# Are Whites Descended From East Indian Albinos?



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.

This lady is an albino East Indian.







So is this family.


----------



## waltky (Oct 5, 2015)

Where'd ya get dat pic...

... o' Granny an' her family?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.

and, there are white people that are albinos, so this is a logical failure.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.
> 
> and, there are white people that are albinos, so this is a logical failure.


East Indians came from Africa so no this isnt a logical failure. Its already been proven that the gene for light skin arose in India. You do realize 2 albiinos can have a child that isnt a albino if the 2 parents have different types of albinism? Of course white people can have albinos. Every race can. The most common type of albinism is OCA2 and people from Africa have it more than anyone else. OCA1 occurs predominately among whites and east indians. Coincidence?


Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.
> ...



Are blacks descended from African albino's?

About as likely.

Almost certainly all humans are descended from some ancestor who was an albino. 

Human skin color genetics theory is pretty well developed- current theory is that the original humans migrating out of Africa were dark skinned, and that outside of the tropics skin color lightened( probably due to fertility issues regarding exposure to sun light), and then as human populations migrated again to tropics, skin colors darkened again.

Albinism is very, very different from genetic lighter skin color.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Not really. Youre logic doesnt work and no that is not the current theory. There is nothing to show that skin lightened due to less sun. The middle east and india are just as hot as Africa. The specific gene for light skin in europeans appeared first in India which just so happens to share the same type of albinism that is prevalent among europeans. Albinism is a recessive trait. Blacks were the first people on earth so albinos ultimately came from Black people with the recessive trait. There is no way all Black people are descended from albinos but it is possible that whites are. What are the difference between albinism and white (people) skin?


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Nina Jablonski: Skin color is an illusion | TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript | TED.com


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Albino-ism is a detriment to even people living in the coldest, darkest areas. The absence of melanin is not selected in any scenario as favorable. 

Blacks, whites, etc differ on the amount of melanin in the skin, albinos have none.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...




Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I think your getting the impression I am saying whites are albinos. Thats not what I am saying. I'm wondering about the possibility that the founding population of europeans were albinos. Albinos have traditionally been outcasts and considered diseased. Even the bible alludes to this.  Its entirely possible that the founding population of europe could have been albinos.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Albino-ism is either you have it, or you don't. There is no real evidence for any mixing.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Not true. You can carry the trait. Its recessive.  There is evidence. I just posted it. See above.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



But it only expresses when it is allowed to by a lack of a dominant counter.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Its entirely possible that the 'founding population' of Africa could have been albinos.

I mean if we are just speculating without any basis in actual genetics or science.

There is no known linkage to albinism to skin color in general. Albinism is a specific set of characteristics- of which 'Europeans' essentially have none of.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Not getting how thats relevant to what you claimed when you said you either have albinism or you dont.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


We know its not possible because the selected trait was for Black skin long before we became homo sapiens. Thats a fact based in science.  Albinsim came about afterwards.

Of course there is a link. Albinism is the lack of melanin in the skin. Alba = white


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Albinism exists in almost every species. Albinism predates homosapiens.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


You keep forgetting albinism is a recessive trait. Its impossible that it could occur first.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> 
> This lady is an albino East Indian.
> 
> ...




Can't imagine it's true. As I understand it, albinoism is a genetic mutation and more than just pale skin. If we were descendents of albinos we'd have more indicating it than just pale skin. But eyes, and hair and whatnot.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> ...


There are different types of albinism.  its possible because 2 people with different types of albinism can have a "normal" child.  The Swedes in particular display a lot of the same physical traits as albinos.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



The normal child would be a brown skinner person then though yes?

Albinoism is rare. It's hard to envision enough albinos existing, reproducing together to start a new ethnicity.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Yes a normal child would have more melanin. However if they had a child with an albino the chance of having another albino child would be extremely high. As a matter of fact I believe its impossible for 2 people with the same type of albinism to produce a "normal" child.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Oct 5, 2015)

1 in 17,000 occurence rate. Never going to have enough reproducing only amongst themselves to start anything. It'll always remain a freak occurence.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Delta4Embassy said:


> 1 in 17,000 occurence rate. Never going to have enough reproducing only amongst themselves to start anything. It'll always remain a freak occurence.


Not if the founding population were albinos cast out from India/Africa etc. Eventually as they mixed with others it would become a more scarce occurrence.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Delta4Embassy said:
> 
> 
> > 1 in 17,000 occurence rate. Never going to have enough reproducing only amongst themselves to start anything. It'll always remain a freak occurence.
> ...



Gradual reductions in melanin concentration, that due to the lesser sunshine, did not result in death by skin cancer is a more likely reason for the current skin tone of Europeans.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Delta4Embassy said:
> ...


