Are Negroids Throwbacks?

Steve writes:

How are black people a new race?

Because they only showed up in the last 6-12,000 years in the context of organized agriculture.

Steve: What people did they evolve from?

We are probably talking about races that don’t even exist anymore. No one seems to know what the pre-Negroids looked like. We have skulls, but I have never seen any reconstructions. Yes, Khoisans are an ancient race, but they have not always looked like this. The Khoisan phenotype you see is only 10-15,000 years old. It’s new too.

Steve: Aren’t they just an evolution of Homo Erectus but with modern human sized brains?

This is what we all are actually. Blacks no more or less than anyone else really. Actually Africans have been evolving away from prehistoric humans longer than anyone else.

Steve: Apart from the head size, they look the same, unless the artists depictions are biased.

Negroids don’t look like Erectus or certainly Ergaster. Anyway, phenotype doesn’t mean a whole lot when comparing modern humans to prehistoric men. We’re all equally far away from them as far as I can tell. I don’t think there are any modern humans that are closer to prehistoric men than other modern humans. Aborigines look pretty primitive, but they are further away genetically from the African prehistoric base than any other humans. There are no throwbacks and it’s a nasty lie to call Black people throwbacks or imply they are closer to prehistoric men than anyone else is.

57 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Anthropology, Blacks, Khoisan, Physical, Race/Ethnicity

57 responses to “Are Negroids Throwbacks?

  1. What I was getting at is if you look at artists depictions of homo erectus, they look like black people, they have the similar facial features but smaller brains. I guess that is because their skin colour and facial features are adapted to the tropics so their basic phenotype didn’t have to change.

    The reason I brought that up is because it implied to me that they weren’t a new race, whatever that means, but the latest manifestation of a continuous gradual evolution from homo erectus in Africa.

  2. Also, black people have more prognathism, which makes them look more archaic. They have been evolving from homo erectus for the same amount of time as us, of course, but that doesn’t mean they have evolved in the same way, or evolved brains as large or faces as flat. If you look at the progression of human evolution, it is towards larger brains and flatter faces and haven’t some races gone further down that path than others?

      • Jm8

        Blacks also tend to have more projecting foreheads (which is to say less sloping, sloping foreheads being more archaic). Ashley Montagu calls this “frontal skull eminences”. They also tend to have less prominant brow ridges than Caucasians.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid#Neoteny

        • True- prominent brow ridges are an archaic trait too- but I don’t see a striking difference in brow ridges. I see a more striking difference in prognathism. is that just me? And black do as a matter of fact have smaller brains on average. According to the data set that always gets sited by white nationalists anyway. is it true?

          I always feel very reluctant to promote that kind of information because I don’t want to encourage hate but I guess I decided to talk about it on here today. And I guess its not news to anyone who takes an interest in racial differences online.

        • Having smaller average brain sizes is different than from being outside Human range.

          Also What you “see” is different from an actual representative average measure in traits.

        • Typical pure negroids average 1260-70 cm. The asselar Man, the earliest Modern Black human found, was roughly 1500cm. Modern post agriculture H. sapiens in general average 1300 with a range of 1000-2000 (Hunter gatherers though had capacities at 1400 due to differences in diet and selection but had less complex mutations, hence asselar man).

          http://www.saburchill.com/IBbiology/chapters02/030.html

          H. Erectus averages 9000-1100 (I have seen the extreme though being 1225). Either way, Blacks are closer in mean and variation to H. Sapiens.

        • “Having smaller average brain sizes is different than from being outside Human range.”

          Jesus. I never said they were outside the human range.

          Modern day Africans and maybe some SE Asians are the extant humans that look most like (the artistic depictions of) erectus. That doesn’t mean they are erectus. They clearly have way bigger heads.

          Though not quite as big as Chinese people or Europeans on average (still closer to Europeans than to erectus, making them firmly human).

          If the trend throughout evolution is towards bigger brains, then Chinese people are further down that path than both Africans and Europeans. And they also have the highest IQs. Is that a coincidence?

          Maybe but personally I doubt it.

        • “If the trend throughout evolution is towards bigger brains, then Chinese people are further down that path than both Africans and Europeans. And they also have the highest IQs. Is that a coincidence?

          Maybe but personally I doubt it.”

          Okay, Now I’m understanding what you are saying. Technically, what you’re saying is that they are more K selected, being that their development is slower, have longer lifespans, and this sort of selection leads to bigger heads as well.

