/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4746052]

OFFICIAL: Indo-Eurasians are not descended from Sub-Saharan Africans Haplogroups A and B. OUT OF AFRICA DISPROVEN!

Recent fossil discoveries in central Asia have turned the "out of Africa" theory of human evolution upside down. Now geneticists through recent Genome Wide Analysis Studies show that DNA disproves the theory. There findings were published in Advances in Anthropology. The entire article can be read online.


http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

>The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B)

Negro Africans apparently must descend from a separate hominid ancestor. They are capable of breeding with non-negroes in the same way that Neanderthals were capable of breeding with homo-sapiens.

That is the only explanation if the root SNP are really absent in non-Negro ancestor.

[Anonymous No.4746055]

>implying niggers were ever considered human

[Anonymous No.4746059]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisova_hominin

Fingerbone found in a Russian cave of a modern human that differs from all known living human populations. Our knowledge of early human development is so scarce, it's becoming obvious that there are multiple paths to modern humans from different regions around the globe.

[Anonymous No.4746064]

>Negro Africans apparently must descend from a separate hominid ancestor
>Negro Africans apparently must descend from a separate hominid ancestor. They are capable of breeding with non-negroes in the same way that Neanderthals were capable of breeding with homo-sapiens.

Then we too must do our duty and pass our genetic material to the African humans before our extinction comes.

[Anonymous No.4746065]

>>4746059
>slavic fingers

[Anonymous No.4746066]

>>4746055
They're human, just a human subspecies, like the extinct H. Sapiens Idaltu.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens_idaltu

[Anonymous No.4746073]

Average IQ of a sub-saharan African is below 80. Average IQ of an African American is 85. An SD below all other humans. It should have been clear to anyone a long time ago that they were different from the rest of the human population.

[Anonymous No.4746075]

>>4746065
What?

[Anonymous No.4746080]

>>4746073
>An SD

[Anonymous No.4746085]

>>4746080
Standard Deviation.

[­Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.4746087]

>>4746073
> Average IQ of a sub-saharan African is below 80. Average IQ of an African American is 85. An SD below all other humans. It should have been clear to anyone a long time ago that they were different from the rest of the human population.

This is not true.

While african africans do average lower than 80--67 according to Richard Lynn but he seems to have massaged his numbers and relied on bad samples, perhaps a bit higher. This is not an SD below all other human populations. Many other human populations average lower than 100.

Here is Lynn's map.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/AverageIQ-Map-World.png

[Anonymous No.4746090]

>>4746073

Ashkenazi Jewish average IQ is 115, a whole SD above the average.

50% of Nobel Prizes
0.06% of the population

1 in 22 of them have IQ > 140.

Einstein, Von Neumann, Godel, Venn...all the 'white' inventors? Jewish.

[Anonymous No.4746094]

>>4746087

Wow, look at Australia. Bunch of fucking idiots down under, I see.

Interesting news anyway, OP. I have to wonder what sort of implications this has, if any.

[Anonymous No.4746096]

>>4746073
Gee, IQ figures sure don't increase in poor countries as they develop.

[Anonymous No.4746099]

>>4746090

Yes, gentiles are a separate, inferior species.

[­Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.4746102]

>>4746094
>Wow, look at Australia. Bunch of fucking idiots down under, I see.

The map is about indigenous populations. The white australians average around 100 as does other white groups.

[Anonymous No.4746103]

>>4746090
Godel was pure german.

[Anonymous No.4746104]

>>4746102
*as do

[Anonymous No.4746107]

>>4746102

Well, yeah, I had guessed. I was just making a joke.

[Anonymous No.4746108]

>>4746087
The populations in America take into account black Americans. Give me a few minutes to pull up some different studies, I have done pretty extensive research on this sort of thing.

>>4746094
I suspect the low numbers come from Aborigines.

[Anonymous No.4746109]

And neutrinos go faster than light!

[­Language reform guy !KHn8YK/x0g No.4746110]

>>4746096
>Gee, IQ figures sure don't increase in poor countries as they develop.

Such increases are not necessarily due to higher intelligence. Cud be simply getting more used to testing. Besides, Flynn effect seems to have stopped.

Altho, one wud expect improved nutrition to have some positive effect on the intelligence of, say, african populations. Apparently, the african genotypic intelligence is about 80. The 5 extra points that american blacks have is due to 20% white genes.