Youre still trying to advance a theory science has proven to be incorrect. I posted the link that proves where light skin came from in europeans and it had nothing to do with climate.

Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

Lets deal with proven facts in considering my theory.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Climate was what allowed the lighter skin to flourish, and while the study thinks it can link it to one individual, I doubt the individual was an albino, because the gene still allows for the production of some melanin.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I agree that climate may have allowed the lighter skin to flourish in europe. Back then what would be the difference in an albino and a light skinned person?  They both would have been outcasts.  Is it possible that these people banded together and migrated to europe? Again the DNA trail shows its completely possible.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Albinos burn even in the lesser light of Europe, there would have been no benefit to it.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

martybegan said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


Of course albinos burn everywhere but its less intense in europe and this was the place that had more unclaimed territory and a place to live. Eventually the dominant gene would make the albinos fewer in number but again I point to the fact that europeans and east indians both share the same type of albinism.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



So some of Europe's genetic code came from the Indus valley region. That's a known concept, its where the whole "Aryan"crap came from. 
There have been later migrations as well, Most Roma are believed to descend from Indian lineages.


----------



## Freiheit (Oct 5, 2015)

This assertion reminds me of Elijah Muhammads'  mother plane and the 1500 small wheels pure fantasy and wishful thinking.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Albinism is a recessive trait- and it occurs in almost every species. 

Albinism predates homosapiens.

And while your theory is mildly interesting, it isn't supported by science in anyway.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Back then the difference would be that albino's die young due to many health issues- and humans with lighter skin do not.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > martybegan said:
> ...


I should have been specific.  What would be the difference in their appearance to a majority of dark skinned people that assumed they were both diseased or devils?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Albinism in homo sapiens doesnt predate homo sapiens. Black skin was around millions of years before homo sapiens came to be. Yes science does support my theory. I'm actually looking for another explanation that makes sense.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140225193412.htm

"Genetic evidence suggests that the evolution of skin rich in eumelanin, which is brown-black in colour, occurred in early humans between 1.2 and 1.8 million years ago in the East African Savannah. Early humans having lost most of their body hair (probably to facilitate heat loss) probably had pale skin containing pheomelanin -- like our nearest surviving relatives, "


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.
> ...


It's a fail

albinism is a rarity, there's just to many of us

plus you have to be really pale skin and blond, which most of us aren't.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Scientific fact is a fail? Albinism is rare because its recessive.  Like I mentioned earlier I'm not saying whites are albinos. I'm saying they very well may have descended from a population of albinos cast out from India.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


from a tiny fraction of a population to most of the known world.

they out stripped blacks, asians, browns to dominate N America, EU, N ME and the russian block


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Whites are still the minority in the world. What are you talking about?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Oct 5, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


ok, you are correct

I should have said;  Dominates the civilized world.

sorry about that


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 5, 2015)

Two Thumbs said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


They dont dominate any world. There are less whites on this planet than any other race.


----------



## Godboy (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Yet our nations are the most successful. Name the top 5 black nations, then lets compare them to the top 5 white nations. Since you already know ther outcome of that comparison, there is literally no chance that you will even name them. Now its deflection time, right? Yeah, we know how your feeble mind operates. You are very predictable.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 6, 2015)

Godboy said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Get back on topic boy. Focus. Albinos,  East Indian,  genetics.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Godboy said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



On topic- there is absolutely no scientific or genetic evidence that Caucasians as a group descend in any significant way(almost certainly everyone of us has a albino as an ancestor going far enough back) from albino's of any kind.

To me, the association of 'albino's have light colored skin and so do Caucasians' therefore they must be related is as offensive as any of the many odd pronouncements about Negroids and what their skin color 'means'.

Bring us some actual evidence of a significant link between east Indian albinism and Caucasians and then we can have a real talk.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Godboy said:
> ...


I have posted actual evidence. Europeans and East Indians both have the same type of albinism. The gene that caused light skin in europeans originated in India. These are both scientific facts.  I dont understand why thats offensive when every racial group has albinos in it. The first albino was a Black man. Now my theory that albinos were the founding of europeans is not proven but its not disproven. It makes sense because as I pointed out earlier albinos and people with light skin would be outcasts. There is a high likelihood they migrated to europe.  If it really offends you then it probably best not to participate in the thread.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



No- your 'theory' is nothing more than your speculation. It makes 'sense' to you- because you have developed a whole story in your mind in how it happened.

The more conventional theory- i.e. widely accepted theory- is that a population of humans migrated to an area of less intense sunshine and that gradually they evolved/adapted to the conditions of their new climate. 

You want to assume that there was a sudden mutation among a group of proto-caucasoids and that they became 'outcasts'. 

