"Out of Africa" (didn't realize this was still news, but...)

[NisLaniF]

STUDY CONFIRMS HUMAN RACE BEGAN IN AFRICA: Findings Involved African Americans, European Americans and Chinese.

A study of human genome sequences by researchers at Cornell University appears to confirm the theory that modern human beings first evolved in Africa and then gradually migrated to the rest of the world.

The study's findings also suggest that natural selection has caused as much as a 10 percent change in the human gene makeup in some populations.

The study involved African Americans, European Americans and Chinese. African Americans had the greatest genetic diversity suggesting their ancestors had been on the earth longer.

Europeans and Chinese had more recent evolutionary adaptations suggesting that as their ancestors left Africa they gradually changed skin pigmentation due to colder weather and less sunlight in Europe and Asia. They also became better able to digest milk; and there were differences involving the nervous and immune systems.

However, the study found no differences in the genes which control brain development even though some researchers had proposed that idea in the past. The entire study was published in the June 1st issue of PloS (Public Library of Science) Genetics. Overall, the study appears to give genetic support to the Out-of Africa-Theory - the increasingly dominant view that humans first developed in Africa and began their first migration to Europe and Asia about 100,000 years ago.
=============================
I went and found the link for the article which can be found here. If you can get through it without falling asleep, more power to ya.

Let the closet racism begin! My favorite theory against this ideology came from Rich who presumed that the original africans might have been transleucent!

[iLL Rich]

its kind of weird how God put all the human fossils in africa

i wonder why he took them out of europe?

I know a girl who worked in this study. Her name is Tara Benedetto. She's an old friend of mine.

Just to clarify on a few topics.

1.) How the population is taught about genetics is so backwards and wrong it's frightening. It has long been held hostage by Socialists (although recently religious folks have thrown their hat into the ring for the same reasons) as unimportant, fascists little things that really have no influence on the world. And for those who see th truth, that view is further limited by forcing that small group of people to thinking of genes as blueprints. They aren't blueprints. They are a recipe. Big difference. A blueprint is rigid. A recipe is off-the-hip and adaptive For example, a ZIP file is when you take a computer file and figure out patterns tha repeat int he file. From here, you mark the patterns with a reference code. Now, instead of writing the same repeated strings over and over again, you simply place a reference marker. Doing this dramatically reduces the size of the file. The same is done in DNA. Instead of creating two strains for the human eye, DNA has -one- strain for te human eye, but it is -EXPRESSED- twice at two different points. The same for the arm, leg, lungs, and some are assuming parts of the brain as well.

2.) A 10% change in the genome is * * * * H U G E * * * * because while the physical code itself is a mere 10% different, how that 10% gets expressed and where during development is what is of more practical importance. Of course, the study will never go into this.

Ever.

3.) There are no links between genes and brain development because such coorelatiosn are not easily related. You can't point at a gene and go "neocortex". Imagine for a second a tremendous wall of wires. You pull one wire, which you clearly see, is connecting Point 1 with Point 2. But as you pull that wire, you also influnce all the other wires it crosses over to get to point 2. And those influence further influence wires surrounding the initially effected wires. That's the level of predictability required, which both the human and computer mind together is current incapable of predicting.

[NisLaniF]

How did I know ghet would somehow work socialism into the discussion? Honestly, I stop reading whenever he says it. That's one HELL of an obsession.

**inside message**You think you can eq the .wav of of the mix you already have of so amazing a little? Little polish.**

Eugenics was the crown jewel of Socialism. Why do you not accept this as fact?

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable.

Sounds familiar? Review John Galton. Pretty impotant guy. Here's his works from 1901: 'The possible improvement of the human breed under the existing conditions of law and sentiment.'

Now which state-centralized nations practiced this model... hmmmmm?

But here... let's take what Sir Galton started with and see how Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, ran with it!

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/...&imagesize=600

Page 143, from her own mouth: "When all is said and done, the workers who produce large families have thmselves to blame for the hundreds of thousands of unemployemd grasping for jobs, for the strike breakers, for the policemen who beat up and arrest strikers and for the soldiers who shoot strikers down. All these from the families of working men."

Now isn't that a fascinating argument? Socialists utilizng eugenics to control populations for the sole benefit of a political ideology? We live in her world now and no one questions why. A world where the truth about eugenics and genes are to be covered in fear, illusion, and simplification.

Business-related: I'd need the entire multitrack to really get some cleanliness to it.

[NisLaniF]

I stopped reading at your first word. There are certain words you say I know means "this is going to be as slanted as a waterslide"

Eugenics
Socialism
Commie/Communist
Apologist.

I provided links, and actual wordage by the associated parties.

You don't want to read them?

This is not my problem.

Besides, I'm not here to convince you.

I'm here to convince those who read but don't speak.

[NisLaniF]

uh huh...

[menaz]

This reads like the same study where they used a single genetic marker, HLA DRB1, for their analysis to construct a genealogical tree to map out 28 populations from the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Japan.

If so, I should inform you...


Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. Therefore, the study would be junk science.


However, Did We all not start out as apes?
And No, that isn't racist, Its evolution. Learn the difference.


If anyone lived in Africa it was the anthropoid Ape which is apart of the Hominoidea family. It's thesible the Anthropoid ape mutated and evolved while in Africa into the homosapien, then migrated toward europe where the enviroment changed the african homosapien melanin. However, the pathology of Facial features, body types, has changed drastically from black to asian & white. So what you're claiming to the evolutionary world is, negroid is the intermediate species to caucasian. I won't elborate any further on that for the simple fact i'm not a racist.


There are countless of peer-viewed theories which have turned out to be false, or were complete junk science. Science theories differ, it's not black and white, If you can't get the whole scientific community to agree, then all you have is a unproven theory.

Have you ever read, The Bell curve? Many have tried to discredit it, but noone has been able too. So I wouldn't put much stock into Intelligence not differing racially between white, asian, and black genetic factors.

[UnbrokeN]

i think its safe to assume that humanity depriv e from the darker tribes along the aquator and just kind of evolved into whatever made them fit best into their environment..that explains why the nearer you get to the equator, the darker the people are...

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by menaz

Using results from the analysis of a single marker, particularly one likely to have undergone selection, for the purpose of reconstructing genealogies is unreliable and unacceptable practice in population genetics. Therefore, the study would be junk science.

here...I'll cite this for you...

http://www.white-history.com/newlie.htm

from the front page of that website:

Most importantly of all, revealed in this work is the one true cause of the rise and fall of the world's greatest empires - that all civilizations rise and fall according to their racial homogeneity and nothing else - a nation can survive wars, defeats, natural catastrophes, but not racial dissolution.

Have you ever read, The Bell curve? Many have tried to discredit it, but noone has been able too.

yeah...that whole not controlling for a bazillion variables isn't a glaring oversight or anything

[Riz]

Originally Posted by identity-X

here...I'll cite this for you...

I was just about the Google that to see where he got it from. It's so easy to tell when he's pasting something that isn't his [funny]

[iLL Rich]

menaz homo sapiens didnt come from apes our previous ancestor was homo heidelbergensis

yea i thought it was common knowledge that humanity began in africa, and slowly migrated everywhere else

ghet has some very interesting posts in here. i was also under the impression that dna works as a blueprint.

ive heard a little of how different races (ethnicities) have real physical differences besides just skin and hair. but ive heard much more of how people are different because of cultural constructs.

Leave it to ID-X to bust out the same tactics over and over again.

When we talk about genes, make sure to use smear campaigns refereing to Nationalist White People who were on the cover of Time Magazine in the mid-1930s! Very important scientific contribution!

Meanwhile, ID-X, cn you explain what happens to the ocular columns of a ferret when you surgically blind it from birth? Refereing to Hitler in this one won't work.

The answer is important because it shows that the link between genes, environment, and brain development are no where near predictable.

[identity-X]

um....what? where?

are you referring to the quote that menaz posted and didn't cite?

So, Id-X..

Can you explain what happens to the ocular columns of a ferret when you surgically blind it from birth? Refereing to Hitler in this one won't work.

[identity-X]

not my line of work chief so I don't have a clue.



where did I refer to White Nationalist People or Hitler or whatever else it is you're babbling about??

[NisLaniF]

Originally Posted by identity-X

yeah...that whole not controlling for a bazillion variables isn't a glaring oversight or anything

DUDE! One of the guys who worked on the research for the Bell Curve was a professor at Johns Hopkins, and tried to tell my sister (a freshman) that she was in no way capable of being able to do well at that school because she was black and genetically predisposed to not doing as well as whites.

That year, she made the dean's list, then transfered to Hampton U.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by NisLaniF

DUDE! One of the guys who worked on the research for the Bell Curve was a professor at Johns Hopkins, and tried to tell my sister (a freshman) that she was in no way capable of being able to do well at that school because she was black and genetically predisposed to not doing as well as whites.

That year, she made the dean's list, then transfered to Hampton U.

"but the book was simply about intelligence, not race..."

[pus]