assistant Professor
Ph.D., Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree), Indiana University, Bloomington
Research Areas: genomics, population genetics, ancient DNA, anthropological genetics, human evolution and population history, migration, bioarchaeology, scientific literacy, North America, Arctic
Education
Ph.D., Anthropology and Genetics (dual degree), Indiana University, Bloomington
M.A., Anthropology, Indiana University, Bloomington
B.A., Biology and Anthropology (double major), Indiana University, Bloomington
Courses Recently TaughtFundamentals of Physical AnthropologyHuman Evolution
https://anthropology.ku.edu/jennifer-raff
15767136? ago
Her arguments were garbage, based on nothing.
And she's no one compared to Willerslev. lol
15768570? ago
You are absolutely delusional. In the face of direct evidence that you are wrong, you go into your little childish denial mode. It's pathetic yet at the same time oddly amusing LOL. How you can claim a woman with this pedigree a "nobody" is laughably absurd:
Jennifer Raff
Jennifer is a geneticist who specialises in the study of human variation among contemporary and ancient populations. She hunts for clues to our histories that are embedded in our genomes, working in both the laboratory and in the field (usually the Arctic).
https://www.theguardian.com/profile/jennifer-raff
From her Forbes.com profile:
Jennifer Raff
Geneticist. Anthropologist. Science writer. FULL BIO
I’m an anthropological geneticist with a PhD in genetics and anthropology. As an Assistant Professor at the University of Kansas, I study the DNA of ancient and contemporary peoples in order to understand their histories, focusing mainly on Native American populations. I write for the general public on topics concerning human genetics and scientific literacy, particularly those related to human evolution and more recent history, and issues at the intersection of genetics, race, and identity.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferraff/#4fa36a4d3eef
"Her arguments were garbage, based on nothing."
Now, in your own words, explain why this is so and back it up with sources otherwise you are once again conflating your opinion as evidence and wasting my time.
15782185? ago
Already did. She's the one who had no sources and could not explain why.
Argument from Authority successfully baited again. Assistant professor. lol
What a stupid coon.
Looks like you feel out of love with Willerslev. lol
15783501? ago
"Already did. She's the one who had no sources and could not explain why."
Here is her source for the article. Learn to read bud:
"Moreno-Mayar et al. 2018. Terminal Pleistocene Alaskan genome reveals first founding population of Native Americans. Nature."
You are sidestepping and making excuses. Here is more of her evidence:
"However, Jennifer Raff, a University of Kansas assistant professor of anthropology, said mitochondrial and genomic data that scientists have recovered don't support such an early wave of migrants.
"That hypothesis is only held by a very tiny minority of the archaeological community, but nevertheless it gets a lot of attention from people who have a casual interest in American archaeology," said Raff, lead author of a recent article in the journal PaleoAmerica on the issue. "When we summarize the genetic results we have, we find nothing that's consistent with these hypothesized trans-Atlantic migrations."
Raff and co-author Deborah Bolnick, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Texas at Austin, published the article that evaluated these hypotheses in light of current genetic evidence from ancient and present-day Native Americans. They concluded that genetic data scientists have recovered to date only supports a migration from Siberia into the Americas and does not show evidence of earlier migrations from ancient Israelites or inhabitants of what is now Europe. Within the next month, the journal article will available to the public via open access, Raff said.
The genetic piece of one recent argument for a trans-Atlantic migration—known as the Solutrean hypothesis—contended that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations provided evidence for ancient gene flow from Europe or the Middle East into North America. The hypothesis suggested that the North American Clovis culture dated roughly 13,000 years ago was directly descended from the Solutrean culture of southwestern Europe dated roughly 23,000 years before present.
However, Raff and Bolnick said in analyzing all recent genetic studies of the earliest Native Americans they didn't find anything consistent with a possible early trans-Atlantic migration. For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome. Michael Crawford, head of KU's Laboratory of Biological Anthropology and a professor of anthropology, was a co-author on that genetic project.
Raff said it was significant that Kennewick Man was on the West Coast, as it put the oldest and most ancestral lineage of X2a ever recovered in a geographic region more consistent with a migration from Siberia across the land bridge known as Beringia, which no longer exists between Alaska and Siberia, than a migration across the Atlantic. Prior to the sequencing of his genome, Kennewick Man had been used as an argument to support non-Siberian ancestry, because his skull looked different from those of later Native Americans. But his genome, and that of other ancient Americans with distinctive skull shapes, showed that was not true.
"When you look at the complete genome of ancient Native Americans up until now, we see no evidence for ancient European ancestry," she said.
Proponents of an early trans-Atlantic migration typically point to a similarity in the tools used by Clovis people—ancient Native Americans—with the early Solutrean hunter-gatherer people in Europe, Raff said.
However, most anthropologists and archaeologists consider that a coincidence, especially because the genetic evidence thus far doesn't seem to support the early trans-Atlantic migration.
Raff said it was important to accurately examine the populating of the Americas, especially because many times in American history those who favor the idea of a European influence upon Native Americans have used that to take away from their tribal sovereignty and cultural achievements."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2016-01-genetic-ancient-trans-atlantic-migration-professor.amp
Again, try doing actual reading/research before making extremely ill-advised ignorant comments as you continually come out looking rather unintelligent.
15783526? ago
Yes, the minority that has done the research and the one you so breathlessly quoted to me earlier.
Now that it's gone south on you, you're looking for another hero, some bitch assistant professor. lol
15783751? ago
Lol, you take one mispoken quote and herald it and when proven wrong continue to make lame excuses to attempt to save face. I am not discounting Willerslev at all as his most recent research, as well as that by "some worthless bitch assistant professor" prove his earlier quote wrong. It's called changing hypothesis in the face of new evidence. You should try it as you will sound way less ignorant. LMAO!
15786196? ago
That's what you've done all along and what you are doing now.
If all his old research was wrong, then he's a moron. Oops.
Nowhere does he contradict the old research, you're just a fool who googles shit he doesn't understand. lol
15786355? ago
"Nowhere does he contradict the old research, you're just a fool who googles shit he doesn't understand."
Except for the genealogy timeline of Native Americans that Willerslev himself provided that you continually ignore like a cornered child. Here it is again so please stop ignoring it:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2018/01/alaska-dna-ancient-beringia-genome
What's your excuse this time bud?
15786412? ago
And the Beringians were 1/3 European, as he stated earlier.
There is nothing inconsistent with that.
15786906? ago
"And the Beringians were 1/3 European, as he stated earlier."
Seriously? This is just getting sad.
"Who were the Ancient Beringians?
Ancient Beringians were a Native American group that formed a genetically distinct population between 21,000 and 11,500 years ago, and probably persisted in Alaska until about 6000 years ago. This population was discovered through genomic analyses on two infants discovered at the Upward Sun River site (USR) reported in Nature on Jan 3, 2018 (Figure 1). The discovery and analyses of these infants were reported in PNAS in 2014. The site is associated with the Denali complex, a widespread archaeological culture in Northwest North America."
Please show me where it says they are 1/3 European. Plus, your argument is they are part German according to Willerslev even though he has proven this false himself. Proto-Europeans, which is what you would be looking at at this point in time, were not White which I have proven to you but it's a moot point as they have no influence on Native American DNA. Only ancient Asian Siberians may be genetically related.
"Unique strain of humanity = not exclusively asian"
Where do they say this? You are giving your own interpretation. They do not say the unique strain is White European which is what you are pathetically attempting to claim.
15786921? ago
Willerslev and his team is already on the record as saying so in two articles.
Feel free to go back and read our earlier exchanges, coon.
15787115? ago
Wow, triggered much? Guess being proven an idiot over and over again is getting to you.
"Willerslev and his team is already on the record as saying so in two articles already posted. We've been through this."
Willerslev is also on record in newer research/articles proving his earlier theory wrong. That's how science works. You form a hypothesis and correct it when new evidence proves the old one wrong.
Jennifer Raff is an equally qualified corraborating expert backing up Willerslev's new research. Where are your experts/articles proving you right? Oh, that's right, you have none LMAO!!!