[Anonymous No.4746111]

>>4746096
>African Americans

[Anonymous No.4746112]

Took them this long to figure it out?

[Anonymous No.4746121]

>>4746110
>Flynn effect seems to have stopped.
I don't know why the Flynn effect was ever a surprise.

All sorts of diseases and influences such as malnutrition can obviously drag IQ scores down. Deal with that shit, and of course the average intelligence is going to go up.

Of course, once you get to the point where obesity is a bigger issue than malnutrition, you can't expect further improvements unless they have another cause.

[Anonymous No.4746124]

>>4746109
This isn't really trumped up pop-sci, though, this is one of the most massive anthropological studies ever.

[Anonymous No.4746127]

>>4746090

For "jew" in this case read "very particular Russian/Eastern European populations"

[Anonymous No.4746128]

Never have I been happier to say these words.

[Anonymous No.4746129]

>>4746124

That's why it has less citations than all the papers I turned in last semester, right?

[Anonymous No.4746135]

Thanks for the link OP - as I'm sure you're aware taking in a study like this will take some time. I've downloaded and will read fer sure.

[Anonymous No.4746136]

>>4746052
>Negro Africans apparently must descend from a separate hominid ancestor

that's not what the paper said at all.

[Anonymous No.4746137]

>>4746127
To be fair, Ashkenazim make up the vast majority of Jews in the world, and they are something like 70% Semitic, they do not inbreed with the European locals very much. That's why they're so ugly, the hot Jews like Alison Brie have above average European admixture.

Jews are an intelligent people, they'd have to be. This is coming from an anti-semite. You'd never hear me insult Jewish intelligence and anyone who does is an idiot and underestimating the Great Enemy that is the International Jew.

[Anonymous No.4746140]

>>4746129
Yes, because they ARE the source. It would be like you demanding that the sources you cited in your papers all had a list of sources as long as the one you handed in. Eventually the chain has to end.

[Anonymous No.4746141]

>>4746129
>>4746129

You get that this is at its first online publication, right? Give it a year to accumulate cites man.

[Anonymous No.4746144]

>>4746129
>less citations
FEWER citations, you illiterate fuck.

Also
>published less than a month ago
>lol it has no citations hurr durr

[Anonymous No.4746146]

>>4746129
>30 days old
>not enough citations

[Anonymous No.4746149]

So this means instead of

Africa-(Negroes, Caucasians)

it is instead

Africa-(Negroes, Caucasian ancestors)
Europe/Levant-(Caucasian ancestor into several populations including Caucasians)

Interesting but not earthshaking.

[Anonymous No.4746151]

>>4746144

They only cited 10 sources. I've read papers on panda genetics that are better supported.

[Anonymous No.4746162]

>>4746151
What difference does it make how many references they put?

[Anonymous No.4746165]

>>4746151
it's funny how many itt don't know what "citations" are. Or that 10 is an absurdly small number of them...

the /pol/ is strong in here

[Anonymous No.4746169]

>>4746162

I wish I'd known about this in my papers. "Check it out biatches, 173 references in my bibliography. This shit is TRUTH yo."

[Anonymous No.4746170]

>>4746151
>they need to source the study that they conducted even though they are the source
hurr

[Anonymous No.4746174]

This troll again.

>Anatole A. Klyosov, Igor L. Rozhanskii
>scientists

nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.4746177]

>>4746165
>I don't like those statistics, that aren't anti-white enough
STORMFAGS /POL/ STORMFAGS NOT LISTENING

[Anonymous No.4746180]

>>4746174

>>4746165
Samefag.

[Anonymous No.4746183]

>>4746180
>cannot check for samefag

A newfag appears.

[Anonymous No.4746187]

>>4746183
>using a shitty troll from 2007
Nice try, samefaggot.

[Anonymous No.4746188]

>>4746180
gosh are you bad at detecting samefag

we all sage retard threads here.

[Anonymous No.4746226]

>>4746188
>science I don't like
>retard thread

[Anonymous No.4746230]

>>4746174
Anatole Klyosov is a biochemist and researcher, Igor L. Rozhanskii's credentials did not show up in the first 5 results I bothered to look at, but he works for a biomedical research company.

[Anonymous No.4746237]

NIGGERS, JEWS...
BAD NEWS!

[Anonymous No.4746249]

>>4746080
If you're implying it should be "a" SD then you should probably kill yourself now.

[Anonymous No.4746253]

You never needed to convince me them monkeys weren't human.