          Technically this is and Ultra-human trait, meaning it’s an exaggerated form of a trait characteristic of human. Technically though in terms of Mid-face Prgnathism and Jaw shape, Europeans are above Chinese. Also, Asians general, have lopsided IQ compared to Europeans in which their Verbal is lower than their mathematical.

          Then there is also the factor you have to consider in regards to developments in behaviors which I’m pretty sure european outrank Asians.

          So Morphology and IQ alone doesn’t define “further down” to a full extent.

        • Sorry, I meant that Asian’s characteristics are Ultra-human, being exaggerated Human traits.

          Another result is that they are very Neotonic, retaining infantile features, but the thing is that some features that are considered archaic are also characteristic of modern people and are thus called “peramorphic”.

          For example like development of hair in different populations.

          So yes, mentally on average, modern Eurasians are more complex.

        • are you sure Han Chinese people (or NE Asians) have more prognathism than Europeans? Thai people clearly do but I can’t see it with Chinese people so i’d need to see a citation for that.
          Asians have more lopsided IQ but their verbal is almost as high as Europeans, like 99. So its fair to say Chinese people are about the same as Europeans on verbal IQ and have higher mathematical intelligence. Okay.
          how can you say that behaviourally Europeans outrank Chinese?
          how do you know that Chinese people got bigger brains as a side effect of being more k selected, rather than the larger brains/higher intelligence being directly selected and that resulting in the other aspects of k selection…..longer to mature etc?

        • “are you sure Han Chinese people (or NE Asians) have more prognathism than Europeans? Thai people clearly do but I can’t see it with Chinese people so i’d need to see a citation for that.”
          It’s a type of prognathism called midface prognathism, which I basically believe is connect with cheekbones.

          Also, they have less prominent chins compared to Europeans, that being a more archaic trait.

          “Asians have more lopsided IQ but their verbal is almost as high as Europeans, like 99. So its fair to say Chinese people are about the same as Europeans on verbal IQ and have higher mathematical intelligence. Okay.”

          But there’s something you don’t understand, it’s not simply how high their sub-IQs are but how they compare to other IQs sub-groups which is linked to disposition in thinking.

          This especially comes into play when you compare the differences in abilities when you match for IQ. Say a European at 100 matched with an Asian would differ in tasks.

          “how can you say that behaviourally Europeans outrank Chinese?
          how do you know that Chinese people got bigger brains as a side effect of being more k selected, rather than the larger brains/higher intelligence being directly selected and that resulting in the other aspects of k selection…..longer to mature etc?”

          You apparently have no Idea what I meant when I said K-selection. K selection indeed is at least on of the major reason head size/ IQ has been selected for as you would retain more neotonic traits which involve head to body ratio.

          One of the aspect of K selection is development rates at youth. More R selected mammals for instance develop fast at youth while K ones develop slower but have longer lifespans.

          Look up Rushton on the differences in races.

          Europeans versus Asaians in Behavior? Compare the progression of society in NE asia compare to Europe in terms of Human rights and such. Plus Europeans are more individualistic.

        • Chinedu

          Blacks also tend to have more projecting foreheads (which is to say less sloping, sloping foreheads being more archaic). Ashley Montagu calls this “frontal skull eminences”. They also tend to have less prominant brow ridges than Caucasians.

          Other less archaic black traits include full lips, round asses, less body hair and kinky hair. Blacks are not only the only humans with kinky hair, but as far as I know, they’re the only mammals with kinky hair.

          Also, generally speaking, the torso to leg ratio of blacks seems to be less archaic in comparison to whites, who tend to have longer torsos and shorter legs like modern day gorillas or pre-human hominids.

        • Chinedu

          Your K selection theory is bullshit and Rushton was a racist quack.

          What’s more, no credible, comprehensive study has been done on brain size by race. But I had to guess, I’d say that black Africans have the largest brains on average.

        • “Also, generally speaking, the torso to leg ratio of blacks seems to be less archaic in comparison to whites, who tend to have longer torsos and shorter legs like modern day gorillas or pre-human hominids.”

          True, this is very pronounced in Sudanids (Sahel Blacks) and Nilotics (east Africa).

          However with Black near the Guinea I’ve read that they have a tendency to be stockier with shorter legs but shorter arms as well so they would be archaic in that regard.

          Still, Pygmies, though not to the level of Apes, have longer arms than legs.