Why you want to make that assumption- I have no idea- but it isn't supported by any known science.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I am not making an assumption that there was a sudden mutation. Scientific facts that I have posted says there was a sudden mutation. Thats the whole meaning of a mutation. It just happens. You are correct that its more speculation but its speculation based on genetic and historical facts. The genetics is self evident. There is no arguing that. The historical facts are also irrefutable. People have long thought albinos were evil or diseased. Anyone understanding human nature would see that  

Your conventional theory has been debunked due to this new information as a I pointed out. Indias climate is not much different than Africas and thats where the mutation occurred.  There is no proof environment caused the mutation. It was always just a theory. Now we have proof that theory was wrong.  I dont want to assume anything. If I wanted to assume something I would have just done that and not started the thread. I was looking for intelligent input as to what other people thought based on facts.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



No- we don't 'have proof' that that theory is wrong. 

Based upon the facts there is absolutely no evidence that Caucasians are any more 'descended' from albino's than any other group of human beings.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 6, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Yes there is proof as I posted. The gene for light skin arose in an area that is just as hot as Africa. If the "conventional" theory was correct then they would have found that the gene would have appeared in the north pole first. Do you understand what I am saying?

I disagree that there is no evidence. There is more evidence that supports my speculation than anything else. This thread is an attempt to gather more evidence against my speculation. Can you provide any evidence besides just saying it cant be so?


----------



## altdata (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




White people are the 1st World countries of the world. They dominate the World.


----------



## altdata (Oct 6, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




Your DailyMail tabloid article makes a huge jump in evidence. 

"... (2 researchers) discovered that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code.

According to the (2) researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person. ...​
I do know all Whites are descendant of Neanderthal Man (40,000 years ago). All have his DNA. 






Going back 5 Million years it gets more interesting. 

Today PC people deny race exists. Actually, there is no reason to expect common evolution between races, since the various continents evolved to a large degree separately.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 6, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


Please explain what you mean by a huge jump in evidence. All you did is repeat what they said.  Are you claiming they are wrong without any evidence?

I'm glad you know whites have some neanderthal DNA in them.  Unfortunately, your picture makes a false and practically idiot claim about the big head being the #1 correlator to high IQ.  For starters its already proven that the big head housed a brain that was large and tuned to visual acuity not intellect.  Neanderthal died out for a reason. They were the equivalent of an autistic child with good eyesight. However, nothing in your claim has anything to do with point. Please provide some evidence against the idea that the founding population of europeans were descended from albino east indians. It shouldnt be hard if there is something out there.

If you need the link to the actual study let me know but here is a lay persons version to the information regarding neanderthal man.

Big eyes led to Neanderthal demise  › News in Science (ABC Science)

"Comparing the skulls of 32 H. sapiens and 13 Neanderthals, the researchers also established the Neanderthals had significantly larger eye sockets, indicating bigger eyes and visual cortices - those areas of the brain that regulate vision.

*"More of the Neanderthal brain would have been dedicated to vision and body control, leaving less brain to deal with other functions like social networking,"* says Oxford anthropologist and lead author Eiluned Pearce, a doctoral student.

Among living primates and humans, the size of an individual's social groups is constrained by the size of specific brain areas, she says. The larger these areas are, the more connections an individual can maintain."


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



You are saying you believe that humans were at the North pole 10 or 20,000 years ago. 

Which makes as much sense as any of your other theories.


----------



## Care4all (Oct 7, 2015)

very interesting, and I would not rule it out....

i had read recently that Blue eyes is a mutation, we were all brown eyed in the beginning....

i'm certainly going to research this....


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > No, it's already been proven, by scientist and stuff, that we all came from africa and whites mingle with other species.
> ...



Looking at your article again- let me quote you from the actual article you cite- rather than your interpretation of it.

They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are located closely on the same chromosome and are often inherited together. 

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in virtually every one of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans.


Penn State College of Medicine's Keith Cheng identified a key gene that contributes to lighter skin colour in Europeans and differs from West Africans

They discovered that all individuals from the Middle East, North Africa, East Africa and South India who carry the A111T mutation share traces of the ancestral genetic code.

According to the researchers, this indicates that all existing instances of this mutation originate from the same person.

_The pattern of people with this lighter skin colour mutation suggests that the A111T mutation occurred somewhere between the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent. _

_Now lets look at a map of Africa and the Middle East- and the Indian Subcontinent._

_




_
'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent- Iran- Afghanistan- Pakistan- all North of of most of Africa. All receiving less sunlight than anyone in Sudan or Kenya.


----------



## Yarddog (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> 
> This lady is an albino East Indian.
> 
> ...





White Europeans 'only evolved 5,500 years ago after food habits changed'


There are other theories,  anyway Albinism is a mutation that all races have.Its rare. Albinos are at a distinct disadvantage for survival.  Your theory counters the evolutionary process. Why would a race Evolve TOWARDS a position of disadvantage?  thats not the way it works. Its just aberrations and recessive genes.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Yes, it is always best to post the actual study, rather than news network synopsis, written by someone who majored in Journalism, not science. 