[Anonymous No.4746262]

[Anonymous No.4746754]

[Anonymous No.4746782]

>>4746066
So were was a reason for the second sapiens in homo sapiens sapiens

[Anonymous No.4746785]

>>4746087
>>4746087
> mfw I'm Australian and abos have an IQ of 60 on average
> Everything makes sense now

[Anonymous No.4746817]

>OUT OF AFRICA DISPROVEN!
No. First of all this is a study of Y chromosome DNA (Y-dna) exclusive to paternal lineage, not mitochondrial DNA (mt-dna) which corresponds to maternal.

It basically says that Haplogroup B (see pic) is not descended from Haplogroup A, which is very old, but of a more recent variation called Haplogroup β, indicating a separate common ancestor. Similarly, Haplogroups A and β share an even older common ancestor named Haplogroup α.

Now this is the important part: "A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown". Hence the title of the paper "Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory". So there's nothing "official" but pure speculation.

Its working hypothesis is that "the most likely origin for each of them (Haplogroups α and β) is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south".

Their descendants, Haplogroups A and B, arrived both to Africa and Europe from the unknown origin where they evolved at.

So who are Haplogroups A and B? From Wikipedia:

Haplogroup A
>Highest frequencies: Namibia (Tsumkwe San, Nama) 60-70%, Southern Sudan (Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer) 33%-61.5%, Ethiopia (Beta Israel ) 41%-46%

[Anonymous No.4746825]

>OUT OF AFRICA DISPROVEN!
No. First of all this is a study of Y chromosome DNA (Y-dna) exclusive to paternal lineage, not mitochondrial DNA (mt-dna) which corresponds to maternal.

It basically says that Haplogroup B (see pic) is not descended from Haplogroup A, which is very old, but of a more recent variation called Haplogroup β, indicating a separate common ancestor. Similarly, Haplogroups A and β share an even older common ancestor named Haplogroup α.

Now this is the important part: "A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown". Hence the title of the paper "Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory". So there's nothing "official" but pure speculation.

Its working hypothesis is that "the most likely origin for each of them (Haplogroups α and β) is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south".

Their descendants, Haplogroups A and B, arrived both to Africa and Europe from the unknown origin where they evolved at.

[Anonymous No.4746826]

>ideologically influenced wrong conclusions drawn from science publications
Every fucking time.

[Anonymous No.4746827]

So who are Haplogroups A and B? From Wikipedia:

Haplogroup A
>Highest frequencies: Namibia (Tsumkwe San, Nama) 60-70%, Southern Sudan (Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer) 33%-61.5%, Ethiopia (Beta Israel ) 41%-46%

Haplogroup B
>Highest frequencies: Baka 63% (Gabon & Cameroon)[1] - 72% (CAR),[2] Hadzabe (Tanzania) 52%[3]-60%,[4] Nuer (Sudan) 50%,[5] Mbuti (DRC) 33%[6]-60%,[2] Biaka (CAR) 35%[6]-55%,[2] Central Africa 32%,[7] Tsumkwe San (Namibia) 31%,[2] Khoisan 28%,[7] Shilluk (Sudan) 27%,[5] Burunge (Tanzania) 25%,[4] Dinka (Sudan) 23%,[5] Ngumba (Cameroon) 23%[2]-33%,[1] Eviya (Gabon) 21%,[1] Fali (Cameroon) 18%,[6] Sotho–Tswana (South Africa) 18%,[2] Zulu (South Africa) 17%,[2] Eshira (Gabon) 17%,[1] Shake (Gabon) 16%,[1] Hausa (Sudan) 16%,[5] Sukuma (Tanzania) 16%,[3] Bakola (Cameroon) 15%[2]-36%,[1] Copts (Sudan) 15%,[5] Sudan 15%,[7] Kunama (Eritrea) 15%,[8] Tutsi (Rwanda) 15%,[9] Sandawe (Tanzania) 15%,[4] Uldeme (Cameroon) 5%[6]-31%,[2] Nuba (Sudan) 14%,[5] Makina (Gabon) 14%,[1] Southern Africa 13%,[7] Mali 11%,[7] Ewondo (Cameroon) 10%,[6] Ethiopia 10%,[7] Shona (Zimbabwe) 10%[2]

So putting it in XIXth-century-pseudo-scientific-anthropology-book terms racists understand: Negroids are B, Capoids are A.

