The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"Frederick Douglass’s Fight Against Scientific Racism"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Frederick Douglass’s Fight Against Scientific Racism
By ERIC HERSCHTHAL FEB. 22, 2018

… That statement was part of a lecture in which he attacked one of the most prominent scientific fields of the antebellum era: ethnology, or what was sometimes called “the science of race.” Though often dismissed today as pseudoscience, at the time Douglass was writing, it was considered legitimate. The most accomplished scientists engaged in it, and the public eagerly consumed it.

Ethnology was not embraced by only proslavery Southerners. Its most important theorists lived in the North: one, Louis Agassiz, taught at Harvard; the other, Samuel George Morton, was president of one of the nation’s leading scientific societies, in Philadelphia.

Morton, of course, was a 19th century scientist libeled by Stephen Jay Gould in his 1981 bestseller The Mismeasure of Man. Gould fantasized that Morton must have done his experiment on skull capacities wrong out of racism. When 21st Century scientists replicated Morton’s experiment, they found that Morton did it more or less right and it was Gould who was wrong. (Here’s a New York Times editorial on Gould’s Mistake.)

Agassiz and Morton rejected the 18th-century view of race, which held that all human beings descended from a single pair and that physical differences emerged because of changes in the natural environment.

… In preparation for the 1854 lecture, Douglass read dozens of books on ethnology, then dismantled polygenists’ claims one by one. Among the most important to Douglass was Morton’s claim that ancient Egyptians were white. For that theory to work, Morton needed to explain away the fact that ancient Egyptians were Africans, since if they were, it meant that people of African descent had the potential for equal civilizational greatness. …

Douglass would have none of it. He cited text after text, all written by respected European scientists, that noted that ancient Egyptians bore a striking resemblance to modern-day Africans.

The sleight of hand here is that virtually nobody who has thought scientifically about race considers “African” to mean that the entire continent of Africa comprises just one race. The Sahara Desert has long been a bigger barrier to gene flow than the Mediterranean Sea.

Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.

Egypt is a little different, though, because the Nile could keep you from dying of thirst while traversing the Sahara, although it’s surprisingly hard to get from black South Sudan to brown Khartoum by boat or by foot.

Fortunately, we now have new scientific evidence on this question. From Nature in 2017:

“The study, published on 30 May in Nature Communications, includes data from 90 mummies buried between 1380 bc, during Egypt’s New Kingdom, and ad 425, in the Roman era. The findings show that the mummies’ closest kin were ancient farmers from a region that includes present-day Israel and Jordan. Modern Egyptians, by contrast, have inherited more of their DNA from central Africans. …

“Both types of genomic material showed that ancient Egyptians shared little DNA with modern sub-Saharan Africans. Instead, their closest relatives were people living during the Neolithic and Bronze ages in an area known as the Levant. Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians.

“The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.”

From the original study:

Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% …

So, classical era mummies were, say, 12% sub-Saharan black by ancestry, which isn’t insignificant but isn’t all that much either.

It would, however, be interesting to look at DNA from buried individuals further up the Nile than Egypt, some of whom built impressive imitations of Egyptian structures in classical times.

On the other, Morton’s multi-regional origin theory has turned out to mostly wrong, although slightly right. Most people outside of Africa trace their DNA overwhelmingly back to Africa (the Out of Africa theory). On the other hand, about 2% of the DNA of non-Africans traces back to interbreeding with Neanderthals and other species outside of Africa. In contrast, Africans today have virtually no DNA from Neanderthals and the like.

So, I’d score it:

On Egypt, Morton 88-12 over Douglass.

On multiple-origins, Douglass 98-2 over Morton.

So, Douglass did well for an autodidact.

 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.

    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?
     
    Did anyone ever call the man "das boot" during his career? Steve might have been the first one to make the simile.
    , @PiltdownMan
    He must have.

    https://i2.wp.com/tvtonight.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017-07-07_1214.jpg

    , @Steve Sailer
    "Did you just watch Das Boot?"

    Recently.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.”

    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?

    So, classical era mummies were about 8% sub-Saharan black by ancestry

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?
     
    He's not. Yeah, it looks a little confusing, but really Steve's just sort of picking a number in the range given in the original Nature paper, which suggests--ballpark--that the sub-Saharan component in Egyptians doubled in the last couple thousand years:

    Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations (see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8). We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago (700 years ago), consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years.
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. . Scientists from Harvard and the Smithsonian helped design the exhibition, which mirrored what they took to be humankind’s racial progress from savage to civilized. The pavilions for Haiti and for African nations, designed as primitive huts, came first.

    What were they supposed to put in the Haitian pavilion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Conan O'Brien?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. 8%? Must be some margin of error. Surely, it was the talented tenth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. @DFH

    . Scientists from Harvard and the Smithsonian helped design the exhibition, which mirrored what they took to be humankind’s racial progress from savage to civilized. The pavilions for Haiti and for African nations, designed as primitive huts, came first.
     
    What were they supposed to put in the Haitian pavilion?

    Conan O’Brien?

    Read More
    • LOL: Hubbub
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. @Twinkie

    The mixing of ancient Egyptians and Africans from further south means that modern Egyptians can trace 8% more of their ancestry to sub-Saharan Africans than can the mummies from Abusir el-Meleq.”
     
    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?

    So, classical era mummies were about 8% sub-Saharan black by ancestry
     

    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?

    He’s not. Yeah, it looks a little confusing, but really Steve’s just sort of picking a number in the range given in the original Nature paper, which suggests–ballpark–that the sub-Saharan component in Egyptians doubled in the last couple thousand years:

    Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations (see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8). We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago (700 years ago), consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    What's actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were:

    We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above.
     
    Boiled down, ancient Egyptians are most closely related to--in descending order--
    -- neolithic and Bronze age near eastern populations
    -- neolithic Anatolians and Europeans
    -- modern Europeans! ... strikingly closer than
    -- modern Egyptians
    and not even mentioned way, way down somewhere
    -- modern black Africans

    So much for the whole black Egyptians thing.
    , @Steve Sailer
    I got the number wrong originally so I've fixed it in my post. I was looking at the press release which says ancient Egyptians were 8 percentage points less sub-Saharan, but I read it as 8 percent sub-Saharan.

    I changed it to 12%, which might be a little high but is in the range.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. “The researchers say that there was probably a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago.”

    And what will the Western World be like in 700 years?

    Swedes:

    Americans:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago.

