You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

zit ago

Yes!

Sadly, I predict they will revise the word "species" and demote wolves, demote gorillas, and demote bears, to preserve Negroes feelings, even though it still requires every book to be rewritten that uses wolves, bear, or gorillas, or mentions the definition of "species". Negroes feelings must be preserved.

Blacks already proven NOT human!

As when the definition of a "planet" was all agreed on , then evidence came out that Pluto broke the rules AGREED ON for planet, there was a "messy situation" were every 2nd grade school book on earth for kids as well as every text book, had to be re-printed and suddenly omit Pluto as a planet!

PLUTO WAS NEVER A PLANET, due to science definitions made earlier for the word "PLANET"

NEGROES are a different hominid species than all other existing humans on earth!

NEGROES WERE NEVER the same species as humans, due to science definitions made earlier for the word "SPECIES"

I and not talking about SUBSPECIES, and am being literal, and using the word "SPECIES"

We know this from DNA. DNA does not lie. The definition of species in 2019 and recent years is two factors :

  • 1 > DNA drift distance of under 120,000 years
    AND
  • 2 > Able to mate and reproduce a fertile viable offspring, both male or female, AND not breaking rule #1 (DNA drift distance of under 120,000 years)

Gorilla SPECIES (species not subspecies) can breed and produce viable fertile offspring. Yet their DNA is probably drifted over 120,000 years.

(Gorilla gorilla vs. Gorilla beringei) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorilla

Bear SPECIES (species not subspecies) can breed and produce viable fertile offspring. Yet their DNA is probably drifted over 120,000 years.

http://bearwithus.org/8-bears-of-the-world/

"Polar Bears Evolved Just 150,000 Years Ago" : https://www.livescience.com/10956-polar-bears-evolved-150-000-years.html

The Gray wolf, Red wolf and Ethiopian wolf SPECIES (species not subspecies) can breed and produce viable fertile offspring. Yet their DNA is probably drifted less than 120,000 years (100,000 for Ethiopian Wolf) : http://wolffacts.org/ethiopian-wolf-facts.html

Animals that drifted far more than the ridiculous 350,000 year separation from Negros and true humans, can interbreed too. It is uncommon but possible. In these other mammals many fetuses die and are absorbed, but occasionally you can get live births by breeding countless mammals against each other, even with different numbers of chromosomes. :

Here Are 18 Amazing Animal Hybrids You Won’t Believe Exist But Are Completely Real:

http://boredomtherapy.com/real-animal-hybrids/

ASTOUNDING! Look at those!

I show those in that link to demonstrate that animal life forms can be forced to mate with each other in hilarious ways, and some produce fertile offspring, but DNA age drift is used as the definition of species.

So yes, you can mate a true human (Homo Sapiens sapiens, with Neanderthal IQ gene admixture)... with a Hominid such as the major negro ethnicities in Africa (whom lack even a speck of Neanderthal DNA) :

  • Tigrean
  • Amharic
  • Sudanese-Barya
  • Nilotic
  • Funji Nilotic
  • Tuareg-Beja Cushitic
  • Nubian
  • Wolof-Peul-Serer
  • Bantu MOST common in recent 300 years
  • Bedic Bantu
  • West African
  • Mbuti Pygmy
  • Sara Nilotic-Biaka Pygmy
  • San Khosian-Somali
  • Khoi Khosian
  • Hazda Khosian
  • Sandawe Khosian

Above list also summarized on MODERN species and sub species (races) proposed names of various Homo shit-skins (detailed but lacking DNA refs) :

https://propertarianism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/the-species-of-great-apes.pdf

All those Negroid hominids can be bred with true humans, and produce fertile offspring, but that does not make those 350,000 year divergent subspecies the same as true modern Humans.

The "fertile offspring, disregarding DNA evidence" is the OLD definition, that is why we have Bear, Gorilla, and Wolf SPECIES (not subspecies, but actual SPECIES), because their DNA drifted over 120,000 years of separation.

Blacks predate by hundreds of thousands of years of deviation, the relatively recent emergence of true humans, and far far far before Humans picked up IQ genes from Neanderthals. Pure black lack any Neanderthal DNA.

ALL true humans (non african negroes) have some intermixed Neanderthal DNA, adding many brain boosting IQ genes, All humans everywhere on earth have these very very recent genes, but not one african pure bred negro.

NEANDERTHAL BRAIN DNA?

Neanderthal genes (lacking only in Negros) contributes much of the known 538 genes for higher IQ.

538 genes that are thought to be linked to intelligence (by comparing 300,000 test subjects) :

http://www.frontlinegenomics.com/news/20419/using-dna-to-predict-intelligence/

Of the 538 genes for above 100 IQ intelligence, which can 80% predict your IQ, west african Negroes and Australian aborigines LACK most of the smart genes!