Before belittling Neanderthal (the group you are apparently claiming are albinos), one should consider the other evolution options. 

Today, a large brain is the #1 correlator to high IQ. Neanderthal's brain was even larger than today's Whites or Far East Asians (Japan/Korea). I guess Neanderthal had room for better eyesight too.  






Lucy was found in Ethiopia, Turkana Boy was found in Kenya and the recent discovery of Homo Naledi was near Johannesburg, South Africa. 

Evolution is a quickly moving path, as every person generates 8 mutations. 30,000 years seems like nothing in time. It is quite remarkable how quickly some humans upwardly evolved, while others stagnated.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Using your own map Egypt to Sudan down to Ethiopia is right in line with the middle east and the Indian subcontinent. Egypt receives the 3rd most sunlight of any spot on earth.  BTW Yuma AZ receives  more sunlight than any spot on earth. Basically it doesnt work like you are implying.  The amount of sunshine varies within places. Parts of India and the middle east for example gets roughly the same amount of sunshine that places in Africa do.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I guess I asked for that. My point is that the gene would have occurred in a colder climate than India or the middle east.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

Yarddog said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> ...


Maybe you misunderstand my theory. I didnt say europeans evolved towards a position of disadvantage. Obviously europeans are no longer albinos but they do share some of the same traits. My theory is saying they evolved from albinos cast out from darker skin people in India and the middle east.  This is due to the albinism trait in both groups being the same and the fact that the gene for light skin for europeans occurred in that part of the world as well.  However, I appreciate you coming up with something other than "it just cant be so".


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

This thread is based on one quadrant of one gene, defining White people as mutants. That is absurd. 

If you look are each continent, you see that there was travel and then long periods of isolation, for unique evolution. 





D.I.Y. population structure inference, part 1 of many - Gene Expression

Any discussion of evolution (Genome Project) should include basics. 
- 50% of the DNA of all animals on Earth are shared with humans. 
- 99% (on average) of human DNA is shared with Chimpanzees, but there were different isolated Chimps. 
- There is actually a 2-3% variation range in Human DNA on different continents or even within one (Africa). 

Example: Common Chimps have unique DNA only in Whites and Bonobo Chimps have DNA only in Africans. They were separated by the Congo River.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

From article thread is based on : Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor

_...They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are _*located closely*_* on the same chromosome* and *are often* _i_nherited together. 

The a mutation, called A111T, is found in *virtually every one* of European ancestry.

A111T is also found in populations in the Middle East and Indian subcontinent, but not in high numbers in Africans. ...

_​Those highlighted comments from the article *ARE NOT SCIENCE*. They are speculation and hypothesis for someone to prove.

- We only have 23 "*chromosomes*". Any human feature has a one in 23 chance of landing on the same chromosome.

- Things that happen "*often*" maybe happen 50% of the time or maybe 30% of the time.

- Humans have 99% the same DNA as Chimps, so are we "*virtually*" chimps?


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> Yes, it is always best to post the actual study, rather than news network synopsis, written by someone who majored in Journalism, not science.
> 
> Before belittling Neanderthal (the group you are apparently claiming are albinos), one should consider the other evolution options.
> 
> ...


I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them. 

I dont know where you are getting your information that a big head means you have a high IQ. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first being the obvious. There are plenty of people with big heads that are dumb as a rock. Also there is no way to determine someones IQ accurately. Now if you mean intelligence that too depends on a lot of different factors like the number of synapses and even personal experience. Here is the actual study on the neanderthals. 

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> From article thread is based on : Light skin colour in Europeans stems from ONE 10,000-year-old ancestor
> 
> _...They studied segments of genetic code that have a mutation and are _*located closely*_* on the same chromosome* and *are often* _i_nherited together.
> 
> ...


Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> This thread is based on one quadrant of one gene, defining White people as mutants. That is absurd.
> 
> If you look are each continent, you see that there was travel and then long periods of isolation, for unique evolution.
> 
> ...


I think you are having trouble reading the material. We all are mutants so I dont understand what makes you think whites are not?  Your only provided link has nothing to do with the discussion. What does chimps and bonobos have to do with the topic of the thread?


----------



## Yarddog (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...





Ok,  well you have a theory there but it is among others. Its true Albinos would have been shunned,  and say they did travel north,  well they would not be the only ones. Dark skinned peoples also traveled North as well at various periods in history, as others have noted here. 

Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features.  Change as the world evolves doesn't really happen in a straight line. To say that Albinos contributed to the " melting pot" would be true,  but to think that they are somehow the KEY to why there are white people?  No , I would strongly disagree with that, just from common sense. At least the way I see it.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

Yarddog said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yarddog said:
> ...



I agree change does not always go in a straight line. However, in this case the dynamics are pretty compelling. I cant seem to find something that would definitely rule it out. 

Can you elaborate on why you believe the following to be true?

"Those dark skinned people, with change of diet and lack of sunlight would have a lightening of skin and a change of features."


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them.
> 
> I dont know where you are getting your information that a big head means you have a high IQ. There are a couple of problems with that theory. The first being the obvious. There are plenty of people with big heads that are dumb as a rock. Also there is no way to determine someones IQ accurately. Now if you mean intelligence that too depends on a lot of different factors like the number of synapses and even personal experience. Here is the actual study on the neanderthals.
> 
> http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1758/20130168



You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant. 

Statistics show big brained Whites and Far East Asians have the highest IQs. This has not news. For sometime there has been a PC movement to suppress that fact. In fact, in places it is illegal to breakdown IQ/performance data by race/ethnicity.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I dont know where you got the idea I claimed neanderthal were albinos. You brought up neanderthals which BTW are not homo sapiens. I just agreed that europeans do have neanderthal in them.
> ...


You evidently missed the memo that neanderthals are not humans and that IQ cannot be accurately measured. IQ is social construct made up so you can feel better about yourself.

IQ scores not accurate marker of intelligence, study shows

"When we looked at the data, the bottom line is the whole concept of IQ -- or of you having a higher IQ than me -- is a myth," Dr. Adrian Owen, the study's senior investigator and the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging at the university's Brain and Mind Institute said to the Toronto Star. "*There is no such thing as a single measure of IQ or a measure of general intelligence."*


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.



That is almost a funny claim. There is no agreed upon criteria, test or ranking for "scientists". 

Those scientists in your article presented a HYPOTHESIS for someone to prove. They proved nothing. They made some casual observations.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Yes actually it is science. It was presented by scientists. Your last sentence uses a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Chimps are not humans and never were.
> ...


Nothing is funnier than your opinion its not science. So basically you're saying its your opinion its not science because you sure have no proof.  You're entitled to your wrong opinion.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> altdata said:
> 
> 
> > You don't seem to rely on statistically valid data. Anecdotal examples of "plenty of people" are totally irrelevant.
> ...



Okay, now we have clarified that you are among those who deny intelligence, sex, gender, ... are different between people/ races. Yes, you PC types claim everything is a social construct. Dogs can be Cats if they feel it. 

For rational people, we can read the evidence. Take SAT tests that are broken down by race. Take reading comprehension, math, whatever. 







National Center for Educational Statistics Data: 
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > altdata said:
> ...


We've only clarified that white people dont get to determine what intelligence is. Sorry bub. Other white people even agree with that sentiment.


----------



## Yarddog (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Yarddog said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




Well some of that is in the article I posted. Moving North would mean less Vitamin D absorbed by the skin from sunlight. Skin would naturally lighten to allow more absorption. Then as the article noted, a shift to a farm based diet would also provide less vitamin D also giving more reason for lighter skin.

They would find different types of vegetables in their new lands as well, lots of root vegetables like turnips and such would give different concentrations of minerals. Maybe they would have to store food for winter and only eat certain foods during those periods.  Over time, different minerals in the diet, i think would change peoples physique somewhat. 

Just the way grain is harvested and milled makes a difference. The health differences between Wet milled and dry milled grain affects bone health
because of the acidity in dry milled .  I don't have time to go into that right now because Im leaving but you can look it up.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Cold has nothing to do with the issue. 

It is all about exposure to sunlight. The farther from the equator, the less sunlight exposure there is. 

The best theory I have seen about how light skin became a competitive advantage for populations further north has to do with how sunlight works with I believe folates in reproduction- lower melanin at higher latitudes gave a reproductive advantage.


----------



## Syriusly (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



'between the Middle East and the Indian Subcontinent'- not 'in the Indian subcontinent'.

If you look at the native populations of Africa, what we consider to be modern 'Negroes' were located in the Sub-Sahara- along the north of Africa were darker skin- but not black - non-negroes- such a Berbers- and frankly even Ethiopeans.  Modern humans originated further south in Africa and migrated north- again looking at latititudes- the northern most part of Egypt is the same latitude as the southern tip of Iraq, and the southern quarter of Iran, and south of almost all of Afghanistan. 