    I know the Black Death wiped out two thirds of Egypt’s population, and that was about 700 years ago. Replacement population moving up the Nile?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Arab slave trade?
    , @Alden
    Teen slave girls and their babies, similar to Frederick Douglass’ parents.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. NRA public face TheWayne LaPierre talked about a new threat of socialism at CPAC. This caused much tittering and eye-rolling at NPR. Meanwhile at the Metro Times, Detroit’s leftist free weekly and prost pages (cf the Stranger), this week’s cover is recognizable to all Western Europeans as the stylized red fist of socialism, and it advertises a feature story about Millennial enthusiasm for a new threat of socialism.

    https://metrotimes.com/detroit/under-trump-a-growing-number-of-metro-detroit-millennials-are-turning-to-socialism/Content?oid=9484982

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. “… In preparation for the 1854 lecture, Douglass read dozens of books on ethnology, then dismantled polygenists’ claims one by one. Among the most important to Douglass was Morton’s claim that ancient Egyptians were white. For that theory to work, Morton needed to explain away the fact that ancient Egyptians were Africans, since if they were, it meant that people of African descent had the potential for equal civilizational greatness. …”

    Douglass would have none of it. He cited text after text, all written by respected European scientists, that noted that ancient Egyptians bore a striking resemblance to modern-day Africans.

    The sleight of hand here is that virtually nobody who has thought scientifically about race considers “African” to mean that the entire continent of Africa comprises just one race. The Sahara Desert has long been a bigger barrier to gene flow than the Mediterranean Sea.

    Yeah, I run into that “Egyptians are Africans” slight of hand all the time. I always counter it by noting that Koreans and Syrians are both Asian….and, last time I checked, they don’t look much alike…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. @athEIst
    a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago.

    I know the Black Death wiped out two thirds of Egypt's population, and that was about 700 years ago. Replacement population moving up the Nile?

    Arab slave trade?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    Didn't the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Twinkie

    Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.
     
    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?

    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?

    Did anyone ever call the man “das boot” during his career? Steve might have been the first one to make the simile.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Autodidacts uber alles!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. @Steve Sailer
    Arab slave trade?

    Didn’t the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    They took plenty of black women for sex slaves too. What happened to their children?
    , @syonredux

    Didn’t the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?
     
    Which leaves us with the Black female slaves....anyone know what the rates are for Sub-Saharan M and Y DNA in Egypt? In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. I notice people have a tendency to look at the inhabitants of a place today and just envision that is what people in that place have always looked like. Of course the exception is when we are speaking about a European nation. Then there must have been a Cheddar man type fellow who was definitely different.

    But using this logic, someone without the benefit of knowledge might presume that people in present day Maine represent what people in that area looked like 100, 200, 400 and 600 years ago. Of course we know that is not the case since we know the history of the English settlement of that region only began in the 1600s. But the point is the population of that area is RADICALLY different today than it was 500 years ago.

    But people don’t seem to be able to understand the same thing has happened elsewhere, and just because the population of Egypt looks a certain way today, it doesn’t mean it has always been so.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Modern Mainers

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3772728/images/o-LEWISTON-MAINE-facebook.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Round, even numbers are more aesthetic and Sailer went higher (12 vs. 10) as a form of intellectual gentlemanly-ness. In this context, there's no need to penny pinch the WeWuzKangz crowd.
    , @Hubbub

    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.
     
    And, according to demographic projections by the UN, aren't we due for another 'out of Africa' this century? The Great Wakandan Flowering - or, rather Deflowering.
    , @Anon
    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?
    , @Pat Boyle
    NIH has a group studying the Neanderthal admixture issues.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06587-0

    The have coined a new term "NeanderScore" that measures the amount of the genomic contribution of the Neanderthals. Apparently the method of deriving the percent of Neanderthal contribution is different from that used by 23andme and yields a larger number.

    Let me point out a mistake that most readers of this blog would never make. DNA is a blueprint for development so a small proportion of the code may result in almost any proportion of the resultant
    tissue. So it is possible,for example, for a difference in 2% of the DNA to result in a 50% difference in brain structure.

    We see this phenomenon in software too. The as shipped difference between the two versions of Microsoft's NT operating systems - the client version and the server version - was tiny. Just a few lines of code that switched the installation process from one path to the other. But when installed the two versions were radically different in their functions and capabilities.

    Most of the human genome is concerned with coding for structures that will be the same for different versions of humans. For example the code for the composition of bones or sweat glands is probably the same between species. This is why 98% (or whatever) of the DNA in chimpanzees is the same as that in humans. So if I have just 2 or 3% admixture from Neanderthals as 23andme tells me I do, that is potentially a huge difference. We can't say with any certainty how important it is based on a simple calculation of the percentage of SNPs.

    The allele that causes Huntington's Chorea is a single SNP. Yet there are at least a hundred thousand SNPs involved in the Neanderthal admixtures. We simply don't know what changes they made to the Out of Africa AMH's who mated with them.

    Forgive me for pointing out this obvious point to the sophisticated iSteve blogosphere.

    , @Charles N. Steele
    Average of 6 and 15 is 10.5. But 6% and 15% are ratios, so unless they are ratios of the same thing (same sample size, here), weighting them equally would be misleading. For example, if Study 1 found 6 of 100 to be X (6%) and Study 2 found 30 of 200 to be X (15%), then 36 of 300 were found to be X (12%).

    I didn't read the original study so don't know whether it referred to same sample size, but this is a proper way to average averages.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Turns out Neanderthals were the smart creative ones. It didn’t matter human good looks.won out over brains.

    World’s Oldest Cave Art Found—And Neanderthals Made It
    The findings suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans had the same cognitive abilities.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/neanderthals-cave-art-humans-evolution-science/#close

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Were sub-Saharan Africans better looking than Neanderthals?
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Turns out Neanderthals were the smart creative ones."
     
    Neanderthal cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, so Neanderthals were "brainier" in terms of raw head capacity. OTOH, if you look at cross-sections of that cranial capacity, it was much less allocated toward the frontal lobe cerebral cortex than is the case with modern humans, and much more allocated toward the hind brain. As we know from brain scans, instinctual activities are largely seated in the hind brain and rational activities are largely seated in the fore brain. This implies that despite their overall larger brain capacity, the Neanderthal culture would have consisted mostly of instinctual activity and proportionally less of rational activity than modern humans, which accords with archaeological findings that art, more advanced tools, more elaborate graves and other cultural development indicators all appear in conjunction with modern human archaeological sites.

    Indeed if we look at modern humans, we find that where the skull cross sections have larger fore brains, that--BZZZRRRAAPPPPPPP »*CRIMESTOP*«


    "The findings suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans had the same cognitive abilities."
     
