P. 1
Cavalli-Sforza - Eugenics

Cavalli-Sforza - Eugenics

|Views: 126|Likes:
Published by Race-Realist

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Race-Realist on Aug 06, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as RTF, PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less



Cavalli-Sforza neighbors to chimps as it is the environment that created the subnasal double prognathistic simianlike negroid, along

with your elongated limbs, wide and flat nose. "the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps." Cavalli-Sforza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race,_Evolution,_and_Behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luigi_Luca_Cavalli-Sforza http://info.stylee32.net/index.php?dir=The%20World/&sort=date&order=asc http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Race&Groups-General/+Doc-Race&GroupsGeneral-Biology/RacialDifferenceMeasuredByGeneticDistance.htm Which group was genetically closest to chimpanzees? The answer for both methods was the Nigerian Negro group. Using Nei's method, the Nigerian-chimp distance was 1.334 +/- 0.375, by far the closest value (second closest was the Kachari value of 1.527 +/- 0.493). To be fair, and show we are not knee-jerk "Eurocentrics" hiding data, the group farthest from the chimps was the South Amerindians (1.901 +/- 0.529); however the Germans (1.865 +/- 0.506) and the more general Caucasians (1.860 +/- 0.497) were right behind them (and given the +/- values, virtually overlapping). Looking at the Cavalli-Sforza method, the Sokoto Nigerians were again the closest to chimps (0.539) by a large margin. The farthest were again the South Amerindians (0.712), with the Germans (0.680) and general Caucasians (0.667) being a very close third and fourth behind the South Amerindians as well as Samoans (0.711) and North Amerindians (0.697). So, while the two methods give slightly different orders, in both cases the Nigerians are by far the closest group to the chimps. Once again, given the first method, these sub-Saharan Africans were at 1.334 while all the other groups ranged from 1.527-1.901, and given the second method they were at 0.539 while the other groups ranged from 0.643 (Kachari again) to 0.712. Thus, based on these data, the subSaharan African group is genetically closest to chimps. The authors state the following about "neighbor-joining trees" based on these data, using the chimps as the "outgroup": The data can be looked at in other ways as well. One can compare the relative genetic distance between two human groups to that between those human groups and chimps, and thus calculate the former as a percentage of the latter. According to the Nei method, the German-Nigerian distance (0.238) is a full 12.8% of the German-chimp difference, while using the Cavalli-Sforza method the German-Nigerian distance (0.168) is a full 24.7% of the German-chimp distance! And for Caucasians-Nigerians vs. Caucasians-chimps the numbers using these two methods are 13.9% and 24.9%, respectively! The other paper that I would like to mention (briefly) is that of Kimmel et al., Genetics 143, pgs. 549-555, 1996. Here eight human populations - including Caucasians, Mongolids, and sub-Saharan Africans- were studied to determine their relative genetic distances. The only real surprise here (not a surprise is that Germans and Nigerians are again very distant, and that various Caucasian groups, including the Germans, are close together) is the (relatively large) genetic distance between the Chinese and Japanese, which some uninformed folks may view as virtually "identical." . The distance between those two East Asian groups (using relative measurements different than that of the Deka et al. work) was 0.029. That is a full 72.5% of the distance (0.040) between Germans and the Bhramins (Asian Indians) of Uttar Pradesh, and is even 8.5% of the German-Nigerian distance (0.342). Not all East Asians are identical, although other data (e.g., Nei and Roychoudhury's classic 1993 paper) do show a relatively close Japanese-Korean relationship. Different areas of China may show different distances to other Asian groups as well, of course. In any case, the stated intention of future ABD tests to distinguish between Chinese and Japanese origins may indeed be possible, given the Kimmel et al. data.

In summary, racial differences are quite real, and the implications of these differences must be considered, regardless of how startling these implications may be.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/3079876/1/ (link with diagrams) These diagrams all include chimpanzees -- note the PC plot and genetic distance table after the two neighbor-joining trees: http://img118.imageshack.us/img118/6342/li2008d.png

It is likely during the past 10000 years innumerable cross breeding between early humans and chimpanzees have occured from time to time. Isnt the supposed origin of AIDS was beastiality with apes? Some negroids do share some phenotypical features with chimps, like protruding chin. ''Africans are the oldest humans with the oldest DNA, so they're closest to the root of the evolutionary tree, but otherwise they're not particularly related to non-human primates.''