Sure- the amount of sunshine varies by many things- climate and elevation among them- but latitude is the primary component.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


I saw several "buzz words" in your post. What "we" consider to be "modern Negroes" has nothing to do with "sub-sahara". Those are outdated white boy concepts trying to separate the continent of Africa. There was no magical wall keeping people from southern Africa from migrating north. Matter of fact the Nile river runs down into central Africa and provides the same highway that has been proven all humans have traditionally used to move about. Also you are wrong. Ethiopians/Eritreans are "Negroes".  This is an Ethiopian lady from the Hamer tribe.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> We've only clarified that white people dont get to determine what intelligence is. Sorry bub. Other white people even agree with that sentiment.



Every race has an input on the composition of SAT tests. In fact, they have bent over backwards for the last 50 years to increase non-White scores ... without success. 

The psychology of your "social construct" position is that people who perform poorly by any given criteria, reject that criteria. 

- Fat people don't like to be judged by BMI.
- Non athletic people don't like to be judged by athletic performance. 
- Ugly people don't like to be judged by beauty. 
- Low IQ people don't like to be judged on problem solving.
- ...

The reality is, IQ is the key metric of success, as the 1st world demonstrates.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Nothing is funnier than your opinion its not science. So basically you're saying its your opinion its not science because you sure have no proof.  You're entitled to your wrong opinion.




I'm saying it is opinion or an unproven hypothesis, because they provide no proof and use ambiguous language. Even they don't seem to consider it proven, only you do. 

It is just a sensational title from a British tabloid to get people to hit their page and view their ads.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Suggestion/Request: 
If you mention some evolutionary activity, please identify the time frame you are thinking about. 

e.g, 5,000 years ago, 5 million years ago, 50 million years ago, ...


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I saw several "buzz words" in your post. What "we" consider to be "modern Negroes" has nothing to do with "sub-sahara". Those are outdated white boy concepts trying to separate the continent of Africa. There was no magical wall keeping people from southern Africa from migrating north. Matter of fact the Nile river runs down into central Africa and provides the same highway that has been proven all humans have traditionally used to move about. Also you are wrong. Ethiopians/Eritreans are "Negroes".  This is an Ethiopian lady from the Hamer tribe.



Africa North of the Sahara has been racially mixed for a long time due to proximity to the Mediterranean coast. They are intermediates between ancient Africans, Europeans and Asians.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 7, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I saw several "buzz words" in your post. What "we" consider to be "modern Negroes" has nothing to do with "sub-sahara". Those are outdated white boy concepts trying to separate the continent of Africa. There was no magical wall keeping people from southern Africa from migrating north. Matter of fact the Nile river runs down into central Africa and provides the same highway that has been proven all humans have traditionally used to move about. Also you are wrong. Ethiopians/Eritreans are "Negroes".  This is an Ethiopian lady from the Hamer tribe.
> ...


Whats your point?  Greeks ruled the mediterranean and they are not white. Whats "a long time" and what makes you feel that Black people with racial admixture are not still Black people? I'm racially mixed but I'm Black.


----------



## altdata (Oct 7, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Whats your point?  Greeks ruled the mediterranean and they are not white. Whats "a long time" and what makes you feel that Black people with racial admixture are not still Black people? I'm racially mixed but I'm Black.



Okay, now you have jumped forward to around 350 BC. I was thinking about 10,000 BC to 3,000 BC.

Anyway, Greeks are White/European when evaluated by Genome Project criteria. They attempt to use non-modern DNA for their continental baselines. Another alternative race is African, not Black.

BTW, I have noticed that the real discoveries in Genome Project have been in the last 2-3 years. Older hypothese are being revised with new data.

New studies reveal 20 Percent of Neanderthal genome lives on in modern humans

*New studies reveal 20 Percent of Neanderthal genome lives on in modern humans*
30 JANUARY, 2014

*Last year, ground-breaking research revealed conclusive evidence that Neanderthals bred with modern humans (Homo sapiens), a fact disputed for many years*. The first ever complete mapping of a Neanderthal genome found that the genomes of *people living outside Africa today are composed of some 1 to 4 percent Neanderthal DNA*.  Now two new studies suggest that, taken collectively, about* 20 percent of Neanderthal DNA still lives on in modern humans, influencing the skin, hair, and diseases that people have today.
...*
Despite their different approaches, both teams converged on similar results. They both found that *genes involved in making keratin—the protein found in our skin, hair, and nails—are especially rich in Neanderthal DNA. For example, around 66% of East Asians contain the Neanderthal skin gene, while 70% of Europeans contain the Neanderthal gene which affects skin colour*.
*...*


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

White people are the race that god made when he finally got it right.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Whats your point?  Greeks ruled the mediterranean and they are not white. Whats "a long time" and what makes you feel that Black people with racial admixture are not still Black people? I'm racially mixed but I'm Black.
> ...



If you are talking 10K BC then there were no white people around. The entire world was Black at that point. The one thing that amuses me is when people cite a baseline based on old science derived from racist reasoning.  The facts are that not only was North Africa Black there is proof the Sahara was not a desert.

Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated

""The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany."


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> White people are the race that god made when he finally got it right.


So he made white people recessive and you consider that right?


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > White people are the race that god made when he finally got it right.
> ...


God made us more intelligent, that's why we're at the top of the food chain.


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> altdata said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


God said, geez, these black guys are all morons. I need to try again and make another race, only do it properly this time.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


God made you bellicose, uncivilized liars and thats why you are in power.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > altdata said:
> ...


Seems like your god messed up big time and made you temporary. You wont even be around in a couple of centuries.


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Why? All you Mooslims coming to get us?


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


Can't argue with god if he wants us on top.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Nope. Those recessive genes and your women speeding up the process.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You better start arguing because it looks like you were a failed experiment.


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You have a fixation on white women, why don't you just go pay for one? That's the only way you'd get any.


----------



## Taz (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...


You should be thanking us whites, we got you out of Africa.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

Taz said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


You should take your own advice. I dont have to pay for a white woman. All I have to do is smile at one.  No wonder white guys are always getting busted as Johns


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> If you are talking 10K BC then there were no white people around. The entire world was Black at that point. The one thing that amuses me is when people cite a baseline based on old science derived from racist reasoning.  The facts are that not only was North Africa Black there is proof the Sahara was not a desert.
> 
> Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated
> 
> ""The climate change at [10,500 years ago] which turned most of the [3.8 million square mile] large Sahara into a savannah-type environment happened within a few hundred years only, certainly within less than 500 years," said study team member Stefan Kroepelin of the University of Cologne in Germany."



I didn't say 10,000 BC to 3,000 BC. Thanks for validating the racial breakdown of the SAT Critical Reading performance graph:






There is consensus that White people were roaming Europe 8,000 years ago.

It appears by around 2,000 BC the differences between people of Mediterranean coastal nations and the African interior was clear. Probably because it was only a 100 mile journey across the Mediterranean to Europe. I don't think the differences happened overnight.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > If you are talking 10K BC then there were no white people around. The entire world was Black at that point. The one thing that amuses me is when people cite a baseline based on old science derived from racist reasoning.  The facts are that not only was North Africa Black there is proof the Sahara was not a desert.
> ...




Sorry but science says thats not possible.  Now here is the kicker and exactly what I was alluding to by "white boy" science meant to attribute great deeds to whites. The image you posted is a fresco done by a white person (*Heinrich von Minutoli,) *in 1820 at the height of the attempt to portray whites as the superior race. Its not the original. Either you are naive or you thought I was.  Here is the real image as done by the Egyptians.






Note there is not one white person in the picture.  Below is the fraud you tried to pass off as fact.


Book of Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia







The four races of the world: a Libyan("Themehu"), a Nubian ("Nehesu"), an Asiatic("Aamu"), and an Egyptian ("Reth"). *An artistic rendering, based on a mural from the tomb of Seti I*.


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> > Why? All you Mooslims coming to get us?
> ...



It isn't recessive Genes, it is the odd Darwinian fact that illiterate, poor, starving, diseased African women are on average having and unsustainable 6 children each. The coming food-water shortages will wipe Africa away.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

This may be on interest as well for those that doubt Black people (even if you try to pretend somehow they are different below the Sahara) inhabited Lybia


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Taz said:
> ...


Yes your genes are recessive no matter how much you try to deflect. Its a scientific fact along with your gene pool being problematic.

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds | Fox News

"It's been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second "population bottleneck," probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

• Click here for the Cornell press release*, and* here for the full article in Nature*.*

The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed "bad" mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.

*"What we may be seeing is a 'population genetic echo' of the founding of Europe,"* said Bustamante."

Which ties back into the OP you guys are trying to deflect from.


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> Sorry but science says thats not possible.  Now here is the kicker and exactly what I was alluding to by* "white boy"* science meant to attribute great deeds to whites. The image you posted is a fresco done by a white person (*Heinrich von Minutoli,) *in 1820 at the height of the attempt to portray whites as the superior race. Its not the original. Either you are naive or you thought I was.  Here is the real image as done by the Egyptians.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, since you called me "White Boy" I guess it is okay to call you "Black boy" or "Mud Person" the picture was given as REPRESENTATIVE of the* many similar murals*, as you must have read at Wiki. 

A quick review of Seti I graphics shows that to be true and identifiable, even with age damage of some characters. 






See, I don't need to lie to know who I am or what my race has accomplished. It is obvious. 

Other Seti l  pics showing multi race colors:


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but science says thats not possible.  Now here is the kicker and exactly what I was alluding to by* "white boy"* science meant to attribute great deeds to whites. The image you posted is a fresco done by a white person (*Heinrich von Minutoli,) *in 1820 at the height of the attempt to portray whites as the superior race. Its not the original. Either you are naive or you thought I was.  Here is the real image as done by the Egyptians.
> ...