15787150? ago
No, he isn't. lol
15787195? ago
You saying "No" is not a qualified rebuttal. Prove me wrong. I provided the quotes/evidence. Show me where it's wrong. You sticking your head in the sand saying "nuh uh" is not acceptable. Try harder little one.
15787259? ago
Actually, it is.
I don't have to because it's just her opinion and she's a nobody.
Your quotes and evidence were just quoting her opinion.
15787285? ago
Lol, give up little child. She is more qualified than your delusional racist ass.
15795198? ago
Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one.
15795562? ago
She has the pedigree and research to back up her opinions. You do not little racist.
15795581? ago
No, she did no research nigger. lol
15795943? ago
Idiot. I supplied you with articles based directly on her research. You live in such a small, delusional world. Keep on keeping your head in the sand little racist.
15800164? ago
It was her personal opinion on someone else's research.
And Willerslev obviously disagreed with her, then you try to say he agrees with her.
You retard.
15761465? ago
Wonderful! You summed up your own argument perfectly! Couldn't have said it better myself!
15761477? ago
What I find amusing is when you thought Willerslev's research supported your crackpot theories you breathlessly quoted his research.
You're so fucking stupid you didn't realize I was quoting him right back to you.
Now that I've proven that it's not the case, you jump to the side of his detractor, some nobody blogger.
You stupid coon, that double digit IQ of yours is really showing. lol
Go ahead boy, google 3 more articles and give me another wall of text.
15763172? ago
You idiot. I have shown you Willerslev's own research conducted after your 2013 article refuting his own earlier research. It definitively showed Native Americans have no German DNA. It even had a Native American lineage chart Willerslev himself provided showing as much.
You really need to read what I share as you continually sound like a moron.
15767143? ago
No you didn't, coon.
She's a relative nobody and more importantly made no case, presented no evidence.
Argument from authority, lesser authority. lol
15768895? ago
"You showed me a slanted article"
Your opinion. How was it slanted? Provide evidence and sources bud.
Once again, look at this article with direct evidence in the form of a detailed genetic timeline of Native Americans provided by your hero Eske Willerslev. It is from January 3rd, 2018 and is based on much newer evidence than your actually slanted German article.
"The genetic analysis points towards a divergence of all ancient Native Americans from a single east Asian source population somewhere between 36,000 to 25,000 years ago—well before humans crossed into Beringia, an area that includes the land bridge connecting Siberia and Alaska at the end of the last ice age. That means that somewhere along the way, either in eastern Asia or in Beringia itself, a group of people became isolated from other east Asians for about 10,000 years, long enough to become a unique strain of humanity."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2018/01/alaska-dna-ancient-beringia-genome
Stop burying your head in the sand and explain this bud. Direct from Willerslev himself.
15782206? ago
Yes, because Europeans traveled to Siberia and mixed with asians and became "a unique strain of humanity"
Does not contradict anything and he's your hero. I never knew his name prior to your bringing him up. lol
15783634? ago
"Yes, because Europeans traveled to Siberia and mixed with asians and became "a unique strain of humanity"
You are putting words into his mouth he never said. First, that group of people belong to "the OTHER East Asians" hence the use of other. Nowhere does it say they mixed with Europeans. Once again, Willerslev's own chart detailing the genealogy of Native Americans (which you continue to ignore as you cannot explain it away) proves no European ancestry outside of Siberia which were the Asians of Altai.
You have such an extreme case of denial you continue to ignore direct evidence from Willerslev himself that contradicts the one quote from a slanted German article from the guy you herald as the top authority. How sad that you cling to such false hopes when repeatedly proven wrong.
15786190? ago
We've already covered the fact that he did say it.
Need a refresher? lol
15786277? ago
And I've shown you repeatedly new evidence from Willerslev that disproves his one comment about German ancestry of Native Americans. He also only said it was likely, not definite which he ended up proving it was not likely at all. Can you disprove or explain away the new evidence from Willerslev himself or are you in the habit of ignoring new evidence even if it's from the same source that disproves their earlier statements?
15786287? ago
No, you didn't and it wasn't "one comment". lol
There is no contradiction.
It is already admitted that 80% of the American Indians descended from the earlier sample researched.
The earlier research was not wrong nor does this newest research contradict the earlier research.
You're just a little coon jackass in way over his head.
15786652? ago
Lol insults from someone who thinks he's smart when he continually proves he is not. LMAO!!! Here are direct quotes from him once again disproving your "theory."
The team of academics not only discovered that the Spirit Cave remains -- the world's oldest natural mummy -- was a Native American but they were able to dismiss a longstanding theory that a group called Paleoamericans existed in North America before Native Americans.
"The ground-breaking research also discovered clues of a puzzling Australasian genetic signal in the 10,400 year old Lagoa Santa remains from Brazil revealing a previously unknown group of early South Americans -- but the Australasian link left no genetic trace in North America. It was described by one of the scientists as 'extraordinary evidence of an extraordinary chapter in human history'.
Professor Eske Willeslev, who holds positions both at St John's College, University of Cambridge, and the University of Copenhagen, and led the study, said: "Spirit Cave and Lagoa Santa were very controversial because they were identified as so-called 'Paleoamericans' based on craniometry -- it was determined that the shape of their skulls was different to current day Native Americans. Our study proves that Spirit Cave and Lagoa Santa were actually genetically closer to contemporary Native Americans than to any other ancient or contemporary group sequenced to date."
The Lagoa Santa remains were retrieved by Danish explorer Peter W. Lund in the 19th century and his work led to this 'Paleoamerican hypothesis' based on cranial morphology that theorised the famous group of skeletons could not be Native Americans. But this new study disproves that theory and the findings were published by Professor Willeslev with representatives from the Brazilian National Museum in Rio on Tuesday, November 6 2018.
He added: "Looking at the bumps and shapes of a head does not help you understand the true genetic ancestry of a population -- we have proved that you can have people who look very different but are closely related."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181108142340.htm
As well as more evidence:
"Willerslev and his colleagues then pieced together how the peopling of the Americans might have occurred. They estimated that the founding population of Native Americans — including both Northern and Southern Native Americans and Beringians — diverged from ancestral Asians about 36,000 years ago, though with a high level of gene flow until about 25,000 years ago. Ancient Beringians then diverged from the common ancestor of other Native Americans about 20,900 years ago. This, they noted, is in agreement with the Beringian standstill model, which says that the people moving from Asia to the Americas were isolated in Beringia for a period of time before moving southward.
But where that split occurred remains unclear. One possibility is that Ancient Beringians and other Native American split while in northeast Asia, while another is that they split in northwest North America, the researchers said. Willerslev and his colleagues noted that the first scenario is more consistent with archaeological evidence, while the second is in line with genetic evidence."
https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/ancient-alaskan-genome-shows-common-founding-population-native-americans
In summary: you are a delusional little racist LMAO!
15786881? ago
None of that contradicts earlier evidence.
Indians are still 1/3 European. Try harder, nigger.
Keep googling those irrelevant walls of text, get me another effort post, boy.
15786981? ago
Lol, you still have yet to even provide any relevant evidence to this theory. I have provided plenty of experts/new evidence proving you wrong yet you cling to a single source from 2013. Even though Willerslev himself proved you wrong. You are pathetic. Go back to school and learn how to debate as "Lalalalala not listening" and deny, deny, deny are not acceptable rebuttals.
15787041? ago
I have already provided it in the form of direct quotes from two articles.
You have supplied articles that do not in any way directly refute that, including some garbage opinions based on nothing from an assistant professor from Kansas.
That's all you got.
15787160? ago
Nope, you provided one quote from a slanted 2013 German article which I debunked with Willerslev's newer evidence/research.
I have provided newer and more relevant experts/evidence and you have NONE! LMAO!!!
15787192? ago
I provided two articles, one with direct quotes from Willerslev.
You provided newer articles that in no way contradict the first.
Willerslev never said that the previous testing was flawed or wrong.
15787252? ago
Nope, you provided one 2013 article from Der Spiegel and another 2013 from ScienceNordic. Old articles/quote bud. Where is your newer relevant info? I provided plenty of new evidence/experts backing up my claim as I researched it. You have done nothing of the sort and you can't because you have none. Sad. You should be embarrassed.