    Actually, the very primitive and dubiously dated "art" suggests nothing of the sort, but hey, nothing against our Neanderthal ancestors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @AnotherDad

    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?
     
    He's not. Yeah, it looks a little confusing, but really Steve's just sort of picking a number in the range given in the original Nature paper, which suggests--ballpark--that the sub-Saharan component in Egyptians doubled in the last couple thousand years:

    Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations (see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8). We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago (700 years ago), consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years.
     

    What’s actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were:

    We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above.

    Boiled down, ancient Egyptians are most closely related to–in descending order–
    – neolithic and Bronze age near eastern populations
    – neolithic Anatolians and Europeans
    – modern Europeans! … strikingly closer than
    – modern Egyptians
    and not even mentioned way, way down somewhere
    – modern black Africans

    So much for the whole black Egyptians thing.

    Read More
    • LOL: Bliss
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It's weird that ancient Egyptians were non-black but ancient British were black Cheddar men.
    , @Bliss

    What’s actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were
     
    http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/sphinx_0.jpg


    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/schools/primaryhistory/images/indus_valley/land_of_the_indus/i_egyptians.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Tomb_of_Nakht_%282%29.jpg


    http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.mb.txt

    There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race.Before
    I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself.
    After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both
    in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more
    distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of
    them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to
    be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded,
    first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair,
    which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations
    are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that
    the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations
    who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Reg Cæsar
    Didn't the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?

    They took plenty of black women for sex slaves too. What happened to their children?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    The black children had more children and grandchildren and great grand children and on and on.
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    I imagine the same thing - castrate the males, mate with the females. Children of slaves inherited slave status in Islamic law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Traditional_Islamic_jurisprudence

    Gradually the population gets lighter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @istevefan
    I notice people have a tendency to look at the inhabitants of a place today and just envision that is what people in that place have always looked like. Of course the exception is when we are speaking about a European nation. Then there must have been a Cheddar man type fellow who was definitely different.

    But using this logic, someone without the benefit of knowledge might presume that people in present day Maine represent what people in that area looked like 100, 200, 400 and 600 years ago. Of course we know that is not the case since we know the history of the English settlement of that region only began in the 1600s. But the point is the population of that area is RADICALLY different today than it was 500 years ago.

    But people don't seem to be able to understand the same thing has happened elsewhere, and just because the population of Egypt looks a certain way today, it doesn't mean it has always been so.

    Modern Mainers

    Read More
    • Replies: @istevefan
    In a hundred years people might think Maine was always peopled by Somalis.

    PS. Why can't we get the opinions on immigration from Native Americans? The media are quick to ask for their opinions, when it is negative of course, about sports teams' names and logos. But why no opinions on immigration?

    I mean if I were a Native American, I'd be resentful that my land was taken. But I highly, highly doubt my path to restitution would involve inviting the entire world to partake that theft. You'd think Native Americans would want fewer, not more, interlopers.

    , @Anon
    If Maine loves blacks so much, why not bring over poor blacks all over America? Why bring over new ones from Africa?

    These Libs prefer new blacks to old blacks? I guess Old Blacks were a failed experiment. Gotta try anew with new blacks because they are 'immigrants' and from east Africa. Being 'immigrants' changes everything. Magic Card, the immigrant card.

    "I'm a Somalian native in Somalia." Boo!

    "I'm a Swedish native in Sweden." Boo!

    "I'm a Somalian immigrant in Sweden." Yay!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Roger
    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    Round, even numbers are more aesthetic and Sailer went higher (12 vs. 10) as a form of intellectual gentlemanly-ness. In this context, there’s no need to penny pinch the WeWuzKangz crowd.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. ‘…Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan…’ Of course Germany has had a Berber as leader (make that ‘Leader’) in the last century so that would make sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. In other news, Cheddar Man may not be a (great) Briton as we know them — Beaker people from the Continent wiped out the Cheddar types 5,000 year ago. Now wonder (dark skinned? maybe not) Cheddar Man looks sad.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/blue-eyed-steppe-people-britons-ancestors-not-builders-stonehenge/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5413607/Neolithic-farmers-wiped-Beaker-people.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/21/no-one-living-britain-truly-british-scientists-find-stonehenge/

    The Telegraph:

    No one living in Britain is truly British, scientists have said after finding that the builders of Stonehenge were nearly totally replaced by European immigrants.

    DNA analysis conducted on hundreds of prehistoric skeletons suggests that virtually no-one living in Britain today is truly British.

    Neolithic farmers, responsible for building Stonehenge and other stone monuments, were almost completely displaced by immigrants from mainland Europe known as the Beaker people.

    In short, the white people who became to be known as Britons, and who eventually made Britain great (but cannot be called truly British—that’s mean and hurtful), arrived in succeeding waves from Europe after wiping out the (allegedly dark) older inhabitants. Interesting ‘pro immigrant’ position for the BBC et al. to hang their collective hat on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @inertial
    Does it mean that blacks and Asians living in Britain today aren't truly British either? Or are they the only True Brits?
    , @syonredux

    In other news, Cheddar Man may not be a (great) Briton as we know them — Beaker people from the Continent wiped out the Cheddar types 5,000 year ago. Now wonder (dark skinned? maybe not) Cheddar Man looks sad.
     
    Cheddar-types got wiped out by Neolithic farmers (for their contemporary approximations, cf Sardinians), and the Neolithic farmers got "replaced" by Bell-Beakers.

    Robert E Howard got pre-history right:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEp76ppPc8o
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Curious to see the Nature article using AD/BC, not BCE/CE.

    I’m supposing these mummies would typically have been from the middle classes, not the ruling elites. Once the Ptolemaic dynasty became entrenched, the rulers didn’t just resemble Europeans, they were Europeans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. @Twinkie

    Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.
     
    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?

    He must have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    I think Jack Johnson restored the reality of race as fact.

    If races are all equal, how come whites had such hard time coming up with the great white hope?

    And why did so many white women go with a Negro who beat up men of their own race?

    The laws of race and sex. Some races are tougher than others. And women go with winner-races.

    Stop and Frisk in NY that brought down crime. NYers say one thing but everything they DO is predicated on the reality of race.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. @AnotherDad
    Modern Mainers

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3772728/images/o-LEWISTON-MAINE-facebook.jpg

    In a hundred years people might think Maine was always peopled by Somalis.

    PS. Why can’t we get the opinions on immigration from Native Americans? The media are quick to ask for their opinions, when it is negative of course, about sports teams’ names and logos. But why no opinions on immigration?

