My New Race Theory - Origins

The evidence mounts that racial differences are the result of inheriting Neanderthal DNA.

Take white skin ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people#Origins_of_light_skin

Skin color is a quantitative trait that varies continuously on a gradient from dark to light, as it is a polygenic trait, under the influence of several genes. Many of these genes have yet to be identified. However, two genes that are known to contribute to skin color are MC1R and SLC24A5.[35] The mutation resulting in the light skin version of the SLC24A5 gene has been estimated to have originated in Europe between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago, indicating that at least one of the genes responsible for pale skin colour in Europeans arose relatively recently.[41]

Mixed ancestry people of African-European descent who possess one or two copies of the European allele of the SLC24A5 gene have skin color that is significantly lighter than mixed ancestry people who possess only the African allele. It is estimated, based on this observation, that the SLC24A5 locus "explains between 25–38% of the European-African difference in skin melanin index".[38][42][43][44]


Therefore it appears that only a quarter of the whiteness of white skin relates to the SLC24A5 genes that evolved in the last 12,000 years.

That means 75 % of the whiteness can from other genes, as yet not analysed.

I suggest that 75 % of the genes for whiteness came from Neanderthal DNA and that positive sexual selection and natural selection created the SLC24A5 genes which evolved later on in Cro-Magnons.

Whiteness began with the Neanderthals as trait which had evolved in the Neaderthal population over the hundreds of thousands of years they had been living in Northern Europe, and when they bred with early Homo Sapiens that the genes for whiteness were inherited by the Cro-Magnons.

This led to the Cro-Magnons evolving more 'white genes' alongside the ones they had inherited from their Neanderthal ancestors.

It all fits.

White people are archetypically distinguished by light skin. Scientists discovered a skin-whitening mutation that largely explains the first appearance of white skin in humans between 20,000–50,000 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html

In this paper it states " The work also reveals for the first time that Asians owe their relatively light skin to different mutations. That means that light skin arose independently at least twice in human evolution, in each case affecting populations with the facial and other traits that today are commonly regarded as the hallmarks of Caucasian and Asian races. "

This therefore tallies with the fact that the Neanderthal DNA suggests that there were two breedings with Homo Sapiens.

The gene did not arise 'independently' it means that there were two infusions of genes from Neanderthals that led to the white gene being inherited.

The first was with Asian Neanderthals who bred with Homo Sapiens around 50,000 years ago.

The second, I believe , was when another group of Homo Sapiens left Africa and bred with the Northern Neanderthals to become Cro-Magnons and this led to the birth of the White Race.

Those genes have since evolved to become the racial genes that pass on the racial features we see today.

Note the date when the white gene is estimated to have evolved in whites ;

" Although precise dating is impossible, several scientists speculated on the basis of its spread and variation that the mutation arose between 20,000 and 50,000 years ago. That would be consistent with research showing that a wave of ancestral humans migrated northward and eastward out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. "

This period when the white gene 'evolved' was when the Cro-Magnons evolved - and it was the period when the Neaderthals bred with Homo Sapiens after they left Africa.

The white gene did not evolve, it was passed to the Homo Sapiens who became Cro-Magnons around 40,000 years ago by breeding with the Northern Neanderthals.

This then fits us into the time window re blonde hair and blue eyes - and links us back to the Neanderthals again.


This is my theory.


The first group of Homo Sapiens left Africa around 50,000 years ago.

One group of Homo Sapiens met the Asian Neanderthal group in the North African region and bred with them - this led to the race group of the modern East Asians.

This is also why the Neaderthals in Asia disappeared around 50,000 years ago as they merged with the Homo Sapiens. These Asian Neanderthals had evolved to become a racial sub set of the Neanderthals living in that region and this is why the Homo Sapiens / Neanderthals who are Modern East Asians have different racial features to modern Cro-Magnon Whites.

Then around 40,000 years ago another group of Homo Sapiens moved out of Africa and into Northern Europe and met the Northern Neanderthal groups living in that region.

This group of Neanderthals were genetically different to the Neanderthals of Asia as they had evolved to become adjusted to the Northern European climate ( Neanderthals also had 'racial group's just as whites are genetically different to asians , Neanderthals also had racial differences ) and the Homo Sapiens in Northern Europe then bred with that group of Northern Neanderthals.

The Northern Neanderthals then vanished as they merged with the Homo Sapiens and became Cro-Magnons who evolved around 35,000 years ago.

This then explains ;

1) where the Neanderthals went - they became us

2) why both East Asians and whites have Neanderthal DNA but have different racial features as they derive from different Neanderthal groups - the East Asians inherited their yellow skin and racial features from the Asian Neanderthals.

The Neanderthals had themselves evolved into different Neanderthal racial sets over their 600,000 year evolutionary period of existence.

For example the Oase fossils which include a 40,000-year-old skull found in a Romanian cave that defies traditional anatomical categorization. Though the skull has the proportions of a modern human cranium, it has a retreating forehead and large upper molars among other features typical of Neandertals (SN: 3/24/07, p. 186). A similar jaw had previously been found at the site.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C5%9Ftera_cu_Oase

The Oase Fossils, which seem to be at least three separate Human / Neaderthal groups or three different Neanderthal groups with different features proves that there were racial sub sets amongst the Neanderthal groups and different Neanderthal / Homo Sapien matings in history.

This is why modern East Asians have different features to modern Cro-Magnons, as the Neanderthal groups they evolved from were racially different Neanderthal groups.

3) where white skin, blonde hair and blue eyes came from which was the Northern Neanderthal group. These racial features were only in the Northern Neanderthal population.