ALL humans on earth except blacks have brain folding genes from RECENT cross breeding with NEANDERTHALS (yes even everyone in south america), and the asians have these genes by breeding with DENISOVIANS (who also had bred earlier with NEANDERTHALS).

Except for negroes, in latest studies of massive DNA databases, all humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) alive have 1% to 2.9% Neanderthal DNA on average per nation.

And the SMARTEST asians bred at two points in history with DENISOVIANS, for more IQ, while the water-niggers and Thais only interbred one time.

Modern asian Humans (smart non-Thai asians) interbred with Denisovans TWICE in history :

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180315140718.htm

Some smarter asians picked up DNA, just as whites did, by breeding with Neanderthal&Denisovian half-breeds from conquering Neanderthal males... with full actual DNA sequenced from actual half-breed Denisovian+Neanderthal breeding bone fragment example ! :

Wow! DNA proof of a 1st gen half-breed Denisovian+Neanderthal (typical source of asian intelligence): 1st gen!!!

https://wgno.com/2018/08/24/dna-reveals-first-known-child-of-neanderthal-and-denisovan-study-says/

Sadly, the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern black humans is zero !!! (they interbred 300,000 to 185,000 years ago with a ape-like hominid, probably a version of Homo heidelbergensis branch):

https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna

9 LIVING CAVEMEN with ACTUAL NEGROID HOMO ERECTUS Y DNA INACT found in CAMEROON, and a camaroon negro found in USA with caveman DNA from 300,000 years ago completely unrelated to real humans ! :

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-03/uoa-hyc030413.php

A00a-L1149 (or A00a1) Y DNA is 350,000 years old in many Negroes. Negroes DO NOT have common ancestor human Y DNA nicknamed "Y-chromosomal Adam" but they keep changing the definition every 5 years, to not let Negroes feel bad :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

US Gov scientists agree that some Negroes discovered to be non-human, and Negroes interbred with ape-like creatures long long ago :

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591855/

Shocking quotes from PMC4947341 "Hominin interbreeding and the evolution of human variation":

one-fifth of the Neanderthal genome may lurk within modern humans... (but totally absent in Negroes)

SUBHUMAN! interbreeding between Sub-Saharan Africans and an as-yet-unknown hominin, such as H. heidelbergensis...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4947341/

Some think that the Negroes that bred with H. heidelbergensis were "Homo sapiens idaltu", and that "Homo sapiens idaltu" thus evolved into Negroes, while actual humans descended from 'Homo sapiens idaltu' leaving africa and interbreeding with Denisovian+Neanderthal becoming real humans , now called "Homo Sapiens sapiens) [note the extra sapiens].

Some Russian and Chinese scientists currently denounce that and say its the opposite, and that 'Homo sapiens idaltu' ENTERED africa and interbred with the indigenous Negroes (H. heidelbergensis).

Its been known since 1874 that Blacks are NOT human, and lots of data to prove it.

The negro ape in 2nd most famous biology book ever written, by famed Ernst Haeckel, 1874, Page 527 of 780 :

WOW! :

https://files.catbox.moe/e2pi6l.jpg

Homo erectus went extinct only 50,000 years ago (100,000 tops) and was provably low IQ and PROVEN LAZY, similar to current Blacks, but unknown how much DNA admixture of Homo erectus is in the modern negro, if any, due to heat damage of artifact DNA, Negroes diverged from all real humans 350,000 years ago, as proven and mentioned frequently already (current Negro Y-DNA A00a-L1149).

Laziness in Homo erectus proof YES LAZY BLACKS! :

https://www.livescience.com/63308-homo-erectus-laziness-extinction.html

NOT JUST LAZY hominids, but LOW IQ, lazy Blacks never invented any crops, domesticated animals, or even the WHEEL!

Whites & Blacks 100 FACTS! Blacks never invented the wheel!:

http://yun.complife.info/100facts.htm

Even though Blacks are now proven from over 350,000 years ago, vs real Humans nowadays, There were MANY types of Hominids that looked like humans, right up until each were killed off and replaced by Modern Humans.

No matter how you organize the timeline, DNA does not lie. Blacks are an unrelated species. Most land mammals are radically different species after 120,000 year separation, and Blacks separated from all real humans 350,000 years ago.

TL;DR: Negroes are not HUMAN! (((Small Colleges))) except in advanced biology courses, still sometimes re-teach old erroneous definition of the word "Species". Today only DNA is used to differentiate species, and Negroes are PROVABLY a dramatically different species of Hominid.

MaxVonOppenheim ago

I love it. Thanks for this

sore_ass_losers ago

The funny thing is that blacks think they are the only humans.

They also call whites monkeys: apparently monkeys have pink skins vs. darker for apes.

sore_ass_losers ago

What is this "San Khosian-Somali"? Aren't the Khosian the indigenous people of South Africa (not the ruling Bantu invaders and completely different from them)? So how do they relate to Somalis? I don't think they look the same.