15787282? ago
You've provided no new evidence and you are not qualified to do any research.
15787313? ago
LMAO!!! You only say that because you can't read or comprehend. Your argument has become "Nuh uh" drivel now. We are done here bud.
15787323? ago
Great, suck a dick, nigger.
15787812? ago
And as a final kick to your racist nutsack, here is Willerslev's definitive statement from 2014 (which is newer than your 2013 quote in case you couldn't figure that out).
"This new research "has settled the long-standing debate about the origins of the Clovis," Willerslev said. "We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/43329-prehistoric-boy-may-be-native-american-missing-link.html
BOOM!!! Racist delusional fantasy destroyed yet again by Willerslev! LMAO!!!
15795219? ago
The Solutrean theory refers to the theory of Europeans crossing the Atlantic.
Instead, Europeans and Asians mixed in Siberia, then crossed.
You're too stupid to comprehend what he's saying.
15795517? ago
So this is what denial looks like. A direct freaking quote from Willerslev himself completely obliterating any European roots to Native Americans and you still claim it doesn't say that. Wow! That is absolutely stunning! It's also amazing you completely ignored the co-authors remarks:
"The findings do not support a Western European origin of the First Americans."
"Instead, Willerslev has said that Europeans and Asians mixed in Siberia, then crossed."
Willerslev is absolutely not saying this. His exact words contradict your statement completely:
"We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
The Clovis people do not have any European DNA as they did not originate from Europe. Your comprehension skills suck horribly little racist.
15795597? ago
He is saying that.
Clovis people have 1/3 European DNA per Willerslev.
Solutrean theory refers to Europeans crossing frozen Atlantic, that is what he's referring to.
No contradictions, fake news by a double digit IQ nigger.
15796068? ago
Idiot. NOT what the Solutrean theory is referring to:
"The Solutrean hypothesis is a minority opinion concerning the human settlement of North America. It holds, essentially, during the last ice age, anatomically modern humans from Europe crossed via an ice bridge or over open water to North America. They brought the Solutrean high hunting culture, with its characteristic and advanced stone tool set to North America, where it became known as the Clovis culture.
Further evidence for this is supposed to come from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA); one group, Haplogroup X, is found in large numbers in widely scattered populations, but its incidence is highest among Native Americans speaking Algonquian languages in northeastern North America; and also in Old World populations from the Middle East, where it is particularly common among the Druze community."
AND THIS NUGGET:
"In 2014, DNA from a 12,500 year old infant of the Clovis culture was sequenced; the skeleton was found in association with Clovis artifacts. The DNA showed strong affinities to Paleolithic populations known from Siberia, in an area west of Lake Baikal, known as the Mal'ta-Buret' culture. The Clovis DNA also had strong affinities with contemporary Native Americans. No significant European ties were found, which makes the Solutrean hypothesis increasingly unlikely.[7]"
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
AS WELL AS THIS:
"In 2014, the autosomal DNA of a male infant (Anzick-1) from a 12,500-year-old deposit in Montana was sequenced.[8] The skeleton was found in close association with several Clovis artifacts. Comparisons showed strong affinities with DNA from Siberian sites, and virtually ruled out any close affinity of Anzick-1 with European sources. The DNA of the Anzick-1 sample showed strong affinities with sampled Native American populations, which indicated that the samples derive from an ancient population that lived in or near Siberia, the Upper Palaeolithic Mal'ta population.[9]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean
The Solutrean hypothesis tries to link European and Native American DNA. THIS study proved it dead wrong as there is no European DNA associated with Native Americans.
You keep talking about IQs yet continually prove you have none.
15800184? ago
False, it is distinct from the linking of European and Asian DNA in Mal'ta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
15800320? ago
"False, it is distinct from the linking of European and Asian DNA in Mal'ta."
So you either completely ignored or could not comprehend this:
"The GENETIC piece of one recent argument for a trans-Atlantic migration—known as the Solutrean hypothesis—contended that the presence of mitochondrial haplogroup X2a in Native American populations provided evidence for ancient gene flow from Europe or the Middle East into North America. The hypothesis suggested that the North American Clovis culture dated roughly 13,000 years ago was directly descended from the Solutrean culture of southwestern Europe dated roughly 23,000 years before present.
However, Raff and Bolnick said in analyzing all recent genetic studies of the earliest Native Americans they didn't find anything consistent with a possible early trans-Atlantic migration. For example, the recent publication of the complete genome from the 8,500-year-old Kennewick Man, found in Washington state in 1996, showed that he belonged to haplogroup X2a but had no indication of recent European ancestry throughout the rest of his genome."
There is a GENETIC part of the Solutrean hypothesis and it was thoroughly debunked by Kennewick Man and Montana boy.
In any case, if you believe there is no GENETIC component to the Solutrean hypothesis, what is your argument? Are you not attempting to say that Native Americans have White DNA therefore Whites discovered America LMAO? You don't even know what your own damn argument is anymore fool!
15800348? ago
Raff again, lol
Thought you could throw that one by me, you worthless nigger.
Show me where Willerslev said it.
15800668? ago
"Raff again, lol"
Your argument: "Oh wow, a published researcher in the same field who is extremely qualified? Lol, let's not take her or her work seriously even though I have nothing to debunk her work with as it doesn't fit with my little racist fantasies."
Either prove she is not qualified or accept that she is. You saying she is not qualified doesn't make it so. Those institutions who publish her work as well as the journals/sites that interview her for articles deem Raff qualified. Excuse me for taking their word over yours.
"Show me where Willerslev said it."
Are you kidding me right now?!?! The wheels must turn very slowly in your head.
"This new research "has settled the long-standing debate about the origins of the Clovis," Willerslev said. "We can say the Solutrean theory suggesting Clovis originated from people in Europe doesn't fit our results."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/43329-prehistoric-boy-may-be-native-american-missing-link.html
Willerslev said (in bold so you can follow along): THE CLOVIS DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM PEOPLE IN EUROPE!!! NO EUROPEAN DNA!!!
15802595? ago
She's not extremely qualified. Shes' an assistant professor in Kansas.
We've already discussed why that doesn't mean what you think it does, nigger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solutrean_hypothesis
15803662? ago
"She's not extremely qualified. Shes' an assistant professor in Kansas."
What makes her unqualified? She has the education, the published work, the field experience, and she is quoted as an expert in numerous articles. Here is her curriculum vitae:
http://kansas.academia.edu/JenniferRaff/CurriculumVitae
Here is a summary of her background yet again:
"Jennifer Raff is an Assistant Professor of Physical Anthropology at the University of Kansas, and director and Principal Investigator of the KU Laboratory of Human Population Genomics. She has a dual Ph.D. in Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Anthropology from Indiana University, and has completed postdoctoral work at the University of Utah, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, and the University of Texas.
Jennifer’s research focuses on the molecular genetics of evolution through the analysis of genomes from ancient and contemporary human populations, with a special emphasis on the initial colonization and subsequent population history of the American continents. In addition to her academic work, she is extensively involved in science literacy outreach efforts through social media, public talks, and writing for her blog, the Huffington Post, and the Social Evolution Forum."
https://skepticon.org/speaker/jennifer-raff/
So again, what makes her unqualified other than you don't like her work? She is much more than just an assistant professor (as if being an assistant professor makes her inferior). She has also taught numerous classes herself. You have no basis to call her unqualified. Her opinion/research carries weight whereas yours does not.
"We've already discussed why that doesn't mean what you think it does, nigger."
It means exactly what I said and I've shown that the Solutrean hypothesis relies on the Halpogroup X DNA which was a disproven connection. You really need to do better research little racist.
15805319? ago
Not qualified, wasn't on the team. lol
15806049? ago
Irrelevant. Try harder little racist.
15806089? ago
Highly, relevant, get me another wall of text that I won't read, boy.
You work for me now, nigger.
15806178? ago
LMAO!!! I'm believing it's more wall of text you "can't read" rather than "won't read."
Keep up your childish insults triggered little racist. Evidence is on my side. Lack of evidence accompany your delusional side.