4) that the SLC24A5 white genes arose in the Cro-Magnon group around 12,000 years ago. This is why whites have lighter skin than East Asians and why the SLC24A5 genes are only present in whites derived from Cro-Magnons.


Thats it.

This explains exactly where race and racial differences in modern Homo Sapiens comes from.

More PC BBC crap - The Human Journey

Image - The BBC Homo Sapiens Nelson Mandela. You can just imagine the BBC commissioning editor on the line to the scientist that made the model, ' Oh for fucks sake mate, cant you make it more black ? We are paying good money for this. Make it look more like Nelson Mandela. Stop laughing or we will cancel the cheque '.




The BBC are about to launch a new pseudo-science series, The Human Journey, presented by some pretty airhead presenter called Alice Roberts (who got her degree in anthropology during an era when racial science was perverted by marxist politics and therefore knows only what lies she has been taught - though she is very easy on the eyes ) and so they commission a forensic skull expert to reproduce what some skull found in Romania would look like if it were alive today.

The problem is that the skull they have made is simply pure BBC propaganda.

Even though scientists debate whether the individual skull was EVEN HUMAN,as it has archaic features that suggest it was a Human-Neanderthal Hybrid - they make it look like Nelson Mandela with a skinhead.

Even in the article in The Independent they state, 'we dont know what skin colour it would have had' so they go and give it one that most resembles a modern sub-Saharan indigenous modern African - even though the modern sub-saharan skin tone is itself a result of thousands of years of human racial evolution.

Just because sub-saharan have dark black skin today, does not mean the ancestors of sub-saharan Africans, or all humans, had dark black skin tones 35,000 years ago.

But the cruncher comes here when the airhead Roberts says " He said the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African " - therefore in order for the good doctor to have made such a statement there have to differences between the skull shapes of modern Africans, Asians and Europeans, which therefore means RACIAL DIFFERENCES DO EXIST.

Its good to know that even when they are indulging in pseudo-science the BBC and its airheads are unable to even understand the trite and facile logical inconsistencies in their own ideological nonsense.

Milford Wolpoff of the University of Michigan and his colleagues maintain that the principal human races-Negroids, Caucasoids, Mongoloids, Australian aboriginal peoples and southern African Bushmen-began to evolve well before the appearance of anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens. Contrary to mainstream thinking, races did not evolve as a result of modern humans leaving Africa to colonise the rest of the world some 100 000 to 200 000 years ago. Or so Wolpoff argues

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13718564.400-on-the-origin-of-races.html

If you try and research from a scientific standpoint the origin and periods of racial diversification from the Homo Sapiens line, you find that the internet is swamped with pseudo-christian bullshit about the issue of race with all sorts of crap about Adam and Eve and Creationism.

Yet the irony is that both the Creationists and Multi-culturalists in their utter ignorance agree on a similar pseudo-scientific propaganda model, that posits the theory that all humans come from some 'ancestral Eve' and that we 'all come from Africa re the Garden of Eden'.

Both are bullshit.

The 'Eve theory' is flawed simply as the modern human populations of the planet have experienced massive evolution since any point of commonality, and therefore the idea that we today are IN ANY WAY like the 'ancestral eve' of hundreds of thousands of years ago is utter nonsense.

HUMAN BEINGS HAVE EVOLVED.

This is why modern racial groups exist with the vast physical and genetic differences between them.

We may share fundamental traits with some fictious 'human ancestral Eve' but we also share plenty of similar traits with Cheetah the chimp in the Tarzan movies.

The fact is though that just because we share some traits with chimps, and with an 'eve', does not mean we are chimps or eve.

WE HAVE EVOLVED.

We may share genetic traits with early humans, but we also share many more traits with Chimpanzees.

Therefore to say because we share traits with chimpanzee's that we today are 'Chimps from Africa' is total nonsense and simplistic drivel.

That also doesnt mean we should give human being drugs that are given to chimps because we share DNA with chimps.

In regards to the molecular composition of chlorophyll and hemoglobin, the substance in human blood that carries oxygen from the lungs to the other tissues and organs in the body, they are actually quite similar. The only difference between the two molecules is that hemoglobin has iron as the center atom while chlorophyll has magnesium at its center.

Therefore minute differences in DNA, as between the gene codes for chlorophyll in plants and hemoglobin in blood, creates vast changes in the nature of the organism that carries those DNA codes.

Therefore the most minute differences in DNA ,as between humans and chimps and as between human racial groups, create vast differences in the biological nature of the creatures that carry that DNA.

The many thousands of DNA differences between modern racial groups create a vast amount of genetic and physical differences between racial groups, though this science has been neglected and dominated over recent decades by Marxists who have sought to surpress it - resulting in the deaths of millions upon millions of people who have been forced to endure generic medicines instead of race based medicines.

If modern races do not exist - then how come the proffessor in the article is able to tell the difference between modern African, Asian and European skulls ?

The fact that recent DNA research proves that the Cro-Magnon people of Europe and modern European are gentically exactly the same , eg they share the same racial characteristics as they do today as they did 35,000 years ago, should have meant the forensic skull modeller did his research and ensured the model had WHITE SKIN, not black skin.

The REAL science is here as opposed to this facile and asinine BBC bullshit ;

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080715204741.htm

If the modern European people of today and the Cro-Magnons of 35,000 years ago are genetically identical then how come the idiot used black clay to make the model.

Modern Europeans are not black - they are white.

Therefore the model should have been white and not black.

And why did they use a model of a weird, hybrid skull to make their model instead of the many other Cro-Magnon skulls in Europe that display the same racial characteristics as modern Europeans ?

