Website Purporting Whites Are Neanderthal/Cro-Magnon Mix

[American Horse]

Does anyone have the link?

Is this it?
Black Like The Ancient Europeans: The Black (First) Europeans - Rasta Livewire

 

[SunWorshiper]

I think I've seen it, more moronic Afrocentric bullshit. They take anything and extrapolate it into something entirely different than from what the evidence supported consensus is. It's just simple psuedo-history.

I think that I saw something on the History Channel or National geographic channel that show some remains from ancient times in Portugal that seemed to be a hybrid between a Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.

 

[pinqy]

And I haven't ever heard that "abiltiy to control impulses far better" is a hereditary trait

Would you agree that greyhounds chihuahuas, and pitbulls tend to have certain demeanors?

Sort of, kind of. For pitbulls, I've certainly heard and seen both sides of the argument. To the best of my knowledge the vicious pitbulls have been strongly conditioned that way. I would agree that there are there broad personality traits for different animals and different breeds of dogs. But does that apply to humans, and does it apply to something as specific as "ability to control impulses" and any child psychologist can show that ability to control impulses has a whole lot to do with upbringing.

For the claim to apply to Blacks and Whites, it would have to be shown to be a distinct difference regardless of culture, nationality, social status. From my experience with Blacks and Whites from many different countries and social statuses, it just doesn't hold, and I doubt any research would show otherwise.

 

[JBeukema]

And are chosen in large part due to a natural demeanor that makes it easy to make them mean.

I would agree that there are there broad personality traits for different animals and different breeds of dogs. But does that apply to humans,

Yes. Humans are just another animal, remember that. Some people will, due to genetic and environmental (diet, hormones, et al) be more inclined to anger, rage, depression, etc than others. Like all genetic traits, genetic drift causes the genetic traits that contribute to such things to be more or less common in different races. It falls on the individual to apply intellect to learn to control themselves- something you must consider along with the genetic factors that influence IQ and learning ability (itself with certain racial trends).

and does it apply to something as specific as "ability to control impulses"

Somewhat, in that it can influence one's likelihood of experiencing rage (though I would personally contend that it appears that environmental factors such as diet, health, hormones, etc play a larger direct role) as well as IQ and learning ability, which in turns influence one's ability to learn techniques to control anger. We all know that not only do different breeds tend to have different demeanor, but we understand what someone means when they say a given breed is smart and/or easily trained.

and any child psychologist can show that ability to control impulses has a whole lot to do with upbringing.

Correct. That would fall under environmental factors and 'training'

F

or the claim to apply to Blacks and Whites, it would have to be shown to be a distinct difference regardless of culture, nationality, social status.

This has already been shown with IQ, but I am not aware of any large-scale and respected studies being done regarding demeanor. For one, this would be so 'un-PC' that few would fund it, and (for two) you would need a large group to study over an extended period of time under near-equivalent social settings. The latter seems near impossible to my mind. Anecdotal evidence can be drawn, however from trends regarding the social settings prevalent among different races that are positioned geographically near eachother (thought the IQ differences and resulting differences is income and social achievements makes measuring 'demeanor' even more difficult.)

 

[pinqy]

I would agree that there are there broad personality traits for different animals and different breeds of dogs. But does that apply to humans,

Yes. Humans are just another animal, remember that. Some people will, due to genetic and environmental (diet, hormones, et al) be more inclined to anger, rage, depression, etc than others.

The difference is that humans are a lot more complex in personality. And it's very difficult to seperate any supposed genetic traits from known environmental factors. And racial lines among humans are much less distinct than breeds of dogs...especially for the US with its large degree of racial mixture.

Like all genetic traits, genetic drift causes the genetic traits that contribute to such things to be more or less common in different races.

Again, genetic drift has to be much less of a factor among African-Americans.

It falls on the individual to apply intellect to learn to control themselves- something you must consider along with the genetic factors that influence IQ and learning ability (itself with certain racial trends).

And IQ (as if it were a single thing) and learning ability are also strongly affected by environmental factors

or the claim to apply to Blacks and Whites, it would have to be shown to be a distinct difference regardless of culture, nationality, social status.

This has already been shown with IQ, but I am not aware of any large-scale and respected studies being done regarding demeanor.