There is no evidence of that chimpanzees were the root of human evolution. I do not think an unintelligent specie could ever evolve into higher beings. Even If evolution is true, the diagram means that northern mongoloids are the most evolved? Even as an mongoloid myself, I do not think so, maybe mongoloids have more brain cell but crogmanons have more. Mutation is parallel unless some destructive influences cause healthy gene pool to deteriorate. Northern Europeans and mongoloids should be at the same evolutional level, with african negroids being victims of harsh climates and space radiations. I do not believe in evolution, while I think devolution is highly possible. Appearance of homo sapian sapiens is still an unsolved mystery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_%28biology%29 It also possible that chimps are descendants of negoid people who themselves are the descendants of ancient eurasian people(human). Remember what i've said about devolution. I dont support out of africa at all, nor the multiregional origin...


source: Cavalli-Sforza, L. Luca, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza. The History and Geography of Human Genes. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. page 34: Locus ERV3, Enzyme Mspl "Of the four alleles of the ERV3 polymorphism known in human populations, only one is found in non-human primates (gorillas, orangutan, chimpanzees), and it is the same as one of the three alleles found in Africa." The frequency of allele D from the table on the same page: Central African Republic Pygmies - 14% Zaire Pygmies - 21% Melanesians - 0% Chinese - 0% Caucasoids - 0% Chimps - 100% http://books.google.nl/books? id=FrwNcwKaUKoC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=allele+D+in+africans+and+chimps&source=web&ot s=Hk5_WhEFba&sig=2TtHEiPwjhj6EDXeXmiv5lYc4AE&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&re dir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=allele%20D%20in%20africans%20and%20chimps&f=false

//--------------------http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/index/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Philippe_Rushton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_Blumenbach http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges-Louis_Leclerc,_Comte_de_Buffon //--------------------Let's look at the 2 races that are the most distantly related. Blacks and Asians. Two reproductively isolated populations of a animal species, evolving independently for tens of thousands of years, subject to all the usual natural forces (founder effects, genetic drift, random mutations, and adaptation), somehow come out with (a) different skin, hair, and even earwax, (b) different bone structure, (c) different blood antibodies, (d) different disease susceptibilities, (e) different athletic strengths and weaknesses, (f) different cognitive abilities and yet they're both the same "race". I refuse to believe that Blacks and Asians are 99.9% similar enough to be lumped into one human "race" They're different species of humans and should be classified as such, that isn't a bad thing necessarily, as both races have their own respective advantages and disadvantages.





This is a DNA of ancient Egyptians. Take a look at the two Egyptian groups, early and late. Pre-dynastic Egypt was actually almost out of the Caucasoid group, right on the border.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_G7Wra71mbBk/S4L4_yZ3jTI/AAAAAAAAAHY/zyq1JDNqnjo/s1600/salter _1%5B1%5D.gif

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_G7Wra71mbBk/S3R1c7vvYZI/AAAAAAAAAG4/alQJNrOlVv8/s1600/ethni c_map_europe%5B1%5D.jpg


http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/the-major-and-minor-races-of-mankind/ Recent prior attempts include the usual Mongoloid – Caucasoid – Negroid Three Race Theory, which is discussed below. The main problems with this theory are twofold: that it fails to classify a group called Australoids and that it fails to note the huge split between SE Asians and NE Asians.


Average IQ levels according to Richard Lynn: Ashkenazi Jews 110, East Asians 105, Europeans 99, Inuit 91, Southeast Asians and Amerindians 87, Pacific Islanders 85, South Asians/North Africans/Middle Easterners 84, Non-Bushmen Sub-Saharan Africans 67, Australian Aborigines 62,

Bushmen and Pygmies 54. "A 60-page review of the scientific evidence has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic." source: www.news-medical.net/news/200/04/2/9530.aspx

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->