          Another trait though would be Eye projection (advancement in peripheral vision) as antrhopologist an old caricatures noticed blacks often have more prominent eyes, aided by a lower nasal bridge and lower browridge.

        • To chinedu,

          “Your K selection theory is bullshit and Rushton was a racist quack.

          What’s more, no credible, comprehensive study has been done on brain size by race. But I had to guess, I’d say that black Africans have the largest brains on average.”

          https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/09/17/japans-population-decline-and-rk-selection-theory/#comment-947

          See how Rushton wasn’t debunked.

          Also I have already given you data in the past how what you’re claiming is BS. That PBS study didn’t even have a citation, show unless you can show me a study that proves they have a larger brain size STFU.

          https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/just-pack-up-and-go/#comment-262717

        • Chinedu

          However with Black near the Guinea I’ve read that they have a tendency to be stockier with shorter legs but shorter arms as well so they would be archaic in that regard.

          You have no evidence to support the above.

          With regard to pygmies, they are just short. Their limbs are proportional to their reduced size. They do not have longer arms than legs. That’s preposterous.

        • Chinedu

          China, with 1.5 billion people and perhaps another 3 billion eliminated via abortion is K selected? Pull the other leg.

          Overcrowded Europe where women were popping out 10 or more kids is k selected?

          Rushton actually has the r/K theory backwards.

          From Joseph Graves, a renowned evolutionary biologist (as opposed to an Internet blogger):

          Rushton’s memory of my critique is quite limited. First, it began with an evaluation of the efficacy of r- and K- theory in general. Professional life-history evolutionists (of which I am, and he is not) no longer regard r- and K- theory as a useful research paradigm. This dismantling occurred due to a series of experiments that tested the predictions of r- and K-theory and showed that they did not hold up in a wide variety of species. Second, I demonstrated that Rushton misapplied r- and K- theory; indeed by MacArthur and Wilson (the originators of r- and K-theory) Africans would be K-selected and Europeans and East Asians (r-selected); just the opposite of what Rushton claimed. Third, I demonstrated that much of the data he cited to make his case was flawed either in collection or source; particularly data like “social organization” and “crime”. Thus at three levels his r- and K-theory approach to human life history variation fails. So I challenge the notion his 3-way spectrum is real; secondly even if it were real, he has not presented an evolutionary theory that could explain it; and third that environmental differences could easily explain much of what he reports.

        • To chinedu,

          I mean to say for Guinea Black that since BOTH their arms and legs are relatively shorter they weren’t archaic. That was a mistake on my part

          For pygmies though, see here.

          https://books.google.com/books?id=z3SACgAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=body+ratios+of+pygmies+longer+arms+shorter+legs&source=bl&ots=GrVg3fuMZ5&sig=HdCfOa5yis0f5hsTmCoNwYmbmxc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAs9Pj7NXPAhVG0YMKHQ72DzwQ6AEINTAH#v=onepage&q=body%20ratios%20of%20pygmies%20longer%20arms%20shorter%20legs&f=false

          They indeed have shorter legs relative to other limbs but I’ve said it;s not to the same extent as apes.

          Second That note by grave my link specifically refutes.

        • Chinedu

          Phil,

          Quote the passage from your link where it’s alleged that pygmies have longer arms than legs.

          Oh, and clueless amateurs like Race Realist refuted an accomplished scholar like Graves? Get the fuck out of here. Looking at the respective populations of Asia and Europe vs. Africa refutes Rushton. Seeing that modern humans emerged in the allegedly r selected tropical zone refutes Rushton.

        • To Chinedu,

          On Pygmies they do have limb proportions as I have described, but the process wasn’t the result of archiac traits but growht.

          “Marquer (1972) found the intermembral index in Western and Eastern African Pygmies to show a pronounced development of the upper limb relative to the lower limb. A similar relationship in the intermembral index has also been observed by Trinkaus (1981) and Shea & Pagezy (1988). Both Shea & Pagezy (1988) and Shea & Bailey (1996) indicate that body proportions in pygmies are what would be expected given a generalized allometric truncation or ontogenetic scaling of the growth cycle.”

          http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2006.01179.x/full

          Still, I agree that it doesn’t mean that they are archaic.

        • To Chinedu,

          “Oh, and clueless amateurs like Race Realist refuted an accomplished scholar like Graves? Get the fuck out of here. Looking at the respective populations of Asia and Europe vs. Africa refutes Rushton. Seeing that modern humans emerged in the allegedly r selected tropical zone refutes Rushton.”