    I mean if I were a Native American, I’d be resentful that my land was taken. But I highly, highly doubt my path to restitution would involve inviting the entire world to partake that theft. You’d think Native Americans would want fewer, not more, interlopers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    You’d think Native Americans would want fewer, not more, interlopers.
     
    From my time around them, that is pretty much the case.

    But they've also been bought out by the Narrative, so there is a vein of belief that the new POC are useful in the struggle to stick it to YT.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Modern Mainers

    http://i.huffpost.com/gen/3772728/images/o-LEWISTON-MAINE-facebook.jpg

    If Maine loves blacks so much, why not bring over poor blacks all over America? Why bring over new ones from Africa?

    These Libs prefer new blacks to old blacks? I guess Old Blacks were a failed experiment. Gotta try anew with new blacks because they are ‘immigrants’ and from east Africa. Being ‘immigrants’ changes everything. Magic Card, the immigrant card.

    “I’m a Somalian native in Somalia.” Boo!

    “I’m a Swedish native in Sweden.” Boo!

    “I’m a Somalian immigrant in Sweden.” Yay!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. We wazn’t kangz?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Reg Cæsar
    Didn't the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?

    Didn’t the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?

    Which leaves us with the Black female slaves….anyone know what the rates are for Sub-Saharan M and Y DNA in Egypt? In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.
     
    YOU DON'T SAY!
    , @YetAnotherAnon
    I read (in I think an HBDChick retweet) that in Medellin, Colombia, y-DNA is almost 100% Spanish, mtDNA almost 100% indigenous.

    In Iceland the y-DNA is Scandinavian, but about 50% of mtDNA is Irish or Scottish. The west coast of Scotland was literally the place to pick up a takeaway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    In other news, Cheddar Man may not be a (great) Briton as we know them — Beaker people from the Continent wiped out the Cheddar types 5,000 year ago. Now wonder (dark skinned? maybe not) Cheddar Man looks sad.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/blue-eyed-steppe-people-britons-ancestors-not-builders-stonehenge/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5413607/Neolithic-farmers-wiped-Beaker-people.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/21/no-one-living-britain-truly-british-scientists-find-stonehenge/

    The Telegraph:


    No one living in Britain is truly British, scientists have said after finding that the builders of Stonehenge were nearly totally replaced by European immigrants.

    DNA analysis conducted on hundreds of prehistoric skeletons suggests that virtually no-one living in Britain today is truly British.

    Neolithic farmers, responsible for building Stonehenge and other stone monuments, were almost completely displaced by immigrants from mainland Europe known as the Beaker people.
     

    In short, the white people who became to be known as Britons, and who eventually made Britain great (but cannot be called truly British—that’s mean and hurtful), arrived in succeeding waves from Europe after wiping out the (allegedly dark) older inhabitants. Interesting ‘pro immigrant’ position for the BBC et al. to hang their collective hat on.

    Does it mean that blacks and Asians living in Britain today aren’t truly British either? Or are they the only True Brits?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Jenner Ickham Errican
    In other news, Cheddar Man may not be a (great) Briton as we know them — Beaker people from the Continent wiped out the Cheddar types 5,000 year ago. Now wonder (dark skinned? maybe not) Cheddar Man looks sad.

    https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/blue-eyed-steppe-people-britons-ancestors-not-builders-stonehenge/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5413607/Neolithic-farmers-wiped-Beaker-people.html

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/21/no-one-living-britain-truly-british-scientists-find-stonehenge/

    The Telegraph:


    No one living in Britain is truly British, scientists have said after finding that the builders of Stonehenge were nearly totally replaced by European immigrants.

    DNA analysis conducted on hundreds of prehistoric skeletons suggests that virtually no-one living in Britain today is truly British.

    Neolithic farmers, responsible for building Stonehenge and other stone monuments, were almost completely displaced by immigrants from mainland Europe known as the Beaker people.
     

    In short, the white people who became to be known as Britons, and who eventually made Britain great (but cannot be called truly British—that’s mean and hurtful), arrived in succeeding waves from Europe after wiping out the (allegedly dark) older inhabitants. Interesting ‘pro immigrant’ position for the BBC et al. to hang their collective hat on.

    In other news, Cheddar Man may not be a (great) Briton as we know them — Beaker people from the Continent wiped out the Cheddar types 5,000 year ago. Now wonder (dark skinned? maybe not) Cheddar Man looks sad.

    Cheddar-types got wiped out by Neolithic farmers (for their contemporary approximations, cf Sardinians), and the Neolithic farmers got “replaced” by Bell-Beakers.

    Robert E Howard got pre-history right:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Roger
    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    And, according to demographic projections by the UN, aren’t we due for another ‘out of Africa’ this century? The Great Wakandan Flowering – or, rather Deflowering.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. So Frederick Douglass, an abolitionist, liked the idea that blacks were enslaving Jews? Interesting.

    It must have been rather interesting to be singing Go Down Moses while believing that the Egyptian slaveholders in the song were black.

    I always thought that the Black Egyptian stuff didn’t emerge until about 1985. I guess I was wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. “classical era mummies were, say, 12% sub-Saharan black by ancestry”

    The elites who were mummified were. Perhaps the masses were blacker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. @Twinkie

    Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.
     
    Very funny! Did you just watch Das Boot?

    “Did you just watch Das Boot?”

    Recently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    Which version? The chopped up original American theatrical release or the extended “director’s cut” that later bombed at the theaters?

    Great film, by the way. One of my favorites. Too bad Wolfgang Petersen and Juergen Prochnow were wasted in Hollywood.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @AnotherDad

    How did you draw from above the following conclusion?
     
    He's not. Yeah, it looks a little confusing, but really Steve's just sort of picking a number in the range given in the original Nature paper, which suggests--ballpark--that the sub-Saharan component in Egyptians doubled in the last couple thousand years:

    Finally, we used two methods to estimate the fractions of sub-Saharan African ancestry in ancient and modern Egyptians. Both qpAdm35 and the f4-ratio test39 reveal that modern Egyptians inherit 8% more ancestry from African ancestors than the three ancient Egyptians do, which is also consistent with the ADMIXTURE results discussed above. Absolute estimates of African ancestry using these two methods in the three ancient individuals range from 6 to 15%, and in the modern samples from 14 to 21% depending on method and choice of reference populations (see Supplementary Note 1, Supplementary Fig. 6, Supplementary Tables 5–8). We then used ALDER40 to estimate the time of a putative pulse-like admixture event, which was estimated to have occurred 24 generations ago (700 years ago), consistent with previous results from Henn and colleagues16. While this result by itself does not exclude the possibility of much older and continuous gene flow from African sources, the substantially lower African component in our ∼2,000-year-old ancient samples suggests that African gene flow in modern Egyptians occurred indeed predominantly within the last 2,000 years.
     