15806194? ago
True, I won't read. We've already established that none of the evidence is on your side.
You're a nigger.
15806267? ago
Actually all the evidence and the scientific consensus is on my side. You provided nothing LMAO!!! Try harder little triggered racist.
15806273? ago
Actually none of it is, nigger.
15806376? ago
You saying it isn't proves nothing. Again, your uneducated opinion. I have proved the consensus is on my side over and over again with SOURCES. Where is your SOURCE saying the consensus is on the Solutrean side little racist?
15806559? ago
I've already provided the relevant quotes from two articles from Willerslev's team.
Feel free to peruse them at your leisure, nigger.
15806850? ago
And those were from 2013. Please provide direct evidence afterwards. I provided quotes/papers/articles from 2014 to 2018 from Willerslev and others refuting your ONE mistaken quote.
"You're misusing that word Solutrean again,"
If you are not arguing for the Solutrean hypothesis, what is your argument? Are you saying the Solutrean hypothesis is not correct?
15806859? ago
The Solutrean hypothesis states that Europeans crossed the frozen atlantic.
15806950? ago
"No backtrack has occurred re Willerslev."
Except his genetic testing afterwards did disprove it. I won't repost the evidence. Your lazy ass can actually go back and READ it.
In any case, is your argument Native Americans are White? If not, what is your argument? Do you even know at this point?
15806960? ago
Actually, it didn't.
Yes, Native Americans are currently 1/3 European.
You won't repost it because it doesn't say what you want it to say.
15806984? ago
SOURCE newer than 2013?
15807008? ago
Don't need it.
Your source doesn't contradict it.
15807021? ago
Yes you do. What is your argument?
15807031? ago
Been through it.
15809895? ago
Explain it. Be clear and concise. What point are you trying to make?
15787347? ago
Well, the only one available is up your racist ass so I will take a pass. Enjoy it!
15795257? ago
All niggers are gay, that's why you give each other AIDs in Africa constantly.
15795553? ago
It's absolutely pathetic how you see anyone who disagrees with you as a "nigger" even though I have repeatedly told you I am White. You are proving you are mentally retarded as you cannot comprehend basic English.
15795584? ago
You're not white. lol
15795933? ago
In your dreams. But again, if I was Black, it sure shows how damn dumb you are losing a debate to me LMAO!!!
15800146? ago
Only one problem, nigger. I'm not losing. lol
15800223? ago
Well, that is what one expects a delusional person to say so congrats, you have proven that diagnosis completely true! You have no evidence, no articles, and no experts backing you up. Your one claim with Willerslev hilariously blew up in your face due to direct quotes and evidence from him that, had you done a tiny bit of research, could have been avoided. Instead, you end up looking like a buffoon in denial.
15800242? ago
Actually, I do and the quotes from Willerslev don't support you.
You don't even know what the Solutrean hypothesis is. lol
Didn't you promise to go away, nigger?
What's the matter, can't stay away? lol
15800467? ago
"Actually, I do"
Good! Where is It?
"and the quotes from Willerslev don't support you."
Your (completely wrong) opinion but definitely not the opinion of Willerslev or his co-authors of his studies which I have supplied plenty of direct quotes/evidence/articles for that you continually ignore or deny.
"What's the matter, can't stay away? lol"
I am enamored by your denial little racist LMAO!
15800475? ago
Already posted, you tried to get around it with the Raff garbage, didn't work because she's a nobody with no original research.
You're wasting your time, nigger.
No one cares about your anti-white theories.
15800733? ago
Yet you cannot refute the evidence presented nor present anything valuable of your own. The Solutrean hypothesis is the "crack-pot" theory with nearly the entire scientific community laughing at it. There is no evidence to support the Solutrean theory at all.
"One idea, called the Solutrean hypothesis, suggests that the first Native Americans originated from Europe at an earlier stage, specifically from what is now France and Spain.
However, the University of Alaska Fairbanks' Potter says this is unlikely:
"It’s been tested and refuted on a number of grounds, not the least of which is the wide variety of technological disconnects that we see. But probably the most damming critique has been on the genetics side where we really don’t find any connection from European Paleolithic foragers and Native American."
Another study author at the press briefing, Ripan Malhi of the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, says the Solutrean hypothesis has been mostly debunked. He says genetic evidence rules it out:
"[W]hen the Anzick child was analyzed genomically, the closest relationship was to present day Native Americans and not to Europeans. And so I think that pretty much closed the door on the Solutrean hypothesis."
https://www.axios.com/how-native-americans-came-to-the-americas-debate-e06bcacb-894a-4cbe-bb62-77baaf377fed.html
There is NO EUROPEAN DNA IN NATIVE AMERICANS. The GENETIC EVIDENCE DISPROVES SOLUTREAN HYPOTHESIS. Learn to read/comprehend little racist.
15802766? ago
Willerslev agian. lol
lol
15803999? ago
"Willerslev dissents."
Hmmm....why didn't you post his quote? Could it be you knew it didn't support your version of reality? Let's take a look at what Willerslev was actually dissenting, shall we?
"The authors claim that divergence dates between Siberian’s and Native Americans and the deep split within native Americans are uncertain but in fact the ancient genomic literature show highly consistent results on these matters using different methods: with divergence between Siberian’s and native American ancestors around 23,000 and deep split into the north and southern branches of native Americans around 15,000."
"They also claim equal probability of first Americans entering the lower 48 states through the interior ice free corridor and the costal route ignoring recent literature showing the ice free corridor not being biological viable [until] after Clovis times."
He is arguing the dates saying the genealogical timeline has been proven and is not uncertain as the study said as well as refuting the idea of the ice free corridor. This dissent has nothing to do with DNA findings. Try to at least be honest with your attempted refutations little racist.
15805312? ago
You're the one who didn't post the quote. lol
What a stupid nigger.
15806037? ago
Seriously?!?! That's your response?!? You provided a quote that did nothing for your argument. I didn't provide the quote because it was irrelevant which you would have realized if you had a double digit IQ but sadly you lack that as well as the ability to research/read/comprehend.
15806057? ago
Actually it did because he didn't agree with what you posted. Hence, Willerslev dissents...lol
15806102? ago
Yet nothing you can provide that shows she is unqualified except for your own misguided pathetic opinion. You should really learn how to debate. Opinions don't count as rebuttal/evidence little racist.
15806109? ago
She has no first hand knowledge of the subject matter.
Just some whore assistant professor in bumfuck, egypt.
15806232? ago
Again, your opinion doesn't count. Her nearly 50 research papers as well as her extensive resume say otherwise little racist.
15806248? ago
Her extensive resume as assistant professor in Kansas? Bitch barely has a job.
I notice that you've stopped mentioning Willerslev, the guy who did most of the research. lol
15806325? ago
I shared her extensive background multiple times. NOT my fault you can't read or comprehend it. As for Willerslev, I already provided his quotes/research debunking your racist fantasies. No need to repeat myself again and again to your illiterate uneducated ass LMAO!!!
15806575? ago
Not even a real professor, assistant professor. lozolzolol
15806901? ago
"Willerslev has never reversed himself on this, dream on."
You keep saying this yet his quotes and research afterwards prove otherwise whether you want to admit it or not. Keep your head in the sand little racist.
15806923? ago
His quotes do not prove that at all. lol
15806978? ago
Yes they did LMAO.
15806989? ago
Nope. lol
You're wasting your time, nigger.
15807010? ago
Nope, just witnessing a massive delusional break with reality on your part LMAO!!!
15807029? ago
You've got nothing, just a worthless turd that no one cares about.
15809881? ago
What is your argument? Please be clear. Is your argument that Native Americans are White?
15802689? ago
All PHDs have published papers, means nothing.
Again, you attempt to conflate Solutrean hypothesis and European ancestry. Again you fail, nigger.
That could never disprove European ancestry as present day Native Americans are 1/3 European. lol
15803784? ago
"didn't work because she's a nobody with no original research."
"All PHDs have published papers, means nothing."
Hypocrite. Which is it? She is either a "nobody with no original research" or "her original research means nothing because all PhDs publish papers." You cannot be this stupid (actually, you have proven over and over again you are). LMAO!