I've mostly seen it as "Khoisan", also.

Thanks!

MiG-21 ago

I have zero understanding of Biology so searched about Neanderthal DNA and... Holly shit, actually, New York God-Damn times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/science/neanderthals-humans-brains-skulls.html

People who sign up for genetic testing from companies like 23andMe can find out how much of their DNA comes from Neanderthals. For those whose ancestry lies outside Africa, that number usually falls somewhere between 1 percent and 2 percent.

Wait, did I misunderstood something or... Did NYT admit that,Niggers are different from US?

zit ago

Negros are in a species by themselves according to DNA, and all other Humans on earth are unlike africans. All humans on earth are far far far more related than a negro is to anything else on the planet.

MaunaLoona ago

Got a link for the 350,000 year figure? My understanding is that the Bantu who re-conquered Africa split off much more recently.

urp ago

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-350-000-year-old-Y-Chromosome-haploid-type-found-in-some-African-American-and-Cameroonian-men-called

http://dna-fingerprint.com/static/2016-10_I4GG.pdf

350,000 nearest common ancestor to all blacks, naturally Bantu have cross bred with other local talking hominids but the point is, Bantu are from that 350,000 ancester, which is far far far from modern humans, so far that bantu are just a talking ape with low IQ, just like the rare specimens of Negros with Negro Y-DNA A00a-L1149 (previous called A00 because its oldest common ancester with true humans), whom are not bantu, but even lower IQ.

Note that the "Out of Africa" theory is now UNSUPPORTED by any fossil evidence!

Remember... the Y-DNA A00a-L1149 ENTERRED africa, and was a negro there, while whites NEVER came from africa ever and evolved outside africa, and then entered africa.

GREECE : New fossils suggest human ancestors evolved in Europe, not Africa :

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/evolution-europe

First Human Ancestor Came from Europe Not Africa, 7.2 Million-year-old Fossils Indicate :

https://www.newsweek.com/first-hominin-europe-east-africa-human-evolution-613494

Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find :

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

Scientists Look To Europe As Evolutionary Seat : Found in Germany 20 years ago, this specimen is about 16.5 million years old:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020219075535.htm

A 210,000-year-old skull (Apidima 1) has been identified as the earliest modern human

https://phys.org/news/2019-07-oldest-africa-reset-human-migration.html

Study reveals that humans migrated from Europe to Israel 40,000 years ago [NOT from Africa]

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-11-reveals-humans-migrated-europe-levant.html

illegal_opinion ago

These type of extensive and cited posts are one of the reasons I love Voat.

oneinchterror ago

A lot of it is trash. I stopped reading after his insinuation that there is a consistently agreed-upon definition for what delineates a species (there isn't). I'm sure there's some good stuff in there, but it's mixed in with too much overconfident /pol/-tier bullshit to be worth anything. Sloppy job all around tbh.

zit ago

WRONG!

Wrong, you wikipedia citing SJW half-negroid. Cite one single error in it. ONE. You cannot!

Even the definition of species is the one that covers bears , wolves, and gorillas, and all mammals on earth except one anomaly... the african nigger, The sole exception known to science... unless you merely admit logically that the african is NOT a modern human.

DNA already proved negroes are a different species and last common ancester to all negroes is 350,000 years ago!

You must have a parent who is black and hate DNA science and IQ science.

alele-opathic ago

Cite one single error in it. ONE. You cannot!

Okey dokey.

Gorilla SPECIES (species not subspecies) can breed and produce viable fertile offspring. Yet their DNA is probably drifted over 120,000 years.

  1. Gorillas are mostly infertile, hence conservation issues. Google has a ton on this.
  2. They seemed to just 'appear' out of nowhere. Not all animals evolved from other animals; some appear to be hybrids, and these hybrids will simply 'appear' into the fossil record. Hybridization is very common (as you noted in one of your links), but these hybrids are not entirely infertile; the secret to preserving the hybrid is backcrossing.

urp ago

You are not very scientific , and you found NO ERRORS.

Who care about fertility rates, the post is mentioning possibility of a mating event at all, as long as it is possible at all. (Part of definition of species, is an event ever being possible).

Your second point on hybrids seems to not add or subtract, nor correct any portion of that posting. Some call such information "straw man arguments" when passing them off as naysaying proof.

YOU FOUND ZERO ERRORS as far as I understand. Neither of those points corrects any information. Your first point merely discusses fertility rates. Humans have very poor fertility rates so that females are not holly dominated by rape. Gorillas moreso , and for "bonobo chimp" style bonding via prolactin and oxytocin.