    I got the number wrong originally so I’ve fixed it in my post. I was looking at the press release which says ancient Egyptians were 8 percentage points less sub-Saharan, but I read it as 8 percent sub-Saharan.

    I changed it to 12%, which might be a little high but is in the range.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @athEIst
    a pulse of sub-Saharan African DNA into Egypt roughly 700 years ago.

    I know the Black Death wiped out two thirds of Egypt's population, and that was about 700 years ago. Replacement population moving up the Nile?

    Teen slave girls and their babies, similar to Frederick Douglass’ parents.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @TomSchmidt
    They took plenty of black women for sex slaves too. What happened to their children?

    The black children had more children and grandchildren and great grand children and on and on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%.

    Also remember that the most prized sex slaves in the Islamic world during the entirety of the slave era (ca.632-1900AD), white women were the most prized. Usually from Eastern Europe (Slavs).

    In other words for nearly 1300yrs slavery existed in the Islamic world and yet today very few Mid. Easterners have Sub Saharan DNA.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. But what of the Old Kingdom (Pyramids & Great Sphinx of Giza), which existed a millennium before the Abusir El-Maleq mummies lived? The mummies from the 2017 study you cite are described as having lived “in a period stretching from the late New Kingdom to the Roman era (1388 BCE–426 CE).” That’s pretty recent in Egyptological terms.

    We have very little in the way of genetic data on those people of the earlier Egyptian dynasties. Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got “whiter” over time? A 1993 molecular DNA study seems to have found some evidence of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Middle Kingdom (2061-1690 BC).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#Ancient_DNA

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux

    Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got “whiter” over time?
     
    Possible? Sure. Probable? No.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Roderick Spode
    But what of the Old Kingdom (Pyramids & Great Sphinx of Giza), which existed a millennium before the Abusir El-Maleq mummies lived? The mummies from the 2017 study you cite are described as having lived "in a period stretching from the late New Kingdom to the Roman era (1388 BCE–426 CE)." That's pretty recent in Egyptological terms.

    We have very little in the way of genetic data on those people of the earlier Egyptian dynasties. Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got "whiter" over time? A 1993 molecular DNA study seems to have found some evidence of Sub-Saharan ancestry in Middle Kingdom (2061-1690 BC).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_history_of_Egypt#Ancient_DNA

    Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got “whiter” over time?

    Possible? Sure. Probable? No.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gcochran
    Look at other populations in North Africa. Most have around 20% sub-Saharan African ancestry, roughly, But there is at least one Berber populations with almost none. Populations can mix, but they can't unmix. So the original settlers of North Africa must have had close to zero SSA ancestry.
    , @Roderick Spode
    Right, well, I'm sure they never looked like Eddie Murphy, at any rate. Awfully wide noses on some of those statues, though.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. It would also be interesting to see this done to mummies of the old kingdom, if it could be. I’m no egyptologist but weren’t they the ones that built the sphinx and all the pyramids? Not that I’d expect anything different, ancient bronze age middle eastern people.

    As for neanderthal gene carrying back into Africa, I see lots of conflicting reports on this so I’m not sure what to believe. I’ve read a lot of claims there is genetic evidence for introgression or back migration into Africa and claims there was not. It seems to me like there should be.

    There are a couple of problems with the idea of the Sahara as some immutable barrier. One is that people do cross it in places even on foot, and some ancient Mediterranean societies like Phoenicians built colonies right in the middle of it. Another is if you think there was any sailing, the Sahara is no barrier at all in the east, from India all the way to Zanzibar and into the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. But the biggest one is the Sahara isn’t even supposed to be that old. From a few to several thousand years ago and going back into Jurassic times it was supposed to be a fertile plain with lots of rainfall and plenty of large grazing animals and rich soil. I think the old kingdom ancient Egyptians started settling and building ancient mega societies on the Nile right around the time the rest of the Sahara was drying out and turning to desert. Before that, it would have been as much of a geological barrier to migration as a slightly more tropical version of the US midwest. It’s puzzling to me why it should be so isolated, particularly if we all came from there in the first place.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Roderick Spode

    the Sahara isn’t even supposed to be that old. From a few to several thousand years ago and going back into Jurassic times it was supposed to be a fertile plain with lots of rainfall and plenty of large grazing animals and rich soil.
     
    I'm no geologist, but as I understand it the evidence for the theory you describe is not rock solid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. There are some theories that the Upper (Southern) Egyptians were originally mulatto similar to North Sudanese, but got whitened by mixing with Lower (Northern) Egyptians.

    IDK how true this is. But even if it is true the mixing is supposed to have occurred shortly after Upper and Lower Egypt got unified in 3100 BC. And nobody really cares about pre-3100 BC Egypt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. @Lars Porsena
    It would also be interesting to see this done to mummies of the old kingdom, if it could be. I'm no egyptologist but weren't they the ones that built the sphinx and all the pyramids? Not that I'd expect anything different, ancient bronze age middle eastern people.

    As for neanderthal gene carrying back into Africa, I see lots of conflicting reports on this so I'm not sure what to believe. I've read a lot of claims there is genetic evidence for introgression or back migration into Africa and claims there was not. It seems to me like there should be.

    There are a couple of problems with the idea of the Sahara as some immutable barrier. One is that people do cross it in places even on foot, and some ancient Mediterranean societies like Phoenicians built colonies right in the middle of it. Another is if you think there was any sailing, the Sahara is no barrier at all in the east, from India all the way to Zanzibar and into the Persian Gulf and the Red Sea. But the biggest one is the Sahara isn't even supposed to be that old. From a few to several thousand years ago and going back into Jurassic times it was supposed to be a fertile plain with lots of rainfall and plenty of large grazing animals and rich soil. I think the old kingdom ancient Egyptians started settling and building ancient mega societies on the Nile right around the time the rest of the Sahara was drying out and turning to desert. Before that, it would have been as much of a geological barrier to migration as a slightly more tropical version of the US midwest. It's puzzling to me why it should be so isolated, particularly if we all came from there in the first place.

    the Sahara isn’t even supposed to be that old. From a few to several thousand years ago and going back into Jurassic times it was supposed to be a fertile plain with lots of rainfall and plenty of large grazing animals and rich soil.

    I’m no geologist, but as I understand it the evidence for the theory you describe is not rock solid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @syonredux

    Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got “whiter” over time?
     