Instead they use this freak skull to make a freak model to try and sell their facile multi-cultural bollocks to the idiot masses who will watch this TV show and then go about spreading and believing the BBC bullshit.

Of course race exists - and the BBC are simply fighting a pathetic rearguard propaganda action to try and bolster their pseudo-science to support the failed Marxist model of ' one race '.

This refusal to accept reality is the basis of the Liberal Genocide - in that by refusing to accept the reality of racial differences the liberals have consigned generation after generation of peoples of all races to death as a result of forcing them to use generic drugs for health treatments as opposed to pharmacogenomic drugs tailored to treat specific racial and ethnic groups.

The hand of the liberals are sticky with the blood of millions.

Therefore the propaganda the BBC pumps out is the same sort of sick, racist propaganda that the Nazis once pumped out - in that the result of the propaganda has been genocide.

The intent of the liberals may have been to avert genocide, but as William Blake wrote - The road to hell is paved with good intentions.



Article in The Independent here ;

( Please note that thankfully The Independent is about to go bankrupt and we will no longer have to endure their bullshit and bullshit from Steve connor, Johan Hari and Alibi Brown as they will all be sacked )


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/revealed-the-face--of-the-first-european-1678537.html

Revealed: the face of the first European

235,000-year-old skull fragments found in Romania are made flesh by scientists

By Steve Connor, Science Editor


Monday, 4 May 2009

Forensic artist Richard Neave used skull and jawbone fragments found in a cave to build this likeness of an early European


This is the face of the first anatomically-modern human to live in Europe. It belonged to a man – or woman – who inhabited the ancient forests of the Carpathian Mountains in what is now Romania about 35,000 years ago.


The artist's reconstruction – a face that could be male or female – is based on the partial skull and jawbone found in a cave where bears were known to hibernate. The facial features indicate the close affinity of these early Europeans to their immediate African ancestors, although it was still not possible to determine the person's sex.

Richard Neave, the forensic artist who reconstructed the facial features in this clay model, based his assessment on a careful measurement of the bone fragments and his long experience of how the soft tissues of the face are built around the bones of the skull.

The reconstruction was made for the forthcoming BBC 2 series The Incredible Human Journey which documents human origins and evolution, from our birthplace in Africa to the long migratory routes that led us to populate the most distant parts of the globe. It is impossible from the bones to determine the skin colour of the individual, although scientists speculate it was probably darker than modern-day Europeans, reflecting a more recent African origin.

Mr Neave's clay head of the "first modern European" now sits on the desk of Alice Roberts, the Bristol University anthropologist who will introduce the BBC series, which is scheduled for screening next Sunday evening on BBC 2. "It's really quite bizarre. I'm a scientist and objective, but I look at that face and think 'Gosh, I'm actually looking at the face of somebody from 40,000 years ago', and there's something weirdly moving about that," Dr Roberts told the Radio Times.

"Richard creates skulls of much more recent humans and he's used to looking at differences between populations. He said the skull doesn't actually look European, or Asian, or African. It looks like a mixture of all of them. And you think, well, that's probably what you'd expect of someone who was among the earliest populations to come to Europe."

Potholers discovered the lower jawbone of the first modern European in 2002 in Pestera cu Oase, the "cave with bones", located in the south-western Carpathians. The remaining fragments of skull were unearthed in 2003.

Scientists have dated the bones using radiocarbon analysis to between 34,000 and 36,000 years ago when Europe was occupied by both Neanderthal man, who had lived in the region for tens of thousands of years, and anatomically-modern humans – Homo sapiens – who had recently arrived on a migratory route from Africa via the Middle East.

Although the skull shares many modern feature of human anatomy, it also displays more archaic traits, such as very large molar teeth, which led some scientists to speculate the skull may belong to a hybrid between Homo sapiens and Neanderthals – an idea discounted by other experts.

Erik Trinkaus, professor of anthropology at Washington University in Missouri, and one of the first specialists to study the bones in detail, said the jaw was the oldest, directly-dated modern human fossil. "Taken together, the material is the first that securely documents what modern humans looked like when they spread into Europe," he said.

Neanderthal man

*Lived in Europe for 300,000 years, surviving a number of ice ages before dying out 25,000 years ago. No one is sure why. Original fossil remains were found in 1856 in the Neander valley, near Dusseldorf, Germany. Socially advanced but left no signs of art, decoration or jewellery. But archaeologists have discovered a flute and have tested their toolmaking skills, suggesting a higher level of sophistication than first thought.

Homo sapiens

*Arrived in Europe some 35,000 years ago, competing with Neanderthal man for 10,000 years. DNA studies suggest the two species did not interbreed. First remains of Homo sapiens – modern humans – found in 1868 in a cave in the Dordogne, France, and known as Cro-Magnon man. Left cave paintings at Chauvet, Lascaux and Altamira, suggesting a sudden development of art.

World Most Ancient Human Race - total rubbish !

What I hate most are liberal scientists that distort their work to support their facile notions on racial differences and idiot journalists who are witless enough to report their rubbish.

The article below is total rubbish.


The Sans Bushmen are not the 'oldest human race' on earth.

To suggest that they are the 'oldest human race' on earth suggests that they are also the most primitive, as unlike all other human racial groups this statement implies they have not evolved as have all other human racial groups.

This is obviously racist nonsense.

They are simply the human racial group in the world with the most amount of genetic diversity, they are not the oldest human racial group.