          Well actually yes and no,

          A. racerealist used latter work that proves Rushton’s points on R/K behavior and evidence of fitness differences thus making Graves points on R?k in Rushton’s context moot.

          B. Graves said Rushton gave no reason why that would be, he was wrong as Racerealist pointed out it was due to differences in environmental adaptation.

    • Tulio

      For some that evolution may involve flatter faces, for others it may not have. You as a white are of course using white as the ideal standard and assuming all other groups should evolve along the white trajectory and that something is inherently wrong with evolving on a different trajectory. There’s nothing inherently wrong with prognathism. And who is to say that if you left blacks untouched in Africa for another million years of evolution that they would evolve out of prognathism. Very, very few of our genome determines what we look like, which leaves the other 99% of evolutionary traits to be “under the hood” so to speak.

      • The point is that if you look at evolution of humans from a monkey like creature to homo sapiens sapiens, there is a very clear trend all the way through: evolution of bigger brains and flatter faces. It starts with extremely protruding faces and small brains and ends with relatively little prognathism and large brains. The two are related according to Rushton (I think): a flatter face enables a larger brain as large jaws require large jaw muscles. So that’s the trend right the way through.

        Now is it a coincidence that a race with smaller brains on average has more prognathism on average? It looks to me like they just haven’t gone quite as far along in the evolution of large brains.

        • somehow structurally, as the brain gets bigger, the face gets flatter. That’s how it seems to work.

        • On the other hand, if you match Europeans and Africans for IQ, I wouldn’t be surprised if African’s still have more prognathism (and smaller brains?) than IQ equivalent Europeans. That would be my hypothesis, in which case…maybe Africans have a way of making up with less quantity with quality and/or prognathism could also be climate related (bigger mouths and more sticking out bits in hotter climates?)

        • *making up for less quantity with quality

          (assuming they do have smaller brains when matched for IQ with Europeans. anyone got any idea?)

        • To Steve,

          I do notice a connection with Prognathism and climate. What it likely helps with is eating strong, tough vegetation in a regular diet.

          Eurasians on the otherhand ate meat more often because at that time winters and climate in the Northern hemisphere in general was colder, thus animal flesh was more dependent on as plants were scarcer.

          You also see this in differences in teeth. Europeans have larger canines relatively, used for puncturing meat, while Blacks overall have larger teeth but particular larger molars and incisors, teeth well developed in Herbivores.

          As Jaws got smaller chins grew larger, I believe to increase surface area for muscles.

          Technically though all humans are omnivores, just at different ratios.

        • To Steve,

          And to your point on brain size and IQ, a similar north to south trend exist for those factors too.

        • As for smaller brains if matched for IQ,

          Possible, but if so the gap would likely be smaller than it would be for the uncontrolled comparison as brain size makes up for a decent chunk in the gap for IQ (at least a .4 correlation from what I’ve read.)

        • Phil,
          I’m not so sure of smaller brains if matched for IQ but I’m pretty sure, now that I think of it, that Africans would have more prognathism if matched for IQ with Europeans. Think of low IQ Europeans…..say IQ 80….they are like other Europeans in that they don’t have much prognathism, but if they were matched up with equivalently intelligent Africans, the Africans would have a lot more prognathism. You are talking like practically average Africans.

          One could also ask whether within a group of Africans, there is a correlation between prognathism and IQ or prognathism and brain size. Some Africans don’t have much prognathism but most seem to have some…there is quite a bit of variation in that trait.

        • Africans have strikingly larger lips and bigger mouths than whites and i think that is climate related. Bigger lips means more blood at the surface for cooling, bigger mouths for heat loss too. If so, maybe prognathism goes along with that. bigger mouths tend to be on bigger jaws. And I just imagine that in the cold, things recede- limbs get shorter, lips thinner, maybe the face recedes too. Extremities are where heat is lost and sticky out things get affected by frost more I imagine.

        • …or maybe its not blood cooling thing…? I’m just speculating. Certainly in a cold climate i imagine fat lips would be prone to frost and frost bite and would expose the blood to the cold.

        • I don’t deny the point on prognathism, I was just commenting on brain size.

          “One could also ask whether within a group of Africans, there is a correlation between prognathism and IQ or prognathism and brain size. Some Africans don’t have much prognathism but most seem to have some…there is quite a bit of variation in that trait.”