    Possible? Sure. Probable? No.

    Look at other populations in North Africa. Most have around 20% sub-Saharan African ancestry, roughly, But there is at least one Berber populations with almost none. Populations can mix, but they can’t unmix. So the original settlers of North Africa must have had close to zero SSA ancestry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @lou
    No Berbers population has zero or even close to zero SSA history. Kaybles have about 7-10% SSA ancestry if you look at their DNA kits. (As opposed to 15-20% in most Berbers.) They apparently didn't mix with the black slaves as much, and might have Vandal ancestry. The Copts don't have close to zero SSA either. Their content is about the same as Kaybles.

    While I don't think it's the case with ancient Egypt it is possible for populations to unmix. In theory if a bunch of Europeans moved to North Africa and mixed with the locals, you could halve the SSA in a generation.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @syonredux

    Is it possible that Old Kingdom Egyptians had a larger proportion of Sub-Saharan DNA and that Egyptians got “whiter” over time?
     
    Possible? Sure. Probable? No.

    Right, well, I’m sure they never looked like Eddie Murphy, at any rate. Awfully wide noses on some of those statues, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @syonredux

    Didn’t the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?
     
    Which leaves us with the Black female slaves....anyone know what the rates are for Sub-Saharan M and Y DNA in Egypt? In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.

    In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.

    YOU DON’T SAY!

    Read More
    • LOL: YetAnotherAnon
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.

    The Vandals were a Germanic tribe that ruled over a portion of North Africa that is now Algeria and Tunisia. The ones who survived the Byzantine and Arab conquests would presumably have been absorbed into one polity after another. As an Algerian, Zidane may in fact be related to those of his French compatriots with Frankish blood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Would explain his athleticism and the teamwork awareness he has.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Douglass would have none of it. He cited text after text, all written by respected European scientists, that noted that ancient Egyptians bore a striking resemblance to modern-day Africans.

    The sleight of hand here is that virtually nobody who has thought scientifically about race considers “African” to mean that the entire continent of Africa comprises just one race.

    I suspect it is more than a sleight of hand. To us, growing up surrounded by people of all races, Egyptians looked strikingly non-African. However, I suspect that, to people growing up surrounded by just 2 groups–their co-ethnic Anglos or Germans and their outgroup black Americans–Egyptians did in fact bear a striking resemblance to Africans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. @George
    Turns out Neanderthals were the smart creative ones. It didn't matter human good looks.won out over brains.

    World's Oldest Cave Art Found—And Neanderthals Made It
    The findings suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans had the same cognitive abilities.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/neanderthals-cave-art-humans-evolution-science/#close

    Were sub-Saharan Africans better looking than Neanderthals?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @AnotherDad
    What's actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were:

    We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above.
     
    Boiled down, ancient Egyptians are most closely related to--in descending order--
    -- neolithic and Bronze age near eastern populations
    -- neolithic Anatolians and Europeans
    -- modern Europeans! ... strikingly closer than
    -- modern Egyptians
    and not even mentioned way, way down somewhere
    -- modern black Africans

    So much for the whole black Egyptians thing.

    It’s weird that ancient Egyptians were non-black but ancient British were black Cheddar men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Johann Ricke

    Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.
     
    The Vandals were a Germanic tribe that ruled over a portion of North Africa that is now Algeria and Tunisia. The ones who survived the Byzantine and Arab conquests would presumably have been absorbed into one polity after another. As an Algerian, Zidane may in fact be related to those of his French compatriots with Frankish blood.

    Would explain his athleticism and the teamwork awareness he has.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @Roger
    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bomag

    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?

     

    No one is saying that Neanderthals were so great. Their surviving ~2% plus the changes of Man after leaving Africa seems to have supplied the synergy that has given us modern civilization. This is opposed to those who say that the genotype of 50,000 years ago Africans is isomorphic with out-of-Africa Man.
    , @Anon
    Out of Africa was Out of North Africa.

    It was NOT sub-saharan Africans who left Africa. They remained IN Africa.

    It was North Africans who'd evolved into a different race from Sub-Saharan Africans... they are the ones to left NORTH Africa to become other races.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Thus Berber soccer star Zinedine Zidane looks kind of like a U-Boat Kapitan.

    That would be Kapitänleutnant. Actual captains would only be found in charge of vessels that were useful in the last war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @George
    Turns out Neanderthals were the smart creative ones. It didn't matter human good looks.won out over brains.

    World's Oldest Cave Art Found—And Neanderthals Made It
    The findings suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans had the same cognitive abilities.

    https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/neanderthals-cave-art-humans-evolution-science/#close

    “Turns out Neanderthals were the smart creative ones.”

    Neanderthal cranial capacity was larger than modern humans, so Neanderthals were “brainier” in terms of raw head capacity. OTOH, if you look at cross-sections of that cranial capacity, it was much less allocated toward the frontal lobe cerebral cortex than is the case with modern humans, and much more allocated toward the hind brain. As we know from brain scans, instinctual activities are largely seated in the hind brain and rational activities are largely seated in the fore brain. This implies that despite their overall larger brain capacity, the Neanderthal culture would have consisted mostly of instinctual activity and proportionally less of rational activity than modern humans, which accords with archaeological findings that art, more advanced tools, more elaborate graves and other cultural development indicators all appear in conjunction with modern human archaeological sites.

    Indeed if we look at modern humans, we find that where the skull cross sections have larger fore brains, that–BZZZRRRAAPPPPPPP »*CRIMESTOP*«

    “The findings suggest that Neanderthals and modern humans had the same cognitive abilities.”

    Actually, the very primitive and dubiously dated “art” suggests nothing of the sort, but hey, nothing against our Neanderthal ancestors.

    Read More
    • LOL: JMcG
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @TomSchmidt
    They took plenty of black women for sex slaves too. What happened to their children?

    I imagine the same thing – castrate the males, mate with the females. Children of slaves inherited slave status in Islamic law.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_views_on_slavery#Traditional_Islamic_jurisprudence

    Gradually the population gets lighter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @syonredux

    Didn’t the Arabs not only castrate their black slaves, but do a penectomy as well?
     
    Which leaves us with the Black female slaves....anyone know what the rates are for Sub-Saharan M and Y DNA in Egypt? In Latin America, Y DNA skews male.

    I read (in I think an HBDChick retweet) that in Medellin, Colombia, y-DNA is almost 100% Spanish, mtDNA almost 100% indigenous.