Like all human beings the Sans are a racial group of the Homo Sapiens line, though they are a racial group who have experienced the least amount of racial evolution amongst all Homo Sapiens racial groups and therefore they have the most amount of internal genetic diversity.

All human racial groups are as 'old' as each other, for they all evolved from the same archaic hominid group at the point that archaic hominid group became Homo Sapiens.

We are all Homo Sapiens, it is just that other Homo Sapiens racial groups have undergone racial evolution whilst the Sans have experienced the least racial evolution.

Nor all human beings descended from Africa.

Africa is the modern name of a modern continent.

The original homininds that later evolved into humans were present in a geographic area that corresponds to the modern area we define as the African continent.

Africa did not exist at the time of the early hominids.

So we are not 'all Africans'.

The term 'Africans' is a modern term that applies to modern African nation states present on the modern African continent.

The term 'Africans' also refers not just to black people but also non-Indigenous African citizens of modern African nation states.

The language of the research implies that only 'Africans' like the Sans eg black are africans.

To imply, as they do with their use of the word 'African', that the only 'Africans' are black africans is pure racism, as it implies that white africans such as in South Africa do not exist.

Whites are as 'african' as indigenous African blacks if they are citizens of modern African nations.

The phrase you need to use is ' The indigenous people of the modern African continent ' - not Africans.

The phrase you need to use to describe the geographic area where all human beings evolved is not Africa, but ' The geographic area that corresponds to the modern African continent'.

If I were to state use the word 'European' in relation to racial research on the present indigenous Europeans in the same way that you do, then that would imply that those who are not Indigenous European are not European.

We are frequently screamed at by the left / liberal elite if this is even implied.

That would also be regarded as racist.

Nor were the original hominids 'black' - the black indigenous african skin colour gene, black indigenous racial DNA and human racial groups defined as indigenous black african evolved as geo-specific responses to localised climate change among the original hominid groups within the African continent at the moment they, and all humans, became Homo Sapiens.

The original hominids were not black, nor were they human.

The human clock only began to tick as per racial differentiation at the moment we all became human, not before.

The present indigenous black racial groups all evolved from the original Homo Sapiens group, as did all human racial groups.

To suggest that the original hominids were 'black' is racist - simply as they were not human, and therefore by logical extension this implies and suggests that Black Africans are not modern humans but are remnants of the original non-human archaic hominid group who have not evolved when in fact the black racial groups and all other racial groups have all evolved from the Homo Sapiens lineage.

More racist nonsense.

We all, black and white, became humans and members of our present racial groups after continously evolving from the orginal Homo Sapiens group.

The original pre-human hominids were not 'black' as black is a reference to a HUMAN genetic adaption of the Indigenous African Homo Sapiens racial group that includes the Sans.

The Sans groups are groups that have managed to preserve their own ancestral HUMAN racial DNA in a way that ensured they did not experience the evolutionary changes of other human racial groups elsewhere that led to the varied racial groups present in the world today.

In effect, the Sans racial group chose to not racially mix with other groups (and also not suffer racial DNA drift into their racial group from other racial groups that evolved elsewhere into their own specific racial groups) and nor did their environment change to such an extent that evolutionary pressures forced them to undergo racial evolution (or geo-specific genetic climate adaption as it should be defined).

What this research reveals is that the Sans group are the only human racial group in the world who evolved from the original Homo Sapien group that have had the least geographic and climatic imperative to evolve racial changes in their DNA.

The Sans group are, like all modern human beings, the remnants of the original humans but who have the most diverse DNA due to the fact that they have experienced the least racial differentiation.

The less diverse DNA in a racial group means the more racial differentiation.

In other words the less diverse the DNA of a racial group the more closely related that group is.

The research merely proves that contrary to the liberal myth that racial differences are pseudo-science, racial differences are fundamental to human diversity.




http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/worlds-most-ancient-race-traced-in-dna-study-1677113.html


The San people of southern Africa, who have lived as hunter-gatherers for thousands of years, are likely to be the oldest population of humans on Earth, according to the biggest and most detailed analysis of African DNA. The San, also known as bushmen, are directly descended from the original population of early human ancestors who gave rise to all other groups of Africans and, eventually, to the people who left the continent to populate other parts of the world.


A study of 121 distinct populations of modern-day Africans has found that they are all descended from 14 ancestral populations and that the differences and similarities of their genes closely follows the differences and similarities of their spoken languages.

The scientists analysed the genetic variation within the DNA of more than 3,000 Africans and found that the San were among the most genetically diverse group, indicating that they are probably the oldest continuous population of humans on the continent – and on Earth.

The study, published in the journal Science, took 10 years of research involving trips to some of the most remote and dangerous parts of Africa to collect blood samples. The project found modern Africans had the most diverse DNA of all racial groups in the world, confirming the idea that Africa is the birthplace of humanity, said Sarah Tishkoff of the University of Pennsylvania.

The scientists also found genetic "markers" in the DNA of the present-day inhabitants of East Africa living near to the Red Sea, which indicated that they belonged to the same ancestral group who migrated out of Africa to populate Asia and the rest of the world. West Africans speaking the Niger-Kordofanian language were found to share many genetic traits with African-Americans, indicating they were the ancestors of most of the slaves sent to the New World.

One of the main findings to emerge was the genetic similarity between groups who shared similar languages despite living many thousands of miles from one another. The Sandawe and Hadza of Tanzania shared common ancestors with the Khoisan speakers of southern Africa: all three groups speak "click" languages.