"That could never disprove European ancestry as present day Native Americans are 1/3 European. lo"
Where is your source? I have provided many saying otherwise. SOURCE YOUR STATEMENTS little racist.
15805339? ago
She did not conduct the genetic testing, Willerslev did. That is the "research" I speak of.
15728740? ago
Doesn't contradict anything I've said in the slightest.
The stone age European tools predate that find by a good 8000 years.
Not to mention that Indians are still 1/3 European.
15729056? ago
Back to your trusty "Nuh uh!" argument again, I see. It actually contradicts everything so I guess you once again failed to read/comprehend the articles/experts. Don't buy it and want more proof? Here you go!
"Geneticists, too, have tested the Solutrean hypothesis. If it were true, we would expect to see ancestry from non-Siberian descended populations present in the genomes of ancient Native Americans. We don’t. All contemporary and ancient Native Americans, including the only known ancient individual buried in association with Clovis tools, show descent from an ancestral population with Siberian roots. There is a very clear pattern of evolutionary history recorded in ancient genomes from Siberia, Beringia, and North America, and no evidence for trans-Atlantic gene flow."
"First of all, Standford, Bradley, and Oppenheimer simply assume that Solutreans would have had X because it’s seen in contemporary European populations. But in fact, the contemporary European gene pool was formed only within the last 8,000 years, and it’s unknown whether earlier peoples would have had haplogroup X in the same frequencies (or at all). No genomes from Solutren peoples have ever been sequenced, and you should always be cautious when a case is made for extending present day patterns of genetic variation into the past without direct confirmation from ancient DNA.
"Today, lineages of haplogroup X are found widely dispersed throughout Europe, Asia, North Africa, and North America. We can reconstruct their evolutionary relationships – much like you can reconstruct a family tree – by looking at patterns of shared and derived mutations. Lineages found in the Americas, X2a and X2g, are not descendedfrom the lineages (X2b, X2d, and X2c) found in Europe. Instead, they share a very ancient common ancestor from Eurasia, X2. (Here is a detailed discussion of the evolution of these haplogroups for anyone interested).
X2a is of a comparable age to other indigenous American haplogroups (A,B,C,D), which would not be true if it was derived from a separate migration from Europe. Finally, the oldest lineage of X2a found in the Americas was recovered from the Ancient One (also known as Kennewick Man), an ancient individual dating to ~9,000 years ago and from the West Coast (not the East Coast as would be predicted from the Solutrean hypothesis). His entire genome has been sequenced and shows that he has no ancestry from European sources. There is no conceivable scenario under which Kennewick Man could have inherited just his mitochondrial genome from Solutreans but the rest of his genome from Beringians. Thus, without additional evidence, there is nothing to justify the assumption that X2a must have evolved in Europe."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/21/rejecting-the-solutrean-hypothesis-the-first-peoples-in-the-americas-were-not-from-europe
And this paper, while you will likely ignore due to It's length, demolishes the Solutrean THEORY.
"Recent whole-genome and ancient DNA studies have affirmed the reality of a West Eurasian-Amerindian connection (to the exclusion of East Eurasians) but Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014), who are clearly enamored with mtDNA hg X2, are strangely taciturn about them. Their treatment of “autosomal evidence for pre-Columbian West Eurasian admixture” is just 1.5 pages long! This reticence to delve deep into what has emerged as the strongest genetic evidence for non-East Eurasian affinities of New World populations can be explained by the mere novelty of the whole-genome data and the complex statistics behind it. But most likely Oppenheimer, Bradley and Stanford (2014) glanced over the growing body of studies simply because they know that they disprove the sexiest parts of the Solutrean hypothesis, namely the trans-Atlantic crossing and the unique link between southwest Europe and North America."
http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/blog/2014/11/29/the-solutrean-hypothesis-meets-mainstream-science-a-false-response-to-a-real-problem-vs-a-real-response-to-a-false-problem/
Once again, your delusions are shattered bud!
15729114? ago
Wrong. lol
15729507? ago
EUROPEAN DOES NOT MEAN WHITE! I provided plenty of evidence (which you ignored) showing the White origins of Europe didn't happen right away.
15729520? ago
Yes, it does. You've presented nothing but theories that are completely childish.
European means European, nigger.
15729656? ago
"European means European"
LMAO! Even you can't bring yourself to say European equals White in your own definition because you know it is wrong. EUROPEAN is not a RACE bud!
15739083? ago
That's like saying there is no African race because the Boers are white. lol
15741975? ago
LOL! Wow you sound really dumb right now. Asians are a RACE. Europeans are NOT A RACE! LMAO!!!
15741997? ago
Argument by assertion, means nothing.
Niggers like you aren't even fully human.
15742143? ago
Childish insults again. Whenever you are shown to be the ignorant fool you truly are, you revert back to childish character attacks. Guess if you can't beat the evidence, sling mud, huh? Pathetic. You are wasting both of our time.
15742359? ago
I beat you, then I insult you. That's the way it works around here, nigger.
And you ARE a nigger.
15742629? ago
You consistently beat yourself by providing evidence that counters your own White Superiority theories. It's absolutely hilarious! You set me up and I keep knocking them outta the park! Thanks bud!
BTW, calling me a nigger repeatedly does not hurt me in any way. I'm White. However, it does lower you down to the level of a child throwing a temper tantrum because he is repeatedly shown to be wrong. Sad little man.
15742809? ago
Nope. lol
http://sciencenordic.com/dna-links-native-americans-europeans
15742951? ago
And your point?
15671019? ago
See above for your direct quote.
I've already told you that I don't give a fuck what you "believe in", moron.
15671079? ago
Seriously? What point are you trying to make? That is from two sources. You said Graecopithecus freybergi was human and I proved you wrong. It is more closely related to apes. While evolution theory places humans in the same category, I do not subscribe to that theory. You are the one saying that we didn't come from Africa and that this fossil of an ape proves that. It's classification is highly disagreed upon in the scientific community. If anyone is conflating humans and apes, it's you bud.
15671107? ago
By posting that they are linked to subgroup Homininae, which include apes AND humans.
That does not prove me wrong.
You're a moron.
15613606? ago
The real test is always: "which culture survives and thrives?"
That battle has been playing out for hundred of thousands of years in human society.
Look at Japan. They had a native culture that lived on the island before the modern Japanese arrived. Where did they go? They were slaughtered and the Japanese took the land for themselves. Obviously the Japanese were the dominant and superior culture. Otherwise, they wouldn't have been able to take over the island.
15614070? ago
Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of history.
Who were the real savages between Whites and Native Americans?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/native-americans-genocide-united-states
Or Whites vs Japanese?
http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-bombings/
Just because Whites have an advantage in technology does not make us a "superior" race. In fact, history proves we are by far the most violent. Get off your high horse and brush up on your history skills bud.
15614084? ago
In a dog-eat-dog world, might makes right. Deal with it. Survival of the fittest.
15614500? ago
So you are proud of murder/pillage/rape when it's your ancestors but decry those same things when others of a different race do it? Way to out yourself as a raging hypocrite bud.
15614563? ago
My ancestors did it when they first came to this country. They established a beachhead and then created a white nation. Once the natives were all gone, the whites were civilized towards each other. Sure, there were occasional murders. But, for the most part, crime was very low. As more niggers and spics started to infiltrate white culture the crime rate went up. The only way to fix it is to remove the non-whites. White people like peaceful, organized, and harmonious societies. Mixing other races in with them only creates problems.
15614749? ago
So whites are not going into other peaceful countries and destabilizing, murdering, pillaging, raping, etc. at this very moment? Is it not our race that is sending our troops to carry out these very acts in the name of "liberation,' "democracy," and "freedom?" Doesn't seem peaceful, organized, and harmonious to me. If you see it that way, you are confirming you are delusional.
15618776? ago
Those "whites" you're referring to are being ordered around the globe by Jews. American history from 1776-1860 was pretty much us staying here in our own country and worrying about our own problems. Then, the Jews came along and took over central banking. Ever since then, we've been fighting on behalf of the bankers and corporations (run by Jews).