    In Iceland the y-DNA is Scandinavian, but about 50% of mtDNA is Irish or Scottish. The west coast of Scotland was literally the place to pick up a takeaway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @gcochran
    Look at other populations in North Africa. Most have around 20% sub-Saharan African ancestry, roughly, But there is at least one Berber populations with almost none. Populations can mix, but they can't unmix. So the original settlers of North Africa must have had close to zero SSA ancestry.

    No Berbers population has zero or even close to zero SSA history. Kaybles have about 7-10% SSA ancestry if you look at their DNA kits. (As opposed to 15-20% in most Berbers.) They apparently didn’t mix with the black slaves as much, and might have Vandal ancestry. The Copts don’t have close to zero SSA either. Their content is about the same as Kaybles.

    While I don’t think it’s the case with ancient Egypt it is possible for populations to unmix. In theory if a bunch of Europeans moved to North Africa and mixed with the locals, you could halve the SSA in a generation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @istevefan
    In a hundred years people might think Maine was always peopled by Somalis.

    PS. Why can't we get the opinions on immigration from Native Americans? The media are quick to ask for their opinions, when it is negative of course, about sports teams' names and logos. But why no opinions on immigration?

    I mean if I were a Native American, I'd be resentful that my land was taken. But I highly, highly doubt my path to restitution would involve inviting the entire world to partake that theft. You'd think Native Americans would want fewer, not more, interlopers.

    You’d think Native Americans would want fewer, not more, interlopers.

    From my time around them, that is pretty much the case.

    But they’ve also been bought out by the Narrative, so there is a vein of belief that the new POC are useful in the struggle to stick it to YT.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Roger
    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    NIH has a group studying the Neanderthal admixture issues.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-06587-0

    The have coined a new term “NeanderScore” that measures the amount of the genomic contribution of the Neanderthals. Apparently the method of deriving the percent of Neanderthal contribution is different from that used by 23andme and yields a larger number.

    Let me point out a mistake that most readers of this blog would never make. DNA is a blueprint for development so a small proportion of the code may result in almost any proportion of the resultant
    tissue. So it is possible,for example, for a difference in 2% of the DNA to result in a 50% difference in brain structure.

    We see this phenomenon in software too. The as shipped difference between the two versions of Microsoft’s NT operating systems – the client version and the server version – was tiny. Just a few lines of code that switched the installation process from one path to the other. But when installed the two versions were radically different in their functions and capabilities.

    Most of the human genome is concerned with coding for structures that will be the same for different versions of humans. For example the code for the composition of bones or sweat glands is probably the same between species. This is why 98% (or whatever) of the DNA in chimpanzees is the same as that in humans. So if I have just 2 or 3% admixture from Neanderthals as 23andme tells me I do, that is potentially a huge difference. We can’t say with any certainty how important it is based on a simple calculation of the percentage of SNPs.

    The allele that causes Huntington’s Chorea is a single SNP. Yet there are at least a hundred thousand SNPs involved in the Neanderthal admixtures. We simply don’t know what changes they made to the Out of Africa AMH’s who mated with them.

    Forgive me for pointing out this obvious point to the sophisticated iSteve blogosphere.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @Anon
    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?

    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?

    No one is saying that Neanderthals were so great. Their surviving ~2% plus the changes of Man after leaving Africa seems to have supplied the synergy that has given us modern civilization. This is opposed to those who say that the genotype of 50,000 years ago Africans is isomorphic with out-of-Africa Man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Alden
    The black children had more children and grandchildren and great grand children and on and on.

    And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%.

    Also remember that the most prized sex slaves in the Islamic world during the entirety of the slave era (ca.632-1900AD), white women were the most prized. Usually from Eastern Europe (Slavs).

    In other words for nearly 1300yrs slavery existed in the Islamic world and yet today very few Mid. Easterners have Sub Saharan DNA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Greenleaves
    North Africa had far more slaves (both white and black) than the Middle East did. Slavery existed in the Levant but to a much smaller extent than North Africa.

    Plus the nature of slavery in the Middle East and North Africa was different. Slaves in the Middle East were generally used for tasks like farming and mining. Slaves in Northern Africa were generally sex slaves. Using slaves on farms and mines does not have the same genetic impact that bringing in slaves to rape them does.
    , @3g4me
    @62 Yojimbo /Zatoichi: "And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%."

    Do you have a source for that purported tiny bit of SSA? A quick check online demonstrates quite the opposite - 35% in Yemen, 20% in Egypt, and 10-15% among Palestinians, Iraqis, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. “When 21st Century scientists replicated Morton’s experiment, they found that Morton did it more or less right and it was Gould who was wrong. ”

    So when can we expect an official apology by the Gould’s estate and from the New York Times?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%.

    Also remember that the most prized sex slaves in the Islamic world during the entirety of the slave era (ca.632-1900AD), white women were the most prized. Usually from Eastern Europe (Slavs).

    In other words for nearly 1300yrs slavery existed in the Islamic world and yet today very few Mid. Easterners have Sub Saharan DNA.

    North Africa had far more slaves (both white and black) than the Middle East did. Slavery existed in the Levant but to a much smaller extent than North Africa.

    Plus the nature of slavery in the Middle East and North Africa was different. Slaves in the Middle East were generally used for tasks like farming and mining. Slaves in Northern Africa were generally sex slaves. Using slaves on farms and mines does not have the same genetic impact that bringing in slaves to rape them does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Agassiz has a mountain named after him in the Eastern Sierras. As does Haeckel. There are a dozen peaks in the Sierras named for early pioneers of human biological div—I mean, pseudoscientific racialism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Agassiz_(California)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%.

    Also remember that the most prized sex slaves in the Islamic world during the entirety of the slave era (ca.632-1900AD), white women were the most prized. Usually from Eastern Europe (Slavs).

    In other words for nearly 1300yrs slavery existed in the Islamic world and yet today very few Mid. Easterners have Sub Saharan DNA.

    @62 Yojimbo /Zatoichi: “And yet today, right now, the Arab world has very very little DNA Sub-Sahara African admixture, like, less than 2%.”

    Do you have a source for that purported tiny bit of SSA? A quick check online demonstrates quite the opposite – 35% in Yemen, 20% in Egypt, and 10-15% among Palestinians, Iraqis, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @AnotherDad
    What's actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were:

    We find that ancient Egyptians are most closely related to Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in the Levant, as well as to Neolithic Anatolian and European populations (Fig. 5a,b). When comparing this pattern with modern Egyptians, we find that the ancient Egyptians are more closely related to all modern and ancient European populations that we tested (Fig. 5b), likely due to the additional African component in the modern population observed above.
     