The Genetic Map Of Europe

The next time some insane genocidal Liberal Fascist says 'there are no indigenous British people' then send them this link ;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html

Not only are all the indigenous European people a unique related racial group, but also DNA tests can now reveal which nation we come from as the ethnic groups derived from the European racial group have unique DNA sequences which can be linked to a geo-specific region.

Also read the article in The Guardian below. This article points out that the future of medicine is race and ethnic based medicines called Pharmacogenomics, and race and ethnic DNA differences have a vast impact on disease and treatments for disease.

So the next time some Liberal Fascist says there are no indigenous British people then we can tell them they are insane, genocidal criminals who wish to ensure future generations die of diseases because the existence of race based medicines conflicts with their outdated and obsolete 20 th century Marxist rubbish that there are no races, just one human race.



Biologists have constructed a genetic map of Europe showing the degree of relatedness between its various populations.

All the populations are quite similar, but the differences are sufficient that it should be possible to devise a forensic test to tell which country in Europe an individual probably comes from, said Manfred Kayser, a geneticist at the Erasmus University Medical Center in the Netherlands.

The map shows, at right, the location in Europe where each of the sampled populations live and, at left, the genetic relationship between these 23 populations. The map was constructed by Dr. Kayser, Dr. Oscar Lao and others, and appears in an article in Current Biology published online on August 7.

The genetic map of Europe bears a clear structural similarity to the geographic map. The major genetic differences are between populations of the north and south (the vertical axis of the map shows north-south differences, the horizontal axis those of east-west). The area assigned to each population reflects the amount of genetic variation in it.

Europe has been colonized three times in the distant past, always from the south. Some 45,000 years ago the first modern humans entered Europe from the south. The glaciers returned around 20,000 years ago and the second colonization occurred about 17,000 years ago by people returning from southern refuges. The third invasion was that of farmers bringing the new agricultural technology from the Near East around 10,000 years ago.

The pattern of genetic differences among present day Europeans probably reflects the impact of these three ancient migrations, Dr. Kayser said.

The map also identifies the existence of two genetic barriers within Europe. One is between the Finns (light blue, upper right) and other Europeans. It arose because the Finnish population was at one time very small and then expanded, bearing the atypical genetics of its few founders.

The other is between Italians (yellow, bottom center) and the rest. This may reflect the role of the Alps in impeding free flow of people between Italy and the rest of Europe.

Data for the map were generated by gene chips programmed to test and analyze 500,000 sites of common variation on the human genome, although only the 300,000 most reliable sites were used for the map. Dr. Kayser's team tested almost 2,500 people and analyzed the data by correlating the genetic variations in all the subjects. The genetic map is based on the two strongest of these sets of correlations.

The gene chips require large amounts of DNA, more than is available in most forensic samples. Dr. Kayser hopes to identify the sites on the human genome which are most diagnostic for European origin. These sites, if reasonably few in number, could be tested for in hair and blood samples, Dr. Kayser said.

Genomic sites that carry the strongest signal of variation among populations may be those influenced by evolutionary change, Dr. Kayser said. Of the 100 strongest sites, 17 are found in the region of the genome that confers lactose tolerance, an adaptation that arose among a cattle herding culture in northern Europe some 5,000 years ago. Most people switch off the lactose digesting gene after weaning, but the cattle herders evidently gained a great survival advantage by keeping the gene switched on through adulthood.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jan/23/stemcells.genetics

Detailed gene map will lift lid on diseases

Ian Sample, science correspondent

The Guardian, Wednesday 23 January 2008

An ambitious project to create the most detailed picture of human genetic variation yet has been launched by British and American scientists.

The 1000 Genomes Project will map the tiny fraction of genetic material that differs between people, giving scientists unprecedented insight into why some are more susceptible to disease than others.

Scientists know that any two humans are more than 99% identical on the genetic level. The remaining fraction helps explain differences in people's health.

The $50m (£26m) map, which is expected to take three years to complete, will be made freely available, allowing scientists to pinpoint the genetic causes of common disorders swiftly and help tailor medical treatments to individual patients. Researchers will scan the genetic make-up of at least 1,000 people who either live in, or have ancestry tracing back to, Europe, Africa, Japan, China, India and Mexico. From these scientists will create a catalogue of genetic variation found in as few as 1% of the population.

"Such a project would have been unthinkable only two years ago," said Dr Richard Durbin, a geneticist at the Welcome Trust's Sanger Institute in Cambridge, who co-chairs the project. "We are moving forward to building a tool that will greatly expand and further accelerate efforts to find more of the genetic factors involved in human health and disease."

Since the 13-year-long Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, scientists have strived to look deeper into 3bn pairs of letters that form the human book of life. One, the HapMap project, has revealed large-scale genetic variations between populations, which have helped scientists identify more than 100 regions linked to conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease and cancer.

Scientists look for genetic causes of disease by comparing genome scans from healthy people with sick people. But these studies usually only point to vague regions in the genetic code that may be hundreds of thousands of letters long.

"This project will give scientists a complete map of all the variation in that region, so they'll be able to use it to tease apart what might cause the illness and that will lead to better diagnosis and better understanding of the disease," said Durbin.

The project will begin this year with three pilot studies. The first will involve an in-depth scan of two families; the second will sequence the genomes of 180 people, while the third will examine 1,000 genes in 1,000 people. The main project will begin next year.

Race is Reality

First they said that race did not exist - then they said that immigration was a good thing.