No, it has not been done. The extensive criticisms of The Bell Curve on methodological grounds (not political ones) is extenseive. Briefly, they didn't use an "IQ test," but the AFQT portion of the ASVAB which is an Aptitude test and relies heavily on learned knowledge, not innate ability (I have taken it, sot hat's first hand knowledge). Secondly, they didn't control well for environmental factors, though they honestly did try. And if memory serves, attempts to reproduce the results have been unsuccessful. So you can't say "it's been shown," as the results have not been accepted by the scientific community due to methodological questions.

For one, this would be so 'un-PC' that few would fund it, and (for two) you would need a large group to study over an extended period of time under near-equivalent social settings. The latter seems near impossible to my mind. Anecdotal evidence can be drawn, however from trends regarding the social settings prevalent among different races that are positioned geographically near eachother (thought the IQ differences and resulting differences is income and social achievements makes measuring 'demeanor' even more difficult.)

And my anecdotal differences based on many dealings with Africans (from different parts of Africa) especially among the better educated, gives me the opposite conclusion from you. Likewise I have seen poor impulse control from less-educated and poorer people of all races, with no discernable differences.

 

[JBeukema]

The difference is that humans are a lot more complex in personality. And it's very difficult to seperate any supposed genetic traits from known environmental factors.

As I said, making studying the genetic factor in temperament very difficult, if not effectively impossible, to study

And racial lines among humans are much less distinct than breeds of dogs...especially for the US with its large degree of racial mixture.

Yet they do exist. The three 9or four, but really three) major races and a number of sub-groups or ethnicities are known to exist both in terms of common knowledge and in strictly genetic terms. Remember than even an mutt is merely a mix o certain breeds, usually in varying amounts. Those traits and genes can still be traced and their effects measured, though the matter gets much more complex.

Again, genetic drift has to be much less of a factor among African-Americans.

clarify

And IQ (as if it were a single thing) and learning ability are also strongly affected by environmental factors

and ~ 50% determined by DNA, according to recent studies cited elsewhere on this site. Environmental factors mostly do their work in utero and during the earliest stages of development.

]No, it has not been done. The extensive criticisms of The Bell Curve on methodological grounds (not political ones) is extenseive

I'm not talking about the Bell Curve, but about more recent studies. See my threads on the matter and/or see Google.

And my anecdotal differences based on many dealings with Africans (from different parts of Africa) especially among the better educated, gives me the opposite conclusion from you

You just said yourself that you've mostly dealt with a specific subset of the race, defined by certain achievements (making them statistically more likely to be among those with a higher IQ than the racial average)- thereby rendering your anecdote of little value or relevance

 

[American Horse]

I think I've seen it, more moronic Afrocentric bullshit. They take anything and extrapolate it into something entirely different than from what the evidence supported consensus is. It's just simple psuedo-history.

I think that I saw something on the History Channel or National geographic channel that show some remains from ancient times in Portugal that seemed to be a hybrid between a Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.

THIS:
"A potential 24,500-year-old Neanderthal/sapiens hybrid was announced from the site of Lagar Velho, Portugal. This 4-year-old has a short, squat body like a Neanderthal, but possesses an anatomically modern skull.

There are a number of problems with interpreting this find as a Neanderthal/sapiens hybrid. First of all, as a hybrid it should have a mixture of traits throughout its body and not possess the body of a Neanderthal and skull of a modern human. For example, if we look at hybrids of lions and tigers they do not possess the head of one species and the body of the other, but exhibit a morphological mixture of the two species.

Secondly, and more importantly, acceptance of this specimen as a hybrid would suggest that Neanderthal traits had been retained for some 6,000 to 10,000 years after Neanderthals went extinct, which is highly unlikely. This is theoretically unlikely since Neanderthal traits would have been genetically swamped by the Homo sapiens genes over such a protracted period of time."

 

[goshinj]

Everyone on this board goes back and forth about which race is the superior, who did what, from where, and people keep arguing about how one race is better or not then the other and how these people came from there and bla, bla,blaaaaaa. The bottom line is that each race is where it is right NOW. Accept life the way it is and in whatever race you are. If you don't like it then I'm sorry, If you do then that's great. Accept what you have and move on with it! Ever heard of the saying life's a bitch. Well here you have it. Good Day

 

[editec]

A secondary focus was to prove that White (I suppose this includes Hindus and Semites) and Oriental people derived from an Asiatic population of Cro-Magnons interbred with Neanderthals.