          Overall that’s quite likely.

          “Africans have strikingly larger lips and bigger mouths than whites and i think that is climate related. Bigger lips means more blood at the surface for cooling, bigger mouths for heat loss too.”

          Nice observation.

          “If so, maybe prognathism goes along with that. bigger mouths tend to be on bigger jaws. And I just imagine that in the cold, things recede- limbs get shorter, lips thinner, maybe the face recedes too. Extremities are where heat is lost and sticky out things get affected by frost more I imagine.”

          Humidity as well plays into this, as I’ve read that Blacks that lived in the drier parts of the tropic had smaller lips.

          “…or maybe its not blood cooling thing…? I’m just speculating. Certainly in a cold climate i imagine fat lips would be prone to frost and frost bite and would expose the blood to the cold.”

          So far what you say makes sense and seems similar to what I read.

  3. Nebulous Maximus

    When actually looking at a ton of photos of SSAs, I see a massive diversity of phenotypes. And few of them look particularly “archaic”.

    • Which regions? The most Archaic I could think of would probably be Near the Guinea of West Africa and Western Central Africa.

    • I’ve googled people from all different countries in SSA and it seems to me that while there are ethiopians (part bantu, part Arab- back to Africa migrations) and san people, fully bantu people all look pretty similar. The people of most SSA countries look very similar to me.

      • Have you actually looked at specific tribes regions? The third picture of my second post to shows different extremes with Guinea people and Sudanids.

        • Remember this study?

          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30318291

          “The diversity among populations is not as diverse as we expected it to be”.

          I think that holds up when you look at Africans from different parts of SSA.
          Apart from outliers like the Khoisan with almost negligible numbers, they all have a basic similarity…they all look a lot more similar to each other than any do to Europeans. They all look basically like the same race.

        • That’s genetic diversity, not phenotypic diversity.

          I gave you a photo that basically highlights the three major subgroups of Sub saharan Africa Being Sudnaids, Nilotics, and Palaenegrids.

        • I don’t know where the photo is. I looked for it. Yes its genetic diversity and that correlates with phenotype diversity.

          All Africans tribes cluster together genetically and are quite a distance from Europeans. All African tribes look very similar to each other when compared to Europeans. Their phenotype similarity reflects their genetic closeness.

          There are some very notable exceptions but it is generally the case that more genetically similar people look more similar and more genetically distant people look more different.

        • Page 329 it list the phenotypic differences.

          https://archive.org/stream/Race_John_R_Baker/Race#page/n174/mode/1up/search/sudanids

          And overall eurasian admixture that affects is mostly compacted at the Sahel and SE Africa, so the overall distinction of Sudanids, Nilotics, and Palaenegrids account for that.

          https://elifesciences.org/content/5/e15266

          Also The admixture detected that was reported to be “throughout Africa” was overestimated and the few signals found in the Yoruba, a sudanid/Palaenegrid mix, is minute as admixture charts show from the genome study.

          http://www.unz.com/comments/gnxp/there-was-no-vast-migration-of-eurasians-into-africa/

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v517/n7534/fig_tab/nature13997_F2.html

        • “I don’t know where the photo is. I looked for it. Yes its genetic diversity and that correlates with phenotype diversity.”

          See the link I gave, it list the actual taxonomic differences in major phenotypes.

          “All Africans tribes cluster together genetically and are quite a distance from Europeans. All African tribes look very similar to each other when compared to Europeans. Their phenotype similarity reflects their genetic closeness.”

          Again, see my link. Also, what actual anthtrometric did you actually use to prove that?

          “There are some very notable exceptions but it is generally the case that more genetically similar people look more similar and more genetically distant people look more different.”

          That would be the case except what I’ve shown you. I agree that with this revealed that the appearances aren’t as discrete as Europeans but that doesn’t mean they all look very similar.

          BTW, in my second comment, I meant that the admixture couldn;t account for that.

        • I just google imaged those three groups and google may not be giving accurate results but based on what I saw I couldn’t really tell the difference. There wasn’t much anyway. I’d like to see some reliable pics though.

          how did I prove that all SSA people’s cluster together genetically? Look at any relevant study. or do this:

          https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=genetic+distance+cali+sforza&biw=1093&bih=530&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjEuJOm8tPPAhUE1hoKHUppA88Q_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=genetic+distance+&imgrc=x6g5OxYKGvTzbM%3A

          How do I know this correlates with phenotype? I can see it.