You found no errors, and you know it, alele-opathic.

oneinchterror ago

Hopefully this boomtarded reply of yours has cleared up for anyone still on the fence that you're a fucking schizo QRV brainlet. This "sentence" of yours:

Even the definition of species is the one that covers bears , wolves, and gorillas, and all mammals on earth except one anomaly... the african nigger, The sole exception known to science... unless you merely admit logically that the african is NOT a modern human.

is pure word salad drivel and nonsense. You're not saying anything at all.

You aren't worth any serious person's time. Go watch some Alt-Hype videos and learn how to properly research and structure an argument, and actually back it up with (relevant) evidence.

redpilldessert ago

I tried to read and reread his paragraph, but I'm having real trouble in parsing it and extracting meaning.

AnotherGrayman ago

Thank you for sparing me from the pseudoscience.

I'm cool with racial reality, but sensational propaganda is a no no regardless of who's agenda it favors.

oneinchterror ago

No problem. Comments like his are embarrassing and completely destroy our credibility. It's a shame that people are too wrapped up in their own egos to even stop and acknowledge that (most of) the shit he's peddling is sensationalized junk.

Honestly, most people here clearly have no business speaking authoritatively on the finer points of race realism. That sort of content should be left to our heavy hitters like Ryan Faulk, Sean Last, JF Gariepy, Nicholas Wade, etc. The science and data is on our side. There's absolutely no reason for anyone to exaggerate, fudge details, or draw inappropriate conclusions from research they don't understand.

Again, I'm seriously disappointed that more people didn't call him out.

CantDentTheBrent ago

Where did all you niggers come from all of a sudden? Fuck off kikes

oneinchterror ago

Been here a lot longer than you, faggot. If you care about the truth, you should want people to have the best information; not the fucking garbage that that half-wit boomer dipshit is peddling above.

CantDentTheBrent ago

I've been here on/off for 3 years

Yeah his info isn't explained like this is a college course.

It's a crash course.

You're trying to destroy his entire argument BASED on semantics.

Eat a dick faggot.

oneinchterror ago

No, I'm not, you illiterate fucking smoothbrain. I called him out because his info is bad. It's wrong and makes us look like the pseudoscientific tards that leftists say we are. Honestly, I don't know why I'm even bothering to reply to what is clearly a petulant manchild who likely barely graduated high school. If you think his comment was worthwhile, you aren't worth my time.

CantDentTheBrent ago

The internet is the only place you win arguments, isn't it??

oneinchterror ago

Hopefully this boomtarded reply of yours has cleared up for anyone still on the fence that you're a fucking schizo QRV brainlet. This "sentence" of yours:

Even the definition of species is the one that covers bears , wolves, and gorillas, and all mammals on earth except one anomaly... the african nigger, The sole exception known to science... unless you merely admit logically that the african is NOT a modern human.

is pure word salad drivel. You're not saying anything at all.

You aren't worth any serious person's time. Go watch some Alt-Hype videos and learn how to properly research and structure an argument, and actually back it up with (relevant) evidence.

oneinchterror ago

Hopefully this boomtarded reply of yours has cleared up for anyone still on the fence that you're a fucking schizo QRV brainlet. This "sentence" of yours:

Even the definition of species is the one that covers bears , wolves, and gorillas, and all mammals on earth except one anomaly... the african nigger, The sole exception known to science... unless you merely admit logically that the african is NOT a modern human.

is pure word salad drivel. You're not saying anything at all.

You aren't worth any serious person's time. Go watch some Alt-Hype videos and learn how to properly research and structure an argument, and actually back it up with (actually relevant) evidence

fellowwhiteperson ago

While it's obvious to us when it comes to sub-Saharan Africans, liberals too easily confuse them with African-Americans, which are roughly 20% European. A better comparison would be Australian Aborigines. They have minimal mixing with Australians and they differ even further from Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans. To claim that they're the same species is a much more difficult argument and there's less room for ambiguity like when looking at African-Americans.

oneinchterror ago

They have minimal mixing with Australians and they differ even further from Europeans than sub-Saharan Africans.

IIRC this actually isn't true. Sub-Saharan Africans are the most distant population group from literally all other population groups. If you were to split up "humans" into two broad groups, it would literally be sub-Saharan Africans vs everyone else. Check out some principle component analyses to see what I mean. There is actually a rough continuum from Whites to Australian Aborigines. No such continuum exists to connect SSA's to any Eurasian/Oceanian/Polynesian/New World/etc. group. They're isolated; all on their own.

fworldorder ago

Yessss. I love this info

u_r_wat_u_eat ago

Except that "neanderthals" were in every way still humans..

urp ago

They MADE us human by adding IQ genes to humans. Negros in africa sadly lack these IQ genes.

urp ago

They MADE us human by adding IQ genes to humans. Negros in africa sadly lack these IQ genes.

u_r_wat_u_eat ago

So how bout those Israeli nukes

oneinchterror ago

It's not exactly that simple, but I obviously agree that calling sub-Saharans "human" is a mistake.