15619636? ago
And your point? Is it "Our White race is so superior we can't see the trickery used by Jews to control us to fight their wars and to keep us slaves to their money?" Doesn't make us sound superior. Also, last time I checked, most Jews are White so I guess their atrocious acts get to be counted along with ours.
And please note, not all Jews are controlling and manipulative sadists. These are the Khazarian Jews who are really not considered real Jews but Sadists disguised as Jews who run the NWO.
15619841? ago
THAT is where they trick everyone. They are only white when it is convenient for them. Otherwise, they're Jewish.
15620386? ago
Except...genetically they are White so....
15620515? ago
Then why do they refer to themselves as "Semites"? Isn't there a genetic purity standard to get into Israel? Does Israel see itself as a "white" nation?
15620935? ago
Does it matter? Genetically, they are White. If you can't see that, time to see the optometrist as your eyes must be failing. Jews are not a separate race genius.
15620948? ago
Not unless it's convenient for them... then they BECOME a separate race.....
15621660? ago
Nice try.
"From the earliest days of the American republic, Jews were technically considered white, at least in a legal sense. Under the Naturalization Act of 1790, they were considered among the “free white persons” who could become citizens. Later laws limited the number of immigrants from certain countries, restrictions which were in part targeted at Jews. But unlike Asian and African immigrants in the late 19th century, Jews retained a claim to being “Caucasian,” meaning they could win full citizenship status based on their putative race."
"The vast majority of American Jews—94 percent, according to Pew—describe themselves as white in surveys."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/are-jews-white/509453/
15618680? ago
Most of the Alt-Right is firmly anti war, and anti imperialism. We're ethno-nationalists.
15612757? ago
This
15611949? ago
Freemasons are 1% of the population, however they commit disproportionate shitposts that direct attention away from the elites.
15611970? ago
Freemasons are jewish puppets
15611611? ago
They were not deported after slavery ended because of the Jews. They all know that's what needs to happen to them and that they can't build the civilization that is here in the west on their own so the put on a show and band together for protection to try to stay. Even their basic economic sense is that money is a finite resource that everyone must fight over, and working harder doesn't create more money. They fail to understand profit from labor and are abused by the Jews continually for this.
15612074? ago
many did leave they were given the option, thats the funny thing. its white peoples fault that the freed slaves descided to stay in the USA, figure that one out
15612620? ago
We should have handled it like Argentina did.
https://www.ibtimes.com/blackout-how-argentina-eliminated-africans-its-history-conscience-1289381
15611569? ago
Give them jobs, growth opportunities and schools, in places where public transportation is programmed to run.
Massively reduce welfare.
They'll either sort themselves out or be killed in self defense.
Give the black community an honest chance instead of just pretending to have done so.
15616563? ago
They need to give themselves these things, we've done enough.
They need to go back to Africa and starve to death.
15612787? ago
"Give them"? How long have we been giving them stuff? Since we met them? If they want that stuff they have to go out and get it for themselves. Why is it always the white man's job to give them stuff? When do they take responsibility for their own society?
15613007? ago
Giving an opportunity is not equal to giving 'Stuff.'
And they cannot thrive in a society which suffocates them with prohibitive business laws. They don't have the equivalent of trillions in OLD MONEY with which to erect institutions which dominate their outcome potential. Their conservative black leaders have been systematically assassinated and only now, ONLY NOW, has the camera crew shown them any honest coverage.
It will take time to heal the core issues that have ended us up here.
Hatred is timeless and I'm sure you'll be cheerleading for it until your very last breath, but you can't hold a candle to the reality I bring to this discussion. Your attempts at doing so expose your lack of intelligence and leadership.
15613140? ago
I have always wanted to do a social experiment. But, many would claim it's "racist" or unethical. Pick two leaders: a black and a white one. Let them pick a team of 200 people of their own race and their own choosing. Give them equal plots of land with equal resources. Then, leave them alone for 100 years. Let them manage and run their settlements however they want with no outside help or assistance. In 100 years review each settlement to determine who has achieved the most progress.
My money is on the white settlement. White people are smarter, more ambitious, more organized, more logical, and more creative. The black settlement would run fine for the first 5 or 10 years. But, eventually, they would start to fall apart. The leadership would fail. The people would become lazy and violent. And, nobody would want to work. Eventually it would devolve into chaos, anarchy, and turn into a failed state. You can see an example of this in history by checking out the history of Liberia. Niggers are not smart enough to build and maintain a complex society for any length of time.
15613391? ago
I will refer you to a post that I just finished typing elsewhere in this thread,, and understand that you aren't wrong.
European race pool has had enormous environmental advantages. This may be counter-intuitive, but here's why:
When human beings are exposed to sub-homeostatic temperatures, the body (through hormones and glandular secretions) experiences a thermogenic response. I won't list the laundry unless you show genuine interest in knowledge. In any case, this particular hormonal response causes a chain reaction which converts adipose tissue into free-fatty acids, and subsequent ketone bodies. Ketones cross the blood-brain barrier and possess neuro-protective properties. Further down the chain of chemical conversions, specific ketone bodies interact with gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors within the brain, dominant within the frontal cortex which is the center of personality and temperament.
If you have any experience with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) you will know that it enhances self-control and greatly reduces synaptic misfirings responsible for personality disorders, thus increases emotional awareness and expands intellectual capacity.
Whites have won the intellectual lottery by the reality that they existed in a persistent state of GABA production and re-uptake. White greatness was forged by ICE and TUNDRA. The stress of survival, along with endogenous nootropic conditions, caused Whites to unify and organize themselves earlier than of people in more temperate climates.
On the inverse pacific islanders, Africans, and south Asians were not in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits of exhaustion. They became athletic, but not nearly as intelligent or cohesive.
15618612? ago
It doesn't matter WHY people evolved differently. They ARE different, and that's what matters.
15626973? ago
I never said otherwise.
Hopefully I've added to your pride.
15627059? ago
You haven't posted anything useful at all.
15628371? ago
Sorry, not going to circle jerk with ignorant people who don't interpret facts as being useful. Not enough ethnic slurs and calls for murder/deportation in my input. I'm just not with you if you're dependent on that outcome.
15628472? ago
No one tans anymore, boomer. Negro nations and cities are a mess. 3rd world people belong in 3rd world nations.
15628654? ago
You bore me.
15612685? ago
Africa has had 10,000+ years and they still live in mud huts and kill each other for being witches. Niggers are hopeless.
15616565? ago
They still can't farm either.
15612759? ago
And yet satanic ritual sacrifice is still committed by cronies to this day, in AMERICA, of all places.
Umm, yeah. Nothing to see here. Damn those ignorant voodoo niggers. They stoopid.
Fucks sake, man.
15612859? ago
I noticed you didn't address the "mud huts" comment. Germans used to be barbarians living in the wilderness. They went on to build vast cities and create things like machines, architecture, art, music, and much more. What have the Africans done in the last 1000 years? Wait for handouts from the white man? How come niggers never built their own Wakandan Utopia? Where is their art, music, literature, technology, architecture or future? Why are niggers always living day-to-day? They don't seem to understand the concept of "cause and effect". They just wait for whitey to come along and fix things and give them handouts.
15613326? ago
Okay. More ignorance to slay. This is turning out to be a very productive day.
Mud huts VS the advanced psyche Europeans. This makes my day.
Little do you know, that's a guarantee, that the European race pool has had enormous environmental advantages. This may be counter-intuitive, but here's why:
When human beings are exposed to sub-homeostatic temperatures, the body (through hormones and glandular secretions) experiences a thermogenic response. I won't list the laundry unless you show genuine interest in knowledge. In any case, this particular hormonal response causes a chain reaction which converts adipose tissue into free-fatty acids, and subsequent ketone bodies. Ketones cross the blood-brain barrier and possess neuro-protective properties. Further down the chain of chemical conversions, specific ketone bodies interact with gamma-aminobutyric acid receptors within the brain, dominant within the frontal cortex which is the center of personality and temperament.