Both of these statements by the liberals were bollocks and here is a liberal demolishing the liberal shibboleths.



http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10187


The claim that there is no such thing as race is understandable but wrong. We should recognise both the genetic reality of race and the uniquely human ability to transcend it

Mark Pagel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Pagel is professor of evolutionary biology at Reading University
Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect's blog

Strange Fruit: Why Both Sides are Wrong in the Race Debate
by Kenan Malik (Oneworld, £18.99)

Trust: Self-interest and the Common Good
by Marek Kohn (OUP, £10.99)

The Great Hall at the University of Reading is a lively piece of Victoriana: a broad neo-Romanesque structure suggestive of a nave, with a concave arched ceiling of gilt-edged rectangular sections painted a pastel green and decorated with rosettes.

The uniformity of its architectural style contrasts with the people I can see under its roof. Perhaps 200 students are at work here, and my guess, from their faces, is that between them they could trace their ancestry to Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, the far east and perhaps the Indian subcontinent.

These observations collide with Kenan Malik's insistence in his new book, Strange Fruit, that there is no such thing as race: that it is nothing more than a social construct, having little to do with biology. It is true that the history of racial thinking is mostly an odious embarrassment. And using the idea of race as an assertion of abrupt or clear genetic boundaries between peoples is wrong. All of humanity shares the same genes, and we can all happily and successfully interbreed. And, contrary to the pronouncements of some well-known public figures, there is no evidence that human groups differ in the genetic factors that cause intelligence or even cognitive abilities in general. But we mustn't take this to mean that there are no differences among us. Variants of our shared genes do differ among human groups. If my ancestors were from the far east, I would have the epicanthal fold of skin above my eyes so distinctive of peoples from that region. Were I able to trace my ancestry to the Ethiopian highlands, it is likely that I would have a wiry frame and sinewy muscles. And were my ancestors from the Tibetan plateau, it is likely that my body shape would be good at conserving heat. I could go on; and the list could contain far more than morphological characters—just think, for example, of who carries genes to protect against malaria or to digest milk proteins as adults.

These are all genetic differences. In fact, if we measure large numbers of genetic markers from populations around the world and then use them to form clusters, we get back groupings that bear a striking resemblance to what have conventionally been recognised as the major racial groups on the planet: Europeans and western Asians, Africans, people from the Americas, eastern Asians, and Australasians.

Biologists confronted with this kind of clustered genetic variability in other species routinely refer to the groupings as variants, types, gentes, races and even sub-species. These are imprecise terms, but they capture the sense that suites of genetic characters or markers vary or cluster in similar ways among populations. Put another way, give me the suites of characters and I can predict at a better than chance level what group or region the sample comes from. There is no reason to exclude humans from this. It is what I was doing with the faces in the tranquil setting of the Great Hall.

Malik knows these facts about our genetics, but wants to insist that, unless "race" corresponds to absolute boundaries, it is a useless and damaging concept. But to deny what everybody knows and to swap the word race for something less politically charged like "group" is just an act of self-denial and certainly no more accurate than the dreaded "r" word. It is also patronising—I would like to think we are all grown up enough to accept the facts and ready ourselves for the deluge to come. I say deluge because the more we measure, the more genetic differences we find among populations; and no kinds of difference can be absolutely ruled out (to be clear, there is no reason to expect Caucasians will do well out of this). We may in future need a language, and maybe even a new ethics, to discuss the new genetics. But that is another story.

Why go on about these differences? Because they tell us something startling about our species, with an important bearing on the predicament we find ourselves in and which Malik writes about—how to live in a multicultural world.

We are a very young species. At about 100,000 to 150,000 years old, maybe less, we have just flickered into an existence that could go on—if we are an average species—for 8-10m years. We are not yet out of our nappies. Without going into the details, there are only two ways we could have amassed the genetic differences we have while still in this toddlerhood. One is that different races have been good at keeping to themselves since we spread around the world after walking out of Africa 70,000 years ago. Physical separation would have allowed many random differences to accumulate between groups. But this could only have occurred if inter-group migration were very low. It could also reflect active avoidance, something suggested by the growing sense among anthropologists that human history can best be understood as constant attempts by different group to annihilate each other.

The second way humanity could have achieved its genetic variation would be if natural selection has acted strongly on human populations, promoting different traits in different groups. I say "strongly" because the differences have been produced in a short time, and natural selection has had to work against the homogenising influences of migration and interbreeding. This is why we can be sure that when we see so-called "adaptive" differences, they tell us we are staring at people who have been selected to be very good at some challenge their environment throws at them, be it conserving heat, protecting the eyes from wind-blown sand, fighting off malaria or being able to digest milk proteins. These are not accidental differences.

Moreover, even after the ravages brought by the waves of expanding agriculturalists beginning about 10,000 years ago, followed more recently by the great imperial conquests of the last 800 to 900 years, humans still speak about 7,000 distinct languages. You don't get that by hanging out with each other.

So we are a species with a short but intense history of living in relatively isolated groups. We are also a species that invented a new and powerful way of life—called co-operation. Or, more to the point, it is what evolutionary biologists call "indirect reciprocity": the ability to behave co-operatively towards people unrelated to you and with no expectation of immediate "repayment." We help people in distress, we return items of value, we may even put our wellbeing or lives at risk for others, and we have a sense of fairness that we and others ought to behave this way. Our co-operation allows us to have a division of labour and exchange—someone mends the fishing nets while another collects coconuts—and the specialisation this allows is almost certainly responsible for our rapid spread around the world.

No other species does anything like this. The co-operative hunting seen among male chimpanzees is largely done among bands of (genetic) brothers. Ants co-operate, and they are capable of raising sophisticated armies, and of deploying them in complex ways against other ant armies. But ants are effectively genetic clones of each other and so don't mind giving aid or even their lives to help the collective.