Let us assume, for purposes of discussion, that this turned out to be true.

My response would be:

So?

 

[Gungnir]

You Sir, are an idiot.

Says the poster who couldn't get quote tags mastered.

Does anyone have the link?

Is this it?
Black Like The Ancient Europeans: The Black (First) Europeans - Rasta Livewire

Unfortunately no, thank you though.

Sounds like a load of race bailing bullocks to me.

Of course this board seems thrilled with race baiting bullocks, so do carry on.

I did not mean for it to be baiting, I just wanted the website address and figured someone here might have been familiar with it.

A secondary focus was to prove that White (I suppose this includes Hindus and Semites) and Oriental people derived from an Asiatic population of Cro-Magnons interbred with Neanderthals.

Let us assume, for purposes of discussion, that this turned out to be true.

My response would be:

So?

editec, I guess you baited yourself.
Agreed, just another (interesting) ancient trivia, that doesn't affect my current productivity. I am specifically interested in the migration theories the website held.

 

[SunWorshiper]

I think I've seen it, more moronic Afrocentric bullshit. They take anything and extrapolate it into something entirely different than from what the evidence supported consensus is. It's just simple psuedo-history.

I think that I saw something on the History Channel or National geographic channel that show some remains from ancient times in Portugal that seemed to be a hybrid between a Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.

THIS:
"A potential 24,500-year-old Neanderthal/sapiens hybrid was announced from the site of Lagar Velho, Portugal. This 4-year-old has a short, squat body like a Neanderthal, but possesses an anatomically modern skull.

There are a number of problems with interpreting this find as a Neanderthal/sapiens hybrid. First of all, as a hybrid it should have a mixture of traits throughout its body and not possess the body of a Neanderthal and skull of a modern human. For example, if we look at hybrids of lions and tigers they do not possess the head of one species and the body of the other, but exhibit a morphological mixture of the two species.

Secondly, and more importantly, acceptance of this specimen as a hybrid would suggest that Neanderthal traits had been retained for some 6,000 to 10,000 years after Neanderthals went extinct, which is highly unlikely. This is theoretically unlikely since Neanderthal traits would have been genetically swamped by the Homo sapiens genes over such a protracted period of time."

Yes that's the show I was referring to.

 

[Os Odr Grimnir]

Populations adapt to their environment, and are therefore "better" for that environment not in any intrinsic or absolute sense. Dark skin is clearly better suited for warmer environments, blue eyes are better for lower light conditions etc.

Yes, absolutely... but intelligence is very much one of these traits, because you need a lot more of it to plan for a foodless, cold winter in Europe than in the always-abundant African areas.

Hence a white average IQ of 15 points higher than the black average IQ, as well as a white ability to control impulses far better.

Not that I want to upset the sacred notion of human equality or anything. That would be rude.

Intelligence is not genetic. Nor is it measurable by a fixed, eternal standard.

Impulse control is learned behavior. And there is no fixed, eternal standard for either impulse or control.

You have a basic inability to distinguish between genotype and phenotype, including behaviors.

You are a klown. No qualifiers needed.

 

[American Horse]

Agreed, just another (interesting) ancient trivia, that doesn't affect my current productivity. I am specifically interested in the migration theories the website held.

Gungnir, like you I have been interested in the migration theories. Neandertal seems to have migrated out of Africa as early as 500 millenia ago, and Cro Magnon less than a hundred millenia. Neandertal seems to have been, like Cro Magnon, relatively hairless. With sweat glands in play, hairyness doesn't seem to work very well in cold environments because sweat would freeze in the hairy mat, during extreme action events like Neandertal was dependent on for big kills. The "Indians" of Tierra Del Fuego seem to have adapted to extreme cold and relative nakedness in as little as the last 15 millenia. Their clothing consisted of a loose fur skin wrap or "mantle" much less artfully sewn than the Neandertal crafted for his survival in similar climactic conditions in Ice Age Europe.

This interactive Timeline Map by the Bradshaw Foundation, shows Cro Magnon, but not Neandertal.