If you have any experience with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) you will know that it enhances self-control and greatly reduces synaptic misfirings responsible for personality disorders, thus increases emotional awareness and expands intellectual capacity.
Whites have won the intellectual lottery by the reality that they existed in a persistent state of GABA production and re-uptake. White greatness was forged by ICE and TUNDRA. The stress of survival, along with endogenous nootropic conditions, caused Whites to unify and organize themselves earlier of people in more temperate climates.
On the inverse pacific islanders, Africans, and south Asians were not in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits of exhaustion. They became athletic, but not nearly as intelligent or cohesive.
There's your answer. If you have knowledge on your side, you don't need hate.
15657304? ago
Thanks for giving the medical explanation as to why the white race is superior to every other race and niggers are inferior to every other race. At least your admitting it. Faggot.
15618591? ago
It doesn't require hate to want to preserve your people.
15626939? ago
I'm the one you're responding to and I completely agree. I never have and never will argue against this.
My work is to bring awareness so that there's no 'Chosen People' complex.
Whites are the most intelligent, efficient and cohesive people. This is a genetic advantage. Period.
White brains and bodies are primed for higher philosophical thought and rationalization. Period.
You'll hear no argument from me on that. I think you can understand why someone with decades of research on exactly this subject would want to help others raise the bar, put this debate to bed without resorting to 'Nigger this, nigger that.' The truth sells itself. I want people to know EXACTLY why white people are exceptional, so that hate groups can't co-opt and exploit the weak minded individuals in the pack.
I've risked my health for my research. That's my gift to others. Information is currency.
15611660? ago
They are biologically different. Blacks around the world score lowest of any racial group in IQ tests.
15611814? ago
They are biologically different. I'm one of the few people toting that science on this board. So here it is again...
Highest testosterone level of all races = Increased aggression and reduced impulse control
(This is verifiable) (Steroids exist)
On average, a smaller frontal neo-cortex = Behavioral filtering takes place primarily in this region of the brain
You're preaching to the choir if you talk to me about science. I could continue with anthropological insights but in the interest of time, and the awareness that some racists ONLY want to hate, I'll spare myself.
I do not hate black people nor do I want them disappeared. I want their shortcomings to be acknowledged and their strengths to be expressed through meaningful outlets.
And as much as it grinds some peoples' gears, interracial blacks, as long as the family unit is preserved, tend to breed out their setbacks.
These issues can be resolved through comprehensive legislation and spiritual healing. I see no justice in anything less.
15612115? ago
^^^^ This☝
15611912? ago
3rd world people belong in 3rd world nations.
15612261? ago
Then what are you still doing here?
15612278? ago
Where am I?
15612297? ago
You're displaying 3rd world intellect so you belong over there.
15612314? ago
Where am I?.
15612427? ago
Stuck on repeat apparently or unable to generate an original thought...either way, still displaying your own 3rd world intellect you love to criticize others for.
15612448? ago
You haven't answered my question, yenta.
15659485? ago
Not a woman genius and I don't see a question worthy of an answer.
15659521? ago
I asked where I am, since you seemed to know, jewboy
15659691? ago
Again, not a Jew but nice try bud. I see you are very triggered right now. I never said I knew where you are, I said you are displaying the same 3rd World intellect you criticize and that you should go and join them. If you are already living in a 3rd World country, I apologize as you are exactly where you belong then.
15659730? ago
Do you think 3rd world people are genetically inferior, bigot?
15659908? ago
Absolutely not. I'm pointing out the stupidity of your statement and your apparent lack of intelligence. If you believe 3rd World civilians lack intellect, you have proven you will fit right in.
I can see this concept is very hard for you to comprehend which is why you need constant clarification and continue to resort to name calling out of frustration. Take the time to slow down, read carefully, and think before responding again.
15659962? ago
The data show that genetic Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics score lowest on IQ tests, wherever in the world they happened to grow up
15660171? ago
Let's see your source on that one. Location and access to education are the biggest factors for low IQ scores, not DNA.
15660209? ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve
15660311? ago
Oh wow, one controversial book that actually states "which the authors argue that human intelligence is substantially influenced by BOTH inherited and ENVIRONMENTAL factors."
Kinda deflates the sails right out of your argument right there based on that one sentence if that's the best you got.
15660355? ago
MOSTLY heritable. There is the separated twin evaluation. Environment has limited influence. IQ is highly heritable from parents to children. The genes have even been identified
15660603? ago
Where are these studies you speak of? In your one controversial book? I can show you just as many sources that show environment and access to education are a bigger role in IQ than DNA.
15660854? ago
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/06/hundreds-new-genes-may-underlie-intelligence-also-autism-and-depression
15660972? ago
Try harder. Right in the 3rd paragraph of your "evidence:"
"(Environmental factors such as education and stress also profoundly shape intelligence and mental health.)"
15660996? ago
Yes, but there are genes linked to intelligence. Do you understand that fact?
15661032? ago
I never disputed that genes can influence intelligence. However, access to education and environmental factors "PROFOUNDLY" shape intelligence. You are attempting to argue a person's DNA/skin color are the main factors. They are not.
15661327? ago
No, not profoundly. You can't pour a litre of water into a shotglass. You admit there are genes related to intelligence, is that correct?
15661648? ago
From your article:
"(Environmental factors such as education and stress also PROFOUNDLY shape intelligence and mental health.)"
There are genes that influence intelligence. However, we are not limited to our genes. Two really dumb people can have a smart child. Just as two small people can have a really tall child. Environmental factors and access to a quality education are HUGE factors that help determine intelligence. Thus, as much as you would like to believe it's all in the genes/DNA (or color of a person's skin), it is not.
15661726? ago
I never claimed it.s ALL genetic. However, there are genetic IQ differences among racial groups
15662113? ago
"I never claimed it.s ALL genetic."
Pretty sure that is exactly what you meant when you said this:
"The data show that genetic Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics score lowest on IQ tests, wherever in the world they happened to grow up"
"However, there are genetic IQ differences among racial groups"
There are also educational and environmental factors effecting intelligence. A race (especially the Black race) is not limited by their DNA/genes. They are limited by their ability to access a quality education as well as other environmental factors holding them back.
15662175? ago
It would be reasonable to expect racial groups to perform differently in academics, employment, business, and criminal activity based on IQ differences.
15662257? ago
Your problem is you limit it to only DNA being the cause for this without adding much needed context such as environment, educational access, social support, having one or both parents, role models, poverty, etc. You try to limit it to the color of a person's skin but it goes far beyond that. You and I will never experience the same factors holding back the African race. The difference is I can understand and empathisize with their plight and you are unwilling to.
15662400? ago
No, I don't limit it to DNA only. Go back and look again. And I've lived among blacks. The differences are apparent in real life interactons. There are IQ differences among racial groups, and you can't wish that away, lib.
15663215? ago
Now you are just being dishonest...at least be consistent with your racism.
Your own words:
"They are biologically different. Blacks around the world score lowest of any racial group in IQ tests."
"3rd world people belong in 3rd world nations."
"The data show that genetic Africans, Arabs, and Hispanics score lowest on IQ tests, wherever in the world they happened to grow up"
You are making the case that they have low IQs because of the color of their skin, regardless of environmental factors or educational access.
"And I've lived among blacks."
I love HOW you keep using this as if your own experience with a small sample somehow gives you the right to paint an entire race with one brushstrokes. As I told you before, I currently live with Black people, in fact half of my family is made up of smart, intelligent black people. I have also worked with numerous Black people as well as went to school with them. My experience counters yours yet I am not painting the entire Black race in a positive light. There are bad apples in every race.
"There are IQ differences among racial groups, and you can't wish that away, lib."
Ah, the name calling. Always comes when a person has no leg left to stand on. First off, not a lib. Second, in your world view, all whites should be geniuses and there shouldn't be a single intelligent person from a different race. Fortunately, history as well as the statistics you love so much, proves you wrong time and time again.
https://www.famousscientists.org/15-famous-black-scientists-in-history/
15663601? ago
No, lib. Our experiences don't change the fact that there are genetic IQ differences among racial groups. That's still a fact.