Co-operation among unrelated humans is a different matter. If you help someone and they don't help you back, you lose. Co-operative societies can soar to great heights, but they can cost you dearly, as when cheats take the spoils of co-operation without returning the benefits. This means that humans have evolved sensitive mechanisms to discriminate between people likely to share their co-operative values from those that do not.

Trust, the topic of Marek Kohn's book of the same name, is what arises from this discrimination—and Kohn rightly recognises that trust promotes both self-interest and the common good. As individuals, we toil to build reputations as a way of advertising our trustworthiness and of attracting like-valued people. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the importance of co-operative social systems to our psychology and social behaviour. If trust is the fuel of our co-operation, reputation is the currency with which we buy it. Apes, dolphins and ants don't feel shame or engage in honour killings.

This view of what makes humans tick also helps us to understand the awkwardness of the public debate about multiculturalism. Malik asserts that there is a tendency for what he calls the liberal left to "resurrect racial concepts" in framing their views on multiculturalism. Thus we grant authenticity, and equal but separate status, to the different desires and practices of some groups on the basis of their deep cultural heritage: consider the recent uproar over sharia law. Malik doesn't suggest these liberals are racist, just that the language they use—of ethnicity, authenticity and identity—is laden with racial baggage and reminiscent of that used by the old racists when justifying their exclusionary views.

So how is it that race and ethnicity find their way so easily, even if inadvertently, into discussions of multiculturalism? The answer has nothing to do with racism and a lot to do with statistics. Humans, as I have described, evolved to live in small isolated groups and are finely tuned to seek people of common values. Like it or not, common culture (common practices, expectations, and beliefs) correlates, even if imperfectly, with common biological ancestry. This means that markers of race and ethnicity come to be taken as markers of common values.

So does this mean that, deep down, we are all racists? No: we are too clever and self-interested for that. The very social feature that makes us unique—our ability to co-operate with unrelated others—makes us, uniquely among animals, capable of moving beyond the politics of race and ethnicity. Were we as mindless as apes and ants, this would be impossible. Their behaviour is based almost exclusively on common genetic ancestry. Ours is not.

We humans will get along with anyone who wishes to play the co-operative game with us—and that part of our nature will always trump guesswork based on markers of ethnicity or other features. The key is to provide or create stronger signs of trust and common values than are provided by the statistically useful but imprecise markers of ethnicity. Looking around the Great Hall, I couldn't help but feel that this was already happening among the good students of Reading University.

Discuss this article at First Drafts, Prospect's blog

The Triumph of the Stupids

Today I am ashamed to be British and I am ashamed of my country.

The nation that gave the world Newton, Alexander Fleming and Darwin and visionaries like Robert Stephenson and Charles Merz has today become a primitive backwater where the Cult of Equality has replaced science and rationalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_scientists

It is self evidently true that all men are not created equal.

I am not my brother and nor am I my sister.

To deny me my right to difference is to deny me my individuality.

As William Blake wrote ' One law for the Lion and the and the Ox is oppression'.

As Plato wrote " When equality is given to unequals the result is inequality ".

In Mind, Body, Soul and Spirit all Men differ.

In their appreciation of art, beauty, nature and the divinity of life itself, all Men differ.

Where one man may see a heaven in a flower, another may regard a field of wild flowers as useful only for the plow.

The hounding of the scientist James Watson from our shores is a sign that our nation has reached its nadir.

The dark satanic mills of political correctness that grind down truth and replace it with dogma have transformed our nation from a place where the light of science once illuminated the world, to a cesspit of stupidity, irrationalism and cowardice.

It is not the tribal peoples of the world who are the primitives, it is us.

In the grip of our mindless superstitions such as political correctness, the witch doctors of the cult of equality place their spells on anyone who dares defy them and their idiotic edicts and the zombie like masses then treat them as tabooed.

The ultimate spell is to be labelled a 'racist'.

Like the phantoms and ghosts of the past the merest hint that the spectre of Institutional Racism afflicts an organisation then the CRE Witchdoctor is called in so that the place can be exorcised with the powers of Positive Discrmination and Affirmative Action.

In a complete reversal of centuries of scientific progress the absence of evidence of institutional racism is not regarded as evidence of absence of institutional racism, but as evidence that the institution is so racist that it hides its racism.

Its a bit like a WitchFinder General saying ' We think you are a witch, and because we have not found any evidence to prove you are a witch this merely confirms that you are a clever witch and therefore demand extra punishmnent '.

It is complete bollocks and the people who promote this shit, and who accept this shit, are insane.

In less than a couple of generations we have turned the clock back to an era before the Enlightenment,and we have entered an era where the irrational rules and the stupids have triumphed.

Today the stupids run the country.

The mewling maggot filth of the media that condition and brainwash the masses ensure that the rule of the stupids is ensured. When a man with a mind, a free thinking and visionary mind, dares reveal the stupidity of the stupids then all the stupids come together to destroy him.

It is like watching a swarm of ants devour a lion. On their own they are nothing, not even an irritant to the lion, but when they swarm as one then even the lion is unable to fight them. The swarming stupids then bite and sting the lion until it flees. Just as James Watson has fled the country.

Museum after museum refused to allow James Watson to speak. No douby David Lammy the Culture Minister and his arse licking minions were on the phones to the museums threatening to refuse them government funding in the future if they allowed James Watson to speak.

Today the various newspapers and their stupids who wrote the articles attacking James Watson are once again on the attack.

Whenever a wolf enters a village then all the village dogs run indoors and hide. When the wolf has left the village then all the dogs come out howling and barking from their houses and then form a pack and then they all take a piss on the paw prints of the wolf left in the mud. This is what the media are doing today as James Watson flies back to the United States.