This website discusses Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional Model or Out of Africa Model. Re: the whole discussion here: the very profound differences in the skeleton of modern humans versus the Neandertal ought to be enough to show that we are of seperate species. The differeces are not just about differences of size which we would find the huge differences in a Great Dane as compared to Pekinese dogs, but to the whole structure of the cranium, and robustness of the skeleton

When you read these, at least consider the theory offered by this website: The Naked Darwinist, which is very interesting and about which some of the debate ought to revolve.

Finally here is a link to U-Tube VIDEO>> (imbed is disabled - to reduce page clutter - "quote", then replace com-watch with com/watch, add a character at end and then "preview" to see the video) http://www.youtube.com-watch?v=niN1BeJi-8g which can open up the whole series of 10-videos on the interactions of Neandertals and modern humans in Ice Age Europe.

On the subject this thread has evolved into: Are modern Europeans a mix of the two species, I used to say jokingly, after living in the Chicago region, that "Neandertal man was alive and well, and living in Chicago".
A lot of the population of Chicago then was of a European mix, with a lot of Eastern Europeans in it; but if the skulls of those were examined they would be identical to all other samples of modern people.

Here are two more interesting links which held with the time-line and geography:
Sahara Pump Theory
Homo-Heidelbergensis

 

[JBeukema]

'Multiregional model' has no real evidence to support it. All available evidence supports OoA. Also, if people developed in different regions, they would not become the same thing. We see this with the differentiation of Man into different races. Only OoA is consistent w/ how evolution works.

 

[Shogun]

There is flatly no damn proof that growing up in a cold environment makes for a higher IQ and or higher intelligence and more sophistication, the worlds first civilizations did not spring up in the coldest parts of Europe, they come from Africa and the Fertile Crescent. Besides, the earliest humans in Europe did not look like modern day white people, they were brownskinned and tropically adapted people.


Environment and location played a far more dominant role is the rise of civilizations, its no accident that all of the world's first civilization arose in river valleys and or near rivers[the Nile River, Tigris and Euphrates, Indus River], not near the caves of Europe.

OK, I'm completely wrong.

Now, how the fuck did we whites manage to completely turn the tables on blacks?

Wouldn't that have taken... intelligence?

Blacks were smart enough to invent civilization, but they couldn't figure out how to keep and maintain it? Man, that is some bad luck!

There is a Book, you white racist should all read it is called "The Iceman Inheritence" by
an author last named is "Bradley". In the book he states that growing up in a cold climate,
makes humans , carniverous, murderous, it will shrink your genitals, the cold weather will
also make you impotent, which explains the large percentage of white males that are impotent, and also this "cold weather environment" will create a war mentality, with regards to dealing with other members of your cold weather environment, because of the
scarcity fo natural resources and food in those cold weather environments.
Google this Book, buy it ,read it , and then I want all you White racists to get back to me
after you finish reading the book.?!

HA! your post is so fucking ironic.. I mean, yea.. lets talk about a WAR MENTALITY givien that it's AFRICA that is still a continent of tribal spear chucking, pillage the village and make 9 year olds shoot ak-47s, virgins are the cure to AIDS epiphanies!



As if scarcity of food has only been a factor of cold regions anyway. Do you think fucking KENYA is so goddamn bountiful? ETHIOPIA?

 

[HUGGY]

OK, I'm completely wrong.

Now, how the fuck did we whites manage to completely turn the tables on blacks?

Wouldn't that have taken... intelligence?

Blacks were smart enough to invent civilization, but they couldn't figure out how to keep and maintain it? Man, that is some bad luck!

There is a Book, you white racist should all read it is called "The Iceman Inheritence" by
an author last named is "Bradley". In the book he states that growing up in a cold climate,
makes humans , carniverous, murderous, it will shrink your genitals, the cold weather will
also make you impotent, which explains the large percentage of white males that are impotent, and also this "cold weather environment" will create a war mentality, with regards to dealing with other members of your cold weather environment, because of the
scarcity fo natural resources and food in those cold weather environments.
Google this Book, buy it ,read it , and then I want all you White racists to get back to me
after you finish reading the book.?!

HA! your post is so fucking ironic.. I mean, yea.. lets talk about a WAR MENTALITY givien that it's AFRICA that is still a continent of tribal spear chucking, pillage the village and make 9 year olds shoot ak-47s, virgins are the cure to AIDS epiphanies!