    Boiled down, ancient Egyptians are most closely related to--in descending order--
    -- neolithic and Bronze age near eastern populations
    -- neolithic Anatolians and Europeans
    -- modern Europeans! ... strikingly closer than
    -- modern Egyptians
    and not even mentioned way, way down somewhere
    -- modern black Africans

    So much for the whole black Egyptians thing.

    What’s actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were

    http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.mb.txt

    There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race.Before
    I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself.
    After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both
    in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more
    distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of
    them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to
    be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded,
    first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair,
    which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations
    are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that
    the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations
    who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @syonredux
    Frank Snowden on perceptions of race in Antiquity:

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks, far fewer than in the art of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
     

    Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid.

     

    http://library.howard.edu/content.php?pid=554250




    As for Herodotus, here’s a more recent translation:

    For the fact is as I soon came to realise myself, and then heard from others later, that the Colchians are obviously Egyptian. When the notion occurred to me, I asked both the Colchians and the Egyptians about it, and found that the Colchians had better recall of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them. Some Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians originated with Sesostris’ army, but I myself guessed their Egyptian origin not only because the Colchians are dark-skinned and curly-haired (which does not count for much by itself , because these features are common in others too) but more importantly because Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world who practise circumcision and who have always done so.
     
    The Histories By Herodotus, Robin Waterfield, Carolyn Dewald
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Anon
    If Neanderthals were so great, how did sub-Saharan Africans manage to defeat them?

    Out of Africa was Out of North Africa.

    It was NOT sub-saharan Africans who left Africa. They remained IN Africa.

    It was North Africans who’d evolved into a different race from Sub-Saharan Africans… they are the ones to left NORTH Africa to become other races.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Bliss

    What’s actually interesting from the DNA studies is how very *unblack* these ancient egyptians were
     
    http://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/sphinx_0.jpg


    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/schools/primaryhistory/images/indus_valley/land_of_the_indus/i_egyptians.jpg

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Tomb_of_Nakht_%282%29.jpg


    http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.mb.txt

    There can be no doubt that the Colchians are an Egyptian race.Before
    I heard any mention of the fact from others, I had remarked it myself.
    After the thought had struck me, I made inquiries on the subject both
    in Colchis and in Egypt, and I found that the Colchians had a more
    distinct recollection of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians had of
    them. Still the Egyptians said that they believed the Colchians to
    be descended from the army of Sesostris. My own conjectures were founded,
    first, on the fact that they are black-skinned and have woolly hair,
    which certainly amounts to but little, since several other nations
    are so too; but further and more especially, on the circumstance that
    the Colchians, the Egyptians, and the Ethiopians, are the only nations
    who have practised circumcision from the earliest times.

    Frank Snowden on perceptions of race in Antiquity:

    The assumption that a majority of the inhabitants of north Africa such as Numidians, Gaetulians, and Moors, were blacks, is also contradicted by the ancient evidence. Classical accounts clearly distinguish between the light-skinned inhabitants of coastal northwest Africa and the darker Ethiopians who lived on the southern fringes of the area. The ancient sources also point to the presence in northwest Africa of mixed black-white types, strongly suggested by names such as Libyoaethiopes (Libyan Ethiopians), Leucoaethiopes (white Ethiopians) and Melanogeatuli (black Gaetulians), a kind of intermediate population, an amalgam of whites and Ethiopians, and by the descriptions of the Garamantes, classified in some classical texts as Ethiopians but distinguished from Ethiopians by others. [15] Classical accounts of the physical features of northwest Africans are amply confirmed by the iconographical evidence. Mosaics, sculpture in the round, and other art objects from northwest Africa depict the inhabitants as predominantly white and portray relatively few blacks, far fewer than in the art of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.

    Greeks and Romans, well acquainted with their contemporaries, differentiated between the various gradations of color in Mediterranean populations and made it clear that only some of the black- or dark-skinned peoples, those coming from the south of Egypt and the southern fringes of northwest Africa, were Ethiopians, i.e. Negroes. Ethiopians, known as the blackest peoples on earth, became the yardstick by which classical authors measured the color of others. In first century AD, Manilius described Ethiopians as the blackest; Indians, less sunburnt; Egyptians, mildly dark; with Moors the lightest in this color scheme. In other words, to all these peoples–Ethiopians, Indians, Egyptians, and Moors–who were darker than the Greeks and Romans, classical authors applied color-words but it should be emphasized that in general the ancients described only one of these–Ethiopians–as unmistakably Negroid.

    http://library.howard.edu/content.php?pid=554250

    As for Herodotus, here’s a more recent translation:

    For the fact is as I soon came to realise myself, and then heard from others later, that the Colchians are obviously Egyptian. When the notion occurred to me, I asked both the Colchians and the Egyptians about it, and found that the Colchians had better recall of the Egyptians than the Egyptians did of them. Some Egyptians said that they thought the Colchians originated with Sesostris’ army, but I myself guessed their Egyptian origin not only because the Colchians are dark-skinned and curly-haired (which does not count for much by itself , because these features are common in others too) but more importantly because Colchians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world who practise circumcision and who have always done so.

    The Histories By Herodotus, Robin Waterfield, Carolyn Dewald

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Roger
    The Out of Africa theory claimed that an African migration from about 50,000 years ago completely displaced all other hominids, and that modern humans are essentially the same as what left Africa at that time.

    The theory has been refuted by Neanderthal and Denosivan DNA. The Africans interbred with other hominids, and did not completely displace them. Furthermore, there has been considerable human evolution in the last 50k years.

    Saying that Neanderthal contribution was only 2% makes it sound insignificant, but there is currently no agreement about the significance of that 2-3%.

    The average of 6% and 15% is 10.5%, not 12%.

    Average of 6 and 15 is 10.5. But 6% and 15% are ratios, so unless they are ratios of the same thing (same sample size, here), weighting them equally would be misleading. For example, if Study 1 found 6 of 100 to be X (6%) and Study 2 found 30 of 200 to be X (15%), then 36 of 300 were found to be X (12%).

    I didn’t read the original study so don’t know whether it referred to same sample size, but this is a proper way to average averages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Steve Sailer
    "Did you just watch Das Boot?"

    Recently.

    Which version? The chopped up original American theatrical release or the extended “director’s cut” that later bombed at the theaters?

    Great film, by the way. One of my favorites. Too bad Wolfgang Petersen and Juergen Prochnow were wasted in Hollywood.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. “On the other hand, about 2% of the DNA of non-Africans traces back to interbreeding with Neanderthals and other species”

    Subspecies. Different species by definition cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring, eg: horse and donkey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored