its in the previous thread breh, didn't want to bring all of that back into this thread...but the info is there on the 1st page...dates and all
Locked my thread Why?
- Thread starter MostReal
- Start date
its in the previous thread breh, didn't want to bring all of that back into this thread...but the info is there on the 1st page...dates and all
Dr. Sebi Jr.
Trust Me
The WHITE man is a vile, disgusting, inferior, EVIL creature. Black PEOPLE cannot be racist.
this part?
Nation & World | Red hair a part of Neanderthal genetic profile | Seattle Times Newspaper
that just says that the different selective pressures in Europe had a similar effect on both species, not that Homo Sapiens in Europe got red hair and light skin by interbreeding with Neanderthals
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html
Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens. The other half of the biological anthropology community believes either that the traditional racial categories for humankind are arbitrary and meaningless, or that at a minimum there are better ways to look at human variation than through the "racial lens."
forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories.
If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
So, serologists who work largely with blood factors will tend to see human variation as clinal and races as not a valid construct, while skeletal biologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, will see races as biologically real. The common person on the street who sees only a person's skin color, hair form, and face shape will also tend to see races as biologically real. They are not incorrect. Their perspective is just different from that of the serologist.
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.
forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races, and yet those who work with blood-group data, for instance, tend to reject the biological reality of racial categories.
If we choose to accept the system of racial taxonomy that physical anthropologists have traditionally established—major races: black, white, etc.—then one can classify human skeletons within it just as well as one can living humans. The bony traits of the nose, mouth, femur, and cranium are just as revealing to a good osteologist as skin color, hair form, nose form, and lips to the perceptive observer of living humanity. I have been able to prove to myself over the years, in actual legal cases, that I am more accurate at assessing race from skeletal remains than from looking at living people standing before me. So those of us in forensic anthropology know that the skeleton reflects race, whether "real" or not, just as well if not better than superficial soft tissue does. The idea that race is "only skin deep" is simply not true, as any experienced forensic anthropologist will affirm.
So, serologists who work largely with blood factors will tend to see human variation as clinal and races as not a valid construct, while skeletal biologists, particularly forensic anthropologists, will see races as biologically real. The common person on the street who sees only a person's skin color, hair form, and face shape will also tend to see races as biologically real. They are not incorrect. Their perspective is just different from that of the serologist.
Those who believe that the concept of race is valid do not discredit the notion of clines, however. Yet those with the clinal perspective who believe that races are not real do try to discredit the evidence of skeletal biology. Why this bias from the "race denial" faction? This bias seems to stem largely from socio-political motivation and not science at all. For the time being at least, the people in "race denial" are in "reality denial" as well. Their motivation (a positive one) is that they have come to believe that the race concept is socially dangerous. In other words, they have convinced themselves that race promotes racism. Therefore, they have pushed the politically correct agenda that human races are not biologically real, no matter what the evidence.
Race and genetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Modern definitions of what constitute the distinct races of humanity are rooted in taxonomic classifications first developed in 18th and 19th century Europe. The definition of "race" has overlapped with debates regarding what constitutes a distinct species, known as the "species problem".
Since the 1960s scientists have come to understand the concept of race as a social construct mapped onto phenotypes in culturally determined ways, and not as a purely biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human DNA does not differ significantly across populations. Citizens of any village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer. Only .01% of genes account for a person's external appearance.[21] Biological adaptation also plays a role in phenotype of bodily features and skin type. According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "Skin color and body size are less subject to genetic influence since they are also affected by exposure to the sun and diet, but there is always a hereditary component that can be quite important.
Modern definitions of what constitute the distinct races of humanity are rooted in taxonomic classifications first developed in 18th and 19th century Europe. The definition of "race" has overlapped with debates regarding what constitutes a distinct species, known as the "species problem".
Since the 1960s scientists have come to understand the concept of race as a social construct mapped onto phenotypes in culturally determined ways, and not as a purely biological concept. A 2000 study by Celera Genomics found that human DNA does not differ significantly across populations. Citizens of any village in the world, whether in Scotland or Tanzania, hold 90 percent of the genetic variability that humanity has to offer. Only .01% of genes account for a person's external appearance.[21] Biological adaptation also plays a role in phenotype of bodily features and skin type. According to Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, "Skin color and body size are less subject to genetic influence since they are also affected by exposure to the sun and diet, but there is always a hereditary component that can be quite important.
RACE - Race and Human Variation
its in the GENES breh, if Europeans have this in their Genes & most are light skin & Red/Blonde Hair how else did they get it? If they didn't get it from mating then every human on Earth would have the same Genes, but we don't.
that article was from 2007, I just posted a 2013 article saying mixing must've occurred in order for Genes to be the way they are.
why are you running from this?
it says it was a "different variant of the same gene". it shows how the removal of pressures led to similar results in two hominid species that left Africa
this is a video on the domestic fox experiment:
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoB0pdhxfZs#t=387s[/ame]
the removal of natural selection pressures produced similar patterns to those we see in domestic dogs and cats
when I quoted the 2013 article, and asked where it said "Neanderthal DNA has been linked to the reason why Europeans have light skin & red hair etc.", you said it was in the other thread. that was an article you linked to in the other thread
I'm not running from that. I'm asking about the specific claim you made
we are humans...not neanderthals breh. It is a mutation...thus it will be somewhat different...but from the same GENE. Comprehension isn't this hard.
A few Questions.
Do Neanderthals have Red hair/pale light skin?
Do White people have Red hair/pale light skin?
Did Neanderthals live in Europe?
Do White people live in Europe?
Do White people have the MOST Neanderthal DNA?
Do Eskimos (excuse the racial slur) have dark skin & dark hair despite living in the North/Cold areas? (oh the snow did it?)
Stop with the semantics
none of these things make your statement true
the eskimos took a very different path to get to where they're at. and just because environments have similar temperature and latitude, doesn't mean they are the same environment. this particular question of skin color has to do with UV levels, not temperature. those parts of Europe that are associated with particularly pale skin and red hair are notorious for being cloudy, rainy, and generally have crappy weather. those that lived there were not exposed to a lot of sun. those on the frozen tundras on the other hand, were in an environment where they were exposed to a lot of sun
that's all he does, dude never spits straight piff.
Its ridiculous
do you not agree with what I said about UV levels and skin color?
Illav, inuit's have dark skin because they're in near constant sunlight dude... it's not about it being hot or cold.. this is why no one can take you seriously breh, you obviously don't know what you're talking about if you don't know that basic fact.
No one gives a fukk about neanderthal DNA dude, and you can interpret that two ways, either we fukked neanderthals or we have A COMMON ANCESTOR *GASP* *GASP*http://www.the-coli.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=3951264
No one gives a fukk about neanderthal DNA dude, and you can interpret that two ways, either we fukked neanderthals or we have A COMMON ANCESTOR *GASP* *GASP*http://www.the-coli.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=3951264
we need to be careful throwing around the term eskimo too, it's very disrespectful to the inuit people
OGmittee
Smugest Poster Alive
Hip-Hop-Bulls
All Star
black people were all over the planet for over a hundred thousand years with no white people. so this whole thing about people turning white because of this 'major reduction' of sunlight is false. Events like the toba explosion which created a volcanic winter produced other black people, not white people. whoever thinks black and white people are the same are kidding themselves. They are opposites. knowing this eliminates a lot of confusion. where did all these killer diseases come from? did they come from the genetically dominant black germ, or the genetically recessive white germ? who causes trouble wherever they go on the planet? who steals and claims they are the founder of it? They are not people who 'adapted' to the environment because of the sun. They are mutations. Opposite of god. Greg Mendel showed & proved that. Take it or leave it.
and one more thing. who were the people who said we were different? who said we were 3/5ths of a human being? who said that blacks had no history other than savagery? who erased all of our history/culture and supplanted their own into us? None of this needed to happen unless the people doing it knew the history of the slaves. Anything weak cannot takeover something unless the strong is destroyed. These people opposed the way we live and destroyed us. Not only the blacks in North America, but all over the world. Central, South America, Europe, Africa, India, Asia, Australia etc etc etc etc etc. People promoting that blacks and whites are the same and should integrate, want to see black people suffer know it or not. We can get along with white people just fine knowing this truth.
And one last thing. We really need to stop white people's version of history, science, news. etc as absolute truth on face value. That is all, Peace.