As if scarcity of food has only been a factor of cold regions anyway. Do you think fucking KENYA is so goddamn bountiful? ETHIOPIA?

ETHIOPIA?


I know a bit about Ethiopia. The problem there is water allocation. They live, die, fight , starve or succeed by who controlls the water.

 

[Hyperborean]

Just a thought. I am someone of no particular status or importance, but I have spent many years trying to figure out something that to me has always seemed untrue but I am constantly told is true. That thing is that we are all the same. I think anyone who has half an IQ white or black can see that we are not the same. If you believe in God then he may give us all the same rights and if you believe in the law then we may all receive equal protection under it, I do not argue either of these 2 points as I believe that this is a question of opinion rather then fact as such has no bearing on the interpretation of truth of the world. The only thing I seek, the only thing that gives me comfort is truth, no matter what that truth is I accept it and that is all I want. So with that preface let me begin. To say that we as humans are all the same is unquestionably false. This is in my opinion self-evident and requires absolutely no evidence from Anthropologists or Archeologists or Geneticists. To me the only question is the degree of difference and what it translates to in the world both presently and historically and maybe most important what it means for the future. We as a people have been told both we are all special and unique yet we are all the same. What does that mean? How can that be? Well our genetic material is one argument but to me a trivial one, we are told we all have the same genes or at least as far as we have been able to tell. Here is an example, humans share 98.5% of the same genetic makeup as chimps, so in a 1.5% genetic difference we go from monkeys in trees to men in space? Ok I accept that as truth but with that being said how subtle of a difference would say .001% produce in human populations? It would undoubtedly make a lot. In anthropology the word race is often used to distinguish one group of geographically separated people from another and has been used since before modern science was started. Anyone who has done their research on race knows two things, one it has been a hotly debated issue for a very long time, everyone from Darwin who wrote extensively on the subject even though his work is rarely quoted on this issue because it sounds racist today to Francis Crick who I am sure needs no introduction. Science has never fully agreed on what race is, what it means where it comes from or how to relate it into their models. Many have tried most have been debated some are widely accepted. The "fixation index of Sewall Wright" here after referred to as Fst is a commonly used scale to measure genetic differences between populations of organisms. This statistic is used to compare differences between any two given populations and can be used to measure genetic differences between populations for individual genes, or for many genes simultaneously. For example it is often stated that the fixation index for humans is about 0.15. This means that about 85% of the variation measured in the human population is within any population, and about 15% of the variation occurs between populations, or that any two individuals from different populations are almost as likely to be more similar to each other than either is to a member of their own group. It is often stated that human genetic variation is low compared to other mammalian species, and it has been claimed that this should be taken as evidence that there is no natural subdivision of the human population. Wright himself believed that a value of 0.25 represented great genetic variation and that an FST of 0.15-0.25 represented moderate variation. It should, however, be noted that about 5% of human variation occurs between populations within continents, and therefore the FST between continental groups of humans (or races) is as low as 0.1 (or possibly lower). A book to dispute this then comes out saying that basically Africa was a bottle neck for genetic diversity and that those who left Africa and eventually led to all other races of man carried less of the genetic material out of Africa and this counts for all other races carrying only 70% of the genetic diversity found in Africa, but that those races that evolved outside of Africa carried a greater amount of shared genetics. So what does this mean? Where does all this technical jargon bring us, really no where and everywhere. Science is very scared and rightly so, to classify one race of people as a sub- species let alone a different species mainly because most sub-species can be proven to be whole species unto them selves. The thing is in taxonomy (the classification of organisms) science is very much split on what brings us to the point of saying species, sub species, race, etc etc etc. It is a opinion and subjective thing at best, men created these classes for the purpose of categorizing but political correctness has to some degree interfered as well as the leaps and bounds in the genetic classification of human populations and the interconnectedness that genetics represents, we are no doubt from a shared genetic bloodline, I think science has at least done a very good job at proving and representing this with the HGP (human genome project) as well as the leaps we made with mitochondrial dna. To dispute this would be in my opinion faulty. However, saying we were all the same at point A does not mean that we are not different at point B. What frustrates me the most is that when these differences are explored today and someone attempts to understand them seriously they are most often times labeled as racists and compared to what Hitler tried to do with the Aryan race, and though Hitler did attempt to prove superiority through science there is a definitive distinction between trying to prove superiority and trying to prove a difference, for many it is simply a Pandora’s box that no one wants to open because of where it may lead, but to me this racial fear is like religion was 200 years ago, it stops science and in my opinion stops truth, let us not be stopped from understanding reality because of useless human emotion that invokes the fears of the past. From my own personal studies of the human race and its diversity I have come to conclude 3 and possibly 4 different races that make up the human race, those races are as follows in order of appearance in the world, 1. Tropical African 2. Sub-Tropical African 3. Asian 4. European we may in common terms say in the same order, Black, Arab, White, Asian to many this may seem a bit crude but to me this is very much the truth even if I am wrong maybe I will create a debate which is the most healthy thing for this subject. I believe that every other race on the planet is a mix of these 4 races, I state these 4 as being “the races” because of the likeness they demonstrate over a very large geographical area as well as shared physical traits, also these races appeared in a very short time after leaving Africa while other races have taken longer to evolve and at different intervals. For example Mexicans in the United States are our largest minority population and in this country a highly successful mixed race of people, yet they are just that, Mexicans are a hybrid race, mixed with both Native South American Indian (which is to say Aztec, Inca, which came to exist in the Americas only about 15’000 years ago during the last ice age and came from Asia and therefore in my opinion were Asians as were all of the North American Indians from Eskimos to Cherokee to Apache) as well as a large amount of Spanish Conquistador who came to the continent only 500 or 600 hundred years ago and like most human migration and exploration came to a land where technology was old minerals and resources were plentiful with a human population unsuspecting were driven to enslavement and therefore were forced to take on what most cultural evolution does, food language, religion, and genetic material through forced and voluntary mating with females because typically those who explore do so in largely male populations adopting women from cultures as their own and spreading genetic diversity. These and other hybrid races more likely than not represent the future of the human gene and though because of the way I was raised (as well as more than likely some innate racial reflex to protect my race and therefore my gene pool that I am sure goes back hundreds of thousands of years and is probably much more likely in the male population since throughout evolution and much of human and indeed hominid history it has been the male who has controlled the mating, “my hypothesis&#8221 I did not always agree with this hybrid progression I understand it as the inevitable future and probably the best chance to ensure survivability of the human race through greater increased genetic diversity. This to me is a very natural course of transition, we will one day share a much more diverse gene pool and the traits that create different races will be gone for the most part. That however is the future, the present and past is much different and should not be hidden, or not talked about, or only talked about amongst science elite. The fact is that Europeans or at least some of them being a Cro-Magnon Neanderthal mix is a good possibility; does this mean the impact on their gene pool was large enough to make a huge distinction in our two races? Does it mean we are smarter or dumber as a people? In my opinion probably not, because of the small number of Neanderthal women as well as the eventual overwhelming amount of Cro-Magnon genetic material these genes would have been diluted to the point that they are not noticeable, in my opinion, but did mating occur? More then likely yes, did they create viable offspring? Probably yes. To me Neanderthal or no Neanderthal in Europeans is a mute point, but it is very nice to think about. In today’s population of humans we have enough bio-diversity to create a very good debate about race and what it means. One of the things I always come back to is why in certain species of animals we refer to the things that create differences in those animals as “breed” but in humans we refer to the same qualifiers as “race” this is a taxonomic reference and not one that rings truth to me. In animals when we say “breed” we reference a specific set of truths about that particular animal. For instance when we say Labrador what does one assert about that “breed”? Intelligence, webbed feet, soft mouth for carrying birds, great swimmer, likes the water, etc etc etc. So through the word “breed” in animals we are able to assert that while they are the same species as in fact all dogs are (Canis lupus familiaris) by being able to give them a taxonomic boundary like “breed” we are allowed to assert not only real differences in physical characteristics, but indeed in physical ability as well as habits traits and mental ability, now there is a dangerous path right? Does that make it untrue? No of course not and if someone were to assert all dogs are the same in any of these areas one would think that person was surely dumb. So where is the racial divide in dogs? It is called the “breed”. This can be found with most animals that evolved along with humans or indeed beside us, dogs for example have been at the side of humans for almost as long as their have been humans. So can all of the individual distinctions of a dogs breed be attributed to selective breeding? I doubt it, for example my sister got a White Westie from a very reputable breeder in Nashville,Tn. and she told my sister that as a breed they like to go lay in the sun for short periods of time to get hot and then come cool off on the floor, and you know what, she was right, indeed Annie does go lay in the sun just to get hot and infact comes inside and lays on the air conditioning vents to cool, this is a trivial thing I know but my point is that a breed specific behavior can not in my opinion be attributed to selective breeding, it can be attributed to the breed and the differences in breeds can produce many different behaviors but partly as purposeful and partly as a natural recourse of nature in the way this breed evolved and the standards it evolved with as well as the place it evolved in, I think these same truths can be applied to humans and it is time those of us with eyes and mouths observed these things explored them and spoke out about them because this is a very important part of human evolution being kept quiet for the sake of political correctness and not wanting to offend. Yet this can tell us so much about what has shaped us as people in different regions from govement and political structures to civilizations and religions this truth must be explored. As races of people we are different, we have different strengths and weaknesses in every race, some studies have confirmed this though rarely talked about or down played. Take Jeremiah Wright for example, he was caught quoting a study that showed Europenans and their children are subject, right brained oriented learners, while Africans are object left brained oriented, this was a very controversial study and I personaly do not like this man Jeremiah Wright, I think he is very much an undercover racists and does not like white people, I also think what he calls Afro-centric views are really old separatist views, but still his quote of the study was heavily scrutinized, I ask you if we do learn differently what wrong with that? Are we so afraid of what we will find that we will just ignore it? I am what most people would call White, however my ethnicity is unknown to me I am an Anglo Saxton mix like most “whites” in this country and there is a good possibility that I have at least some Indian in me like most “whites”. Here is the thing I can turn on the TV and watch ESPN for 5 minutes and know there is a difference in my race of “whites” and African Americans in this country. When you watch people competing for some of the highest paying jobs in this country (sports) and largely those jobs are decided from one thing, ability to perform the task which is most often physical, i.e. running, jumping, throwing, catching, etc etc etc what race of people dominates that job position? Well my eyes tell me it is African Americans and they are not even the largest minority in this country, so if there is no difference in races please start with an explanation of this observable fact where one race of which only makes up about 13% of the US population dominates they widely varied though all physical ability specific jobs. Please start there. Thank you my name is Freddie and if anyone would like to email me for discussion no matter what race you are I am open to all please feel free: [email protected]