They are howling and barking and pissing on his footprints.

Not one of the media maggots that attacked James Watson, nor the idiotic so called 'scientists' they managed to scrape up from the shallow end of the scientific brain pool to attack him, dared confront him in a free and fair public debate.

Instead they all just howled when he left the country and continue pissing on his prints in the mud. What a complete bunch of gutless bastards.

The inane so called 'scientific arguments' the 'scientists' and the media stupids are trying to promote today in order to conceal the fact they are a bunch of gutless bastards are so trite, facile and pathetic that it is just embarassing.

Our entire society is based upon Race - Multi-Culturalism regards race as a factor in everything we do as a society.

The Race Relations Act covers every function of every public body and our every private act. The RRA 1976 has achieved what Communism never did in our society, it has removed the right of private property. If you run your own company then you can be forced under the RRA 1976 to employ people the government tells you too. If you fail to employ those people then this can be used as evidence against you in an Employment Tribunal case as evidence of Institutional Racism and leave you open to unlimited fines for racism.

The Public Order Act 1986 criminalises language that the government regards as 'racist'.

The Race Relations Acts case law such as Mandla V Lee explictly recognises racial groups and ethnic groups - yet the Socialist scientists stil tell us that Race as a genetic construct does not exist.

For instance ;

Here we have an article concerning medical care provision based on assessment of racial group needs -

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/102273726.html

but here we have scientists saying that race does not exist -

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=31&art_id=vn20021217112750970C124344&set_id=1

THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPLETELY INSANE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

These people say " Race is a real cultural, political and economic concept in society, but it is not a biological concept ".

LIFE IS A BIOLOGICAL CONCEPT - Race is an aspect of human biological existence, and to say that race as a biological concept or genetic concept does not exist is tautological nonsense. Every human being is a DNA based life form based on genetic inheritance. Therefore race is also an a priori genetic reality. If race exists as a factor in human social relations then race must exist as a genetic reality.

The outward visible manifestations of race such as skin colour and physiological differences are the basis of the reality of race as a social factor in human relations. Without those visible manifestations of race such as skin colour then the social, economic and political concepts of race could not impact within human societies. As those outward manifestations of Race are based on D.N.A, such as inherited skin colour, physiological differences and IQ differences relating to success in society, then race is both a social concept and a biological concept.

Skin colour and human physiological differences are the basis of the differences in social, economic and political differences in human societies.

Skin colour and phsyiological differences are both genetic based and inherited.

Any society that identifies a racial group as existing in that society as a social, economic and political reality must accept that a biological basis exists for the existence of that group within that society.

It is logically impossible to deny the biological existence of race when you accept the social existence of race.

Society and science can only deny that races exist if they deny humanity exists.

The fact that scientists seek to remove the reality of race from a biological perspective does not make them correct, it merely means that they are idiots.

If Race exists in any form, then it exists.

That existence is predicated upon a variety of differences between people INCLUDING genetics.

The concept of racism denies the genetic reality of race and then uses the social concept of race to remove our rights, remove our free speech and criminalise debate and at the exact same time the scientists tell us race does not exist.

This is schizophrenia on a huge scale, our entire society is psychotic and then we wonder why rates of mental illness, depression, drug taking and drinking are on the rise. People that live in an insane society are driven insane.

The fact is that the science of racial differences is the most retarded science.

Any scientist with any intelligence realises that researching racial differences is like playing hopscotch blindfolded in a minefield.

Researching racial differences kills careers.

Just as once questioning the Bible was enough to have someone labelled a heretic and cast in to the flames of the Inquisition, the same is true today of the science of racial differences.

There has been virtually ZERO research on race.

The fact that any research at all exists is because a few brave pioneers have dared to defy the Torquemadas of the Inquisiton and seek Truth instead of being shackled by superstition.

The research that has been discovered has proved that race exists on a genetic level in a myriad of ways.

The trite statement by the media maggots that we are all the same as we are all 99.9% genetically similar is more nonsense.

There are at least 3 billion seperate pieces of DNA in a single human being. There are 25,000 - 30,000 plus genes in the human DNA.

Chlorophyll is similar in structure to haemoglobin, but with magnesium instead of iron as the reactive part of the molecule. Just a single letter of DNA is the difference between haemoglobin and Chlorophyll. That is just one letter in the 3 billion in the human genome. Yet the difference between the two chemicals is vast.

This is what happens in complex systems like human beings. Tiny differences on an infinitisimally small scale have vast effects. A point one (.1 ) difference in DNA between human racial groups in a system with three billion segments of code is a vast amount of difference, and seeing as a single letter can have vast effects on the functions of the entire system itself then racial differences are vast between human beings.

The vast amount amount of inherited phsyiological differences between human racial groups such as externally visible traits, primarily skin color, features of the face, and the shape and size of the head and body, and the underlying skeleton are all evidence of vast racial differences between human races.

Even the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, who are frequently quoted as rejecting the idea of Race accept that racial differences exist.

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

Race exists and villifying scientists such as James Watson FOR TELLING THE TRUTH is how our society is being destroyed within.

Before a civilisation is destroyed from without, it must first be destroyed from within.

Those in the media who attacked Watson, the pseudo-scientists that deny racial difference, and the stalinist socialist scum that want to remove our rights to debate and free speech racial differences are the inner enemy.

They must be confronted and defeated if we are to save our country.


http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813340861 http://inverted-

world.com/index.php/feature/feature/the_reality_of_racial_differences