[Anonymous No.4746828]

But where da white men at? They are the still the descendants of Haplogroup B, same as modern niggers you imbecilic stormfags (see pic again). The only difference is that our common ancestor wasn't supposedly African. If anything this makes Negroids even closer to you than to Capoids (which ironically look less nigger). Regardless, we all still share a common ancestor, Haplogroup α.

According to the study: "The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that...". It never mentions Europeans not descending from Haplogroup B but from "African" Haplogroup B, that's what the study is about, Haplogroup B (and A and α and β) not being African, which is supported by evidence quoted from other study, hence that last "as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein)". So you're not even quoting the right study. All you demonstrated is having near 0 reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.4746833]

So who are Haplogroups A and B? From Wikipedia:

Haplogroup A
>Highest frequencies: Namibia (Tsumkwe San, Nama) 60-70%, Southern Sudan (Dinka, Shilluk, Nuer) 33%-61.5%, Ethiopia (Beta Israel ) 41%-46%

Haplogroup B
>Highest frequencies: Baka 63% (Gabon & Cameroon)[1] - 72% (CAR),[2] Hadzabe (Tanzania) 52%[3]-60%,[4] Nuer (Sudan) 50%,[5] Mbuti (DRC) 33%[6]-60%,[2] Biaka (CAR) 35%[6]-55%,[2] Central Africa 32%,[7] Tsumkwe San (Namibia) 31%,[2] Khoisan 28%,[7] Shilluk (Sudan) 27%,[5] Burunge (Tanzania) 25%,[4] Dinka (Sudan) 23%,[5] Ngumba (Cameroon) 23%[2]-33%,[1] Eviya (Gabon) 21%,[1] Fali (Cameroon) 18%,[6] Sotho–Tswana (South Africa) 18%,[2] Zulu (South Africa) 17%,[2] Eshira (Gabon) 17%,[1] Shake (Gabon) 16%,[1] Hausa (Sudan) 16%,[5] Sukuma (Tanzania) 16%,[3] Bakola (Cameroon) 15%[2]-36%,[1] Copts (Sudan) 15%,[5] Sudan 15%,[7] Kunama (Eritrea) 15%,[8] Tutsi (Rwanda) 15%,[9] Sandawe (Tanzania) 15%,[4] Uldeme (Cameroon) 5%[6]-31%,[2] Nuba (Sudan) 14%,[5] Makina (Gabon) 14%,[1] Southern Africa 13%,[7] Mali 11%,[7] Ewondo (Cameroon) 10%,[6] Ethiopia 10%,[7] Shona (Zimbabwe) 10%[2]

So putting it in XIXth-century-pseudo-scientific-anthropology-book terms racists understand: Negroids are B, Capoids are A.

[Anonymous No.4746830]

>OUT OF AFRICA DISPROVEN!
No. First of all this is a study of Y chromosome DNA (Y-dna) exclusive to paternal lineage, not mitochondrial DNA (mt-dna) which corresponds to maternal.

It basically says that Haplogroup B (see pic) is not descended from Haplogroup A, which is very old, but of a more recent variation called Haplogroup β, indicating a separate common ancestor. Similarly, Haplogroups A and β share an even older common ancestor named Haplogroup α.

Now this is the important part: "A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown". Hence the title of the paper "Re-Examining the "Out of Africa" Theory". So there's nothing "official" but pure speculation.

Its working hypothesis is that "the most likely origin for each of them (Haplogroups α and β) is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south".

Their descendants, Haplogroups A and B, arrived both to Africa and Europe from the unknown origin where they evolved at.

[Anonymous No.4746836]

But where da white men at? They are the still the descendants of Haplogroup B, same as modern niggers you imbecilic stormfags (see pic again). The only difference is that our common ancestor wasn't supposedly African. If anything this makes Negroids even closer to you than to Capoids (which ironically look less nigger). Regardless, we all still share a common ancestor, Haplogroup α.

According to the study: "The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that...". It never mentions Europeans not descending from Haplogroup B but from "African" Haplogroup B, that's what the study is about, Haplogroup B (and A and α and β) not being African, which is supported by evidence quoted from other study, hence that last "as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein)". So you're not even quoting the right study. All you demonstrated is having near 0 reading comprehension.

[Anonymous No.4747832]

>>4746836
whoa whoa whoa, hapboloabo? capoid? DEE EN AYE? all i know is niggers and jews, bad news