15664001? ago
Name calling and putting words in my mouth?!?! Someone sure is triggered. Not disputing genes play a role. However, it is not about race. Environmental factors and access to quality education are PROFOUND (the words of your article, not mine) and more important to determining IQ than the color of a person's skin.
At the very least you are not denouncing/shifting your own racist stance anymore. Guess that's progress...
15664176? ago
I've always been a race realist, lib. And IQ is an accurate predictor of performance in acedemics, employment, business, and criminal activity.
15664734? ago
You can keep calling me lib but know it doesn't bother me. I am neither liberal nor conservative. Label yourself a race realist to make yourself feel better but in reality you are a racist who ignores critical evidence/data/factors in order to fit your own racist interpretations into your narrow-minded views.
15664799? ago
Do you dispute that there are IQ differences among racial groups, lib?
15664929? ago
Nope, never have. What you keep leaving out is that the biggest, most PROFOUND (again from your article) reasons for the divide are educational access and environmental factors. Genes may play a role, but they are not nearly as significant as you want to believe.
Are you saying educational access and environmental factors have no bearing on the divide in IQ scores in regards to race?
15665564? ago
I never claimed environment had no effect. So if you believe there are IQ differences among racial groups, you are a race realist.
15666040? ago
No, I believe environmental factors and educational access influence IQ in all races, not just the ones different from me. I also know that these same factors tend to skew IQ scores of races other than White lower as they do not have the same access to healthy environment and high education we have. I do not believe their skin color makes them less smart than us, which is what you believe. You hold that up on a pedestal. Do you believe a person's skin color makes them less smart?
15666090? ago
Skin color is part of race, but so is intelligence. And no, I don't believe there are brain cells in the skin. Stop making that childlike claim. You are a race realist.
15666868? ago
Then what is your argument? Of course genetics plays a part in every human regardless of race. The biggest factors influencing intelligence are environmental, educational, and economical. If you agree with that then the color of a person's skin does not matter in regards to IQ and this whole conversation was pointless.
And no, I am not a race realist, just a realist. Learn the difference.
15666896? ago
Race is more than skin color. IQ is also part of racial group characteristics. Do you understand?
15667505? ago
You are attempting to define a race based on the DNA/genes and saying it gives them low IQ scores. You made it about the color of a person's skin, not me. Do you understand?
Do you understand that you make race the defining factor when determining intelligence when there are much more PROFOUND (again your article) reasons effecting IQ relating to the environment, access to high quality education, and economic status? Do you understand that race is a small part of the equation? Do you understand that given the same access to a high quality education, better housing/economic status, and a healthier environment, a Black person is just as likely to succeed and be as smart as a White person?
We both know you don't, and probably never will, understand because you lack the ability to look at all factors and see things from the other person's perspective. You lack empathy.
15667609? ago
IQ differences among racial groups are real and proven.
15668146? ago
Yes, and they are profoundly influenced by educational, environmental, and economic factors...not the color of a person's skin.
Are you stating that given the same high quality access to all 3 of those factors, a Black person will not do as good as a White person?
You do realize that there are Whites with very low IQs, right? Does that mean we are all dumb? Did they lose out on our amazing White DNA even though they are also White? Or maybe they were born into poverty. Or maybe they come from a broken home. Or maybe they live in a constant state of fear due to the environment they live in. Or maybe they go to a bad school. Or maybe they can't go to school because they have to get a job to take care of a sick relative or raise a sibling.
You are showing true ignorance on this subject bud.
15668254? ago
The bell curves of IQ groupings are overlapping. There is a range of IQ for each group, but the white group range has overall higher IQs than the black group range.
15668441? ago
You keep saying this while ignoring the 3 biggest factors determining IQ. Are you really saying that the majority of Blacks have the same access to high quality education, environment, and economic status that the majority of Whites enjoy? If so, you are at worst definitely delusional and at best extremely ignorant. Which one are you?
15668488? ago
You already agreed there were genes involved in intelligence. Why are you backtracking now?
15668579? ago
Nope, I said that genes (not race) is a factor but not the biggest. I see you avoided my example or have no answer for Whites with low IQs. Is genetics primarily the reason for their low IQ scores or is it due to poor education, environment, and economic status?
15668722? ago
I said there are ranges in racial groups. The black group scores lower than any group, wherever in the world they are. There are both genetic and environmental reasons, but you overlook the genetic. Why?
15668832? ago
Because when you look at the races, the access to high quality education, environment, and economic status is not the same in regards to what Whites are privileged with in general. You are trying to compare apples to apples when it's apples to tomatoes. You cannot compare them equally unless all aspects are accounted for. You focus only on race as the prominent determination in IQ score and that is oversimplifying and completely ignorant way to view things.
15668881? ago
No, blacks in America, Africa, and Europe all score lower than Muslims, Indians, and Hispanics. It isn't a poverty issue.
15668929? ago
So you believe the majority of Blacks in America, Africa, and Europe are living above the poverty line and have the same access to high quality education most Whites have access to?
Muslims, Indians, and Hispanics also, for the most part, live below the poverty line. You can't be serious with this stuff...
15668953? ago
I'm saying the Muslims, Hispanics, and India Indians score HIGHER than blacks. How do you explain that, lib?
15669043? ago
First off, you realize Muslims are not a race, correct?
As for the others, care to share your statistics for Hispanics/Indians vs Blacks and everyone else?
15669247? ago
Muslims / Arabs. Tell me, do you think the genetics for inferior or superior intelligence are equally distributed among all racial groups of the world?
15669425? ago
Muslims are not just Arabs. There are African, Indian, Asian, and White Muslims. You are overgeneralizing/simplifying again.
"Tell me, do you think the genetics for inferior or superior intelligence are equally distributed among all racial groups of the world?"
Yes. But intelligence in every race is influenced greatly, especially as children, by poor environment, economic status, and educational access.
Do you believe the other races are as privileged as Whites are world over?
15669471? ago
Most East Asians are impoverished, but score higher than Whites. Every group scores higher than blacks. Do you think some of that has a genetic cause?
15669702? ago
Where is your evidence? I asked before and you ignored me. Please share wherever you are getting your stats from.
15669766? ago
Here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70HCmiv7BAE
15669938? ago
I cannot believe that this is your evidence. Are you serious?!?! The guy literally says from the start that evidence isn't important and then goes on to overgeneralize and oversimplify everything. Why do you believe he is an authority on race and IQ anyways? All you did was present your White Supremacist spokesman whom you admire that you spew forth the same ill-conceived talking points from. Do you have any ACTUAL EVIDENCE to support your claims?
15670005? ago
He never said "evidence isn't important". Now you're straight up lying
15670306? ago
His exact words:
"So what is the evidence for racial differences in intelligence? Actually, that's the wrong question. The right question is why would anybody think Whites and Blacks, for example, have the same average level of intelligence?"
He straight up implies evidence is not important and that everybody should not worry about actual evidence as it is stupid to assume there is no difference in intelligence levels between the races.
You really can not be this brainwashed not to see this. Time to wake up to reality bud.
15670342? ago
The whole book is analysis of compiled IQ data from examinations. Is that not evidence?
15670428? ago
What book?
15670456? ago
The one he authored, yenta
15670687? ago
Which one and what specific evidence in said book? Just saying "Read his book" proves nothing and provides zero substance to this conversation.
15612023? ago
Impressive. So then stop robbing third-world people of their third-world wealth and their third-world land.
First-world people should stay in the first-world. I'm sure you can see the irony by now.
I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that's not a logical argument at this point.
15612067? ago
Whites aren't robbing labor from anyone. 3rd world people are flooding our nations. They need to return.
15612184? ago
Transnational Corporate slavery is not a thing now. Tell me more.
15612205? ago
Mass migration is a thing now.
15612281? ago
Build the wall, fix these stupid, broken immigration laws put in place by crony, Globalist politicians.
Tell the UN to fuck off.
I can do this all day.
15612291? ago
You can do what all day?
15612354? ago
Objectively identify solutions without stoking animus.
15612406? ago
You haven't offered any reasonable solutions.
15612791? ago
You've yet to intellectually counter one, so there's that.
15612869? ago
You haven't offered any, shlomo