 

[52ndStreet]

I think I've seen it, more moronic Afrocentric bullshit. They take anything and extrapolate it into something entirely different than from what the evidence supported consensus is. It's just simple psuedo-history.

It is not "Afrocentric Bullshit", but historical fact. There was a recent global genetic study,
that indicated that all humans alive on the Earth today, could trace their genetics back to
a East African Kenyan couple that lived in Kenya over 100,000 years ago. I was shocked
my self to view the genetic data.!. But this show proved that eveyone alive on the Earth
today decended from this Kenyan couple!!. The host of the show was white, they had done
extensive scientific genetic research before the show was broadcast. And the sicentific evidence was presented on the show for all to view.Many scientist checked the genetic data, and they found the same link to the Kenyan couple from 100,000 years ago!!.
This is not a lie , this is factual. Please google "kenya couple with genetic link for us all!".

Like I stated earlier, there is genetic prof that everyone on Earth today, shares a gene
with a Black Kenyan couple from about 200,000 thousand years ago.This was documented
by White genetic engineers., and yes there are some whites that have "Neanderthal" genes
in them.

 

[Sunni Man]

Hyperborean

Please before you post again.

Look up this word "paragraphs"

 

[HUGGY]

Populations adapt to their environment, and are therefore "better" for that environment not in any intrinsic or absolute sense. Dark skin is clearly better suited for warmer environments, blue eyes are better for lower light conditions etc.

Yes, absolutely... but intelligence is very much one of these traits, because you need a lot more of it to plan for a foodless, cold winter in Europe than in the always-abundant African areas.

Hence a white average IQ of 15 points higher than the black average IQ, as well as a white ability to control impulses far better.

Not that I want to upset the sacred notion of human equality or anything. That would be rude.

You would be a sprint champion too if ya had a hungry lion chasing you up the street.