I didnt call you white boy but I dont care what you call me to be honest.

It cant true and correct if its not accurate. So its not a representative. Its a lie. Your race had nothing whatsoever to do with it. You were still being called savages and barbarians by the Greeks during this time. They documented this.

You do realize that Black people come in all shades without any admixture right? I dont get the point of you showing me all the Black people.  It's actually killing your theory.


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> altdata said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



I agree that Black Genes, like AIDS or EBOLA arehard to get rid of, but that isn't what will end any race. It will be the inability of Africans to care for themselves. They have relied on White Aid for all modern history. Most still live as they did thousands of years ago, except their over-breeding will extinguish them. 

Every time White Aid feeds an African mother, it guarantees that the next generation problem will require 6 fold more food. It will soon be unsustainable and most will die. Oh, and by that time every animal in Africa will  have been killed for food. Saving Cecil or the Elephants is a waste of time.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > altdata said:
> ...


You forget that Africans were on this planet thousands of years before whites and will still be here when whites are bred out or die out due to your genetics malfunctioning. You forget that if not for Black people teaching you civilization you would have eaten each other into extinction. Posting white boy charts wont change that fact no matter how much you need to reassure yourself. If you note you are but a drop in the bucket when it comes to world population, recessive and have inherited a problematic gene pool. That chart confirms it. Whats even more amusing is that chart doesnt even factor in the world population of Blacks in India, south america and eastern asia.  You guys have big problems.


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I didnt call you white boy but I dont care what you call me to be honest.
> 
> It cant true and correct if its not accurate. So its not a representative. Its a lie. Your race had nothing whatsoever to do with it. You were still being called savages and barbarians by the Greeks during this time. They documented this.
> 
> You do realize that Black people come in all shades without any admixture right? I dont get the point of you showing me all the Black people.  It's actually killing your theory.



There is no Black Genome.  

The African Genome has a 2.7% range, which is much larger than other continents. Most are around 1% as I recall. Which is the same variation (1%-4%) that separates the average human from Chimpanzees. This could allow for a wide range of "human" colors?

It is counter-intuitive to believe the super dominate Black genes you describe would allow such a radical range of genes. 

BTW, this site is very slow now, as is photobucket now. It is making debate more annoying than usual. I am logging off.


----------



## Asclepias (Oct 8, 2015)

altdata said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I didnt call you white boy but I dont care what you call me to be honest.
> ...


Sorry white boy. There is a Black genome. You dont determine that. We do.

Citing white boy stats is not really going to be productive here. At this point we have a disagreement on reality. I will leave you to yours. You may want to get better internet service so you dont get emotional while posting here.


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> altdata said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...



Thousands of years is a snap of the finger compared to the 3.5 Billion life has been on Earth. It will take complete illiterate idiots to destroy life, but I think Africans are up to the challenge.

The chart confirms only that illiterate over-breeding African maggots will consume every oz of food given to them, while living in their own feces. That is not superiority. LOL


----------



## altdata (Oct 8, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> altdata said:
> 
> 
> > Asclepias said:
> ...




Yeah, Affirm Action and Millennial dumb down has convinced yo pepl dat drugs/hoes/NBA is science.


----------



## Taz (Oct 9, 2015)

If whites are so shit, why are blacks trying to pass themselves off as whiteys?


----------



## altdata (Oct 9, 2015)

Taz said:


> If whites are so shit, why are blacks trying to pass themselves off as whiteys?



Not only are they pretending to be White and marrying White, but the immigrants from the old White colonized World (who evicted White leadership) are following White people to their White Homelands.


----------



## longly (Oct 9, 2015)

Asclepias said:


> I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> 
> This lady is an albino East Indian.
> 
> ...


----------



## irosie91 (Oct 10, 2015)

longly said:


> Asclepias said:
> 
> 
> > I recall about 10 years ago I ran across a site that claimed whites were the descendents of albinos. I wrote it off to  extreme Black supremacy and did not follow up on the claim. Well I found out that the gene responsible for light skin in europeans originated in basically what is India today.  I immediately remembered the claim that I had written off as rhetoric and looked into it. I was astonished to see pictures of albino East Indian people that looked for all the world like white people.  I would love to hear all intelligent thoughts on this issue.
> ...



jskin color is polygenic----   there is no single gene responsible for color of skin EXCEPT in the abnormal state  ALBINISM-------however people we call  "white"  are not albinos.       nope------Londoners are not albinos----nor are scandanavians-----
even I am not an albino------but if I am exposed to sun on a normal summer day---
I burn in less than 20 minutes--------I expect sympathy


----------