          Most to least similar looking:
          an Irish man to: 1) his identical twin. 2) his cousin. 3) an unrelated Irish man 3) a Dutch man 4) an Indian 5) a Chinese man 6) a Nigerian.

          That’s most to least similar looking and it corresponds exactly to genetic distance.

          The exception is convergent evolution. When two genetically distant populations like Africans and some SE Asians look very similar because they developed the same phenotype independently due to living in the same climate.

          Lets say there is considerable genetic diversity in sub saharan Africa and considerable phenotype diversity. Within SSA, people still look more similar to those they are genetically close to and all Africans look similar when compared to Europeans (and vice versa). That’s all I’m saying and its definitely true lol.

          Thanks for the links, I’ll take a closer look some time. You can have the last comment because I dont want to get into a protracted discussion or argument.

        • p.s okay 2,3, and the second 3 (lol) are not always the case but often are. but 3, 4 5, 6 holds. that’s how it is.

        • “how did I prove that all SSA people’s cluster together genetically? Look at any relevant study. or do this:”

          No, I asked how did you prove phenotypic diversity? You said “I looked at them” but have you actually identified specific traits or measurement? those would actually be more reliable than just looking at pictures and saying “Oh, they look alike”.

          How do I know this correlates with phenotype? I can see it.

          “Most to least similar looking:
          an Irish man to: 1) his identical twin. 2) his cousin. 3) an unrelated Irish man 3) a Dutch man 4) an Indian 5) a Chinese man 6) a Nigerian.

          That’s most to least similar looking and it corresponds exactly to genetic distance.

          The exception is convergent evolution. When two genetically distant populations like Africans and some SE Asians look very similar because they developed the same phenotype independently due to living in the same climate”

          Except it isn’t genetic distance that causes it, it the development of a trait that express itself as a surface phenotype. So it’s phenotypic variation.

          You say “exactly” when you said correlate when that’s incorrect. A correlation, though can be very high, isn’t exact.

          “Lets say there is considerable genetic diversity in sub saharan Africa and considerable phenotype diversity. Within SSA, people still look more similar to those they are genetically close to and all Africans look similar when compared to Europeans (and vice versa). That’s all I’m saying and its definitely true lol.”

          You need to work on your terminology, particular including the word “relative”. I agree with genetic and physical closeness relative to Europeans, what I disagree is saying in general they all look alike.

          BTW, considering how amateurish you are with anthropology by an obvious amount, I wouldn’t loosely say “definitely”.

          “p.s okay 2,3, and the second 3 (lol) are not always the case but often are. but 3, 4 5, 6 holds. that’s how it is.”

          Again see my explanation on the actual cause of genetic distance.

          Also, I’ve found an actual reference on how diverse they are within populations.

          “Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. ”

          Yeah, I’m pretty sure North Italians and Lithuanians are fairly different.

        • “Again see my explanation on the actual cause of genetic distance.”
          I meant to say phenotypic variation. See here.

          https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2016/05/14/gene-expression-by-race/

          Also My references for African Divserity is here.

          http://www.unz.com/gnxp/back-to-africa-and-the-bantu-explosion/

          which also includes how Africans are diverse within Groups despite not as high of a between group variation.

          “But the masking of Eurasian ancestry also highlighted something important: the genetic variation across African populations once you remove Eurasian ancestry is not that high. This is curious in light of the truism that most genetic variation in humans is found within Africa, but as Nick Patterson pointed out to me years ago: this applies to variation within populations, not across them. Since most variation is not partitioned across populations that explains why Africans can be so genetically varied despite exhibiting not too high between population variation. After masking Eurasian ancestry the mean pairwise Fst was ~0.015. To give a sense of perspective, the Fst between Northern Italians and Lithuanians is 0.01. The Fst between the Ethiopian African ancestry (so Eurasian segments are masked) and other African populations is still 0.027, on average (the distance between Lithuanians and Southern Italians is 0.015). This reinforces the fact that the African ancestors of Ethiopians are somewhat atypical (further confirmed by the relative inaccuracy of imputation from public data sets).”

  4. Jonathan

    Robert, just wanted to know is there any truth in Solutrean Hypothesis? I doubt it, we have the same theories some claiming Europeans were first in new zealand, amazingly enough are red haired giants too lol while i am proud of my heritage as a european, this stuff seems a little far fetched.

  5. Robert plz run this article by PP. He has some horrible misconceptions about human races.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s