Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 21:22 | #

Thanks for announcing that, James.  That’s a very good site.  I for one learned more paleoanthropology, I think, from that site than from any other.  I hope Fonda adds to it and keeps it up.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 28 Oct 2007 22:00 | #

He’s saying that any such “out of Africa” scenario is far more ancient, and more distantly related to modern humans, than is posited by the out of Africa hypothesis normally bandied about, and that modern humans are much more a product of “plural linages” possessing far more genes from far more ancient, locally-evolved populations than is predicted by the out of Africa hypothesis.
If the multiregional hypothesis is true, and a reason why it is so resisted in the theocracy’s seminaries mislabeled “academia”, is that it would mean race mixing is a more risky experiment than we have heretofore been taught, and that preservation of races is also more important.  (—from the log entry)

This explanation is extremely important and people should understand this.  The race-deniers are hyping the notion that Euros were Negroes thirty to sixty thousand years ago, which is absolutely false on several grounds (just one of many being it’s not known that the northeastern Africans who spread from Africa at that time to provide us today with some of their genes resembled modern West-African Negroes:  they almost certainly didn’t; another is it’s not known when modern West-African Negroes evolved, whether it was before or after modern people spread from northeastern Africa; furthermore it was never the hypothesis that Negroes arrived in Europe but that northeastern-African “modern humans,” whatever they looked like, spread out of Africa and evolved over tens of thousands of years as they slowly spread from place-to-place, finally coming in that short span of time to be transformed into Europeans (hightly doubtful that it could happen so fast, but that was the theory, and it’s now known to be false) — that was the theory, never that “Negroes entered Europe.”  I saw a science special on TV depicting the first modern-human hunters to enter Europe and start to come into conflict with the Neanderthals there.  The actors used were mulatto Negroes dressed in thick furry cold-weather animal skins shown hunting against backgrounds of European forest land.  This was utterly false, ridiculous, PC nonsense in the extreme:  no Negroes, mulattoes, or mulattoids ever entered Europe as the first modern humans even according to the Out of Africa theory.  According to this theory by the time modern humans reached the borders of Europe they had already been changed physically into something very distant from what they had started out as in Africa to something closely resembling today’s Europeans, as a result of their tens of thousands of years of intermediate wandering and evolution). 

Far from us having been Negroes 30K years ago, there are grounds for viewing today’s Euros as possessing consitituent genetics that have been evolving in isolation from Africans for at least 400,000 years and perhaps as long as 700,000 to a million years:  local lineages that had evolved separately from previous ancestors common to the two populations for periods as long as those, local lineages with whom the ‘modern humans’ of the Out-of-Africa hypothesis starting 60K y/a interbred.

The final point is, of course, that even if we were all full-blooded West-Central African Negroes a hundred years ago and somehow got transformed into us by some miracle science didn’t understand, it would make no difference whatsoever to the legitimacy of our opposition to forced race-replacement.  Every race has a genealogy and no matter how it came to be or how remotely or recently, if it wants to stay as it is, and not change back or into any other race, it has that right as much as if it had been here since the earth first formed out of space débris.

Posted by GT on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 00:01 | #

So both theories, Multiregional and Out of Africa, are “Out of Africa.”  The difference between them is the time frame in which our ancestors left Africa.

Posted by required on Mon, 29 Oct 2007 02:06 | #

Fonda’s “Plural Lineages in the Human mtDNA Genome” is wrong/confused, at least on the central issue. The phylogeny of human mtDNA is well-established. M and N lineages derive from L lineages within the past 70,000 years or so, which in turn most likely originate in Africa within the past ~200,000 years. Fonda offers no data or argument that would call the mainstream view into question. Furthermore, Neanderthal mtDNA has consistently been shown to be distinct from that of living humans, while Cro-Magnon samples have been shown to fall within the range of modern Europeans.

Alan Templeton makes a better argument against using mtDNA to prove recent replacement:

As a rule of thumb, the evolutionary tree of genetic variation for a particular DNA region is informative only for the second half of the tree’s time depth. The time depth of the mtDNA tree has been estimated to be around 200-250 KY, implying that mtDNA is informative about human evolution only to about 100-125 KYA. Given that the out of Africa expansion in the replacement model is estimated at around 100 KYA, this event is at the temporal extreme of informative inference from mtDNA. This in turn raises serious logical flaw in using mtDNA to test the replacement hypothesis. Replacement requires that genetic patterns in Eurasia older than 100 KY should have been completely erased. MtDNA can be consistent with the replacement model, but it lacks sufficient temporal depth to detect older events and processes in Eurasia. The detection of such older events is critical to testing the replacement hypothesis. Therefore, although mtDNA has been used as the primary genetic evidence for the out of Africa replacement hypothesis, it is in face inappropriate for testing this hypothesis because it contains little or no information that could possibly falsify the replacement hypothesis. (Human Evolutionary Genetics, p. 261)

Templeton rejects replacement based on his analysis of autosomal DNA.

Even if recent out of Africa with total replacement is correct (which I find unlikely), I don’t see that it should have any bearing on politics. Differences among living humans are what they are, regardless of whether they developed over 100 KY or 500 KY years. If anything, a shorter period of separation might imply stronger selection.

Posted by calvin on Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:25 | #

“Differences among living humans are what they are, regardless of whether they developed over 100 KY or 500 KY years”

We are not talking about differences between humans, if Fonda is right (and his scholarship is convincing) we are talking about differences between humans and hominid/human hybrids.

Fonda’s explanation for the light pigmentation of Eurasians (separate evolution at high altitude) also circumvents the afrocentrist paradox of a population with recessive chromatic genetic traits (blondism, light pigmentation, blue eyes) evolving from a population that possesed the dominant dark chromatic markers that are found in African populations that are, supposedly, the world’s oldest humans. This is impossible.

Posted by required on Thu, 08 Nov 2007 19:48 | #

We are not talking about differences between humans, if Fonda is right (and his scholarship is convincing) we are talking about differences between humans and hominid/human hybrids.

Humans are hominids. If you mean Africans are the product of mixing between “AMH” and “archaic” humans, that’s possible. That possibility changes none of what I said.

Fonda’s explanation for the light pigmentation of Eurasians (separate evolution at high altitude) also circumvents the afrocentrist paradox of a population with recessive chromatic genetic traits (blondism, light pigmentation, blue eyes) evolving from a population that possesed the dominant dark chromatic markers that are found in African populations that are, supposedly, the world’s oldest humans. This is impossible.

I’ll assume you mean “latitude”.

Clearly, evolving fair pigmentation is far from impossible. Genetic evidence suggests light skin evolved independently in Caucasoids and Mongoloids. This is not to say ancestral humans were coal-black (I’m aware of no evidence in that direction), but they weren’t white-skinned either.

Recent genetic evidence has been used to argue for a relatively late origin of light pigmentation in Europe. Personally, I don’t find the very young dates entirely believable. But I doubt the molecular genetic evidence could be made to fit with whatever scenario Fonda is promoting. Nor does the recent sequencing of Neanderthal MC1R (now shown to be distinct from that of Europeans) do much to support his case.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:38 | #

More bad news for Out-of-Africa:  here’s another nail in its coffin (a paper from last August).

Posted by 123 on Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:16 | #

“This is not to say ancestral humans were coal-black (I’m aware of no evidence in that direction), but they weren’t white-skinned either.”

I am always struck by the light skin of negoes underneath their feet, inside their hands, and under their finger nails, whereaas the large apes are black throughout. This leads me to believe, that the original skin colour of negroes must have been light, because those regions of their body, which are not susceptible to the pigmentation due to UV light, remained light. This in turn would conflict with the african origin.

I know, not very scientific, and all research saying otherwise. Just my observation and I would be interested in any expanation.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 17:21 | #

From the “Is John Hawks the Most Shameless Suck-Up to Political Correctness or What?” department:

Read these,

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013133.html ,

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013143.html ,

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013144.html ,

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013148.html ,

then read this,

http://johnhawks.net/node/1975 .

See what you think.  This isn’t the first time he’s done this, far from it.  As far as I’m concerned Hawks’s views are no longer of interest.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 17:49 | #

For more nonsense in a related vein (if you can stomach it), see the links contained in this comment, mainly the last few:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_case_for_a_conspiracy_against_europe/#c71332

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 23:26 | #

This man Neave who does facial reconstructions obviously has a political agenda.  Look at this:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013151.html .

And look at these faces Neave reconstructed from skeletons found in the Mycenaean shaft graves, presumably of Mycenaean nobility no less: 

http://dienekes.50webs.com/arp/pictures/mycenaeanfaces/ :

three of them are dead ringers for South-African Bushmen’s faces and heads (lacking only the beardless faces and the “peppercorn”-type hair of Bushmen) and a fourth is a caricature of a Jewish face:

Only the woman and just one of the men could conceivably be even European (and the man I refer to has a nose a mile wide for some reason), let alone the sort of archaic Greek types of European depicted in surviving Mycenaean artwork.

This man Neave is not an objective researcher.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 07 May 2009 23:29 | #

“Only the woman and just one of the men could conceivably be even European”  (—from my comment above)

On taking a second look, two of the men could be European.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 May 2009 19:05 | #

Auster and a British blogger named Earl Cromer have got the goods on Alice Roberts, Richard Neave, and the upcoming BBC TV special in which we are to be informed that the Europeans of 35,000 years ago were West-Central African Negroes:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013160.html

Where Auster may be mistaken is in his final conclusion to the effect that blond white élites like Alice Roberts and Spencer Wells are trying to persuade white people to bond with non-whites:  what are the ethnicities of the producers and other movers and shakers behind the scenes who have been responsible for creating these kinds of TV specials?  As can be imagined, there are without a doubt many equally well-qualified, equally “photogenic-telegenic” academics who would NOT be so eager to have whites bond with non-whites but might question the whole thing, and that on firm scientific grounds.  Why do we always see the first kind of academic, never the second?  Who is it behind the scenes who makes it that way?  I don’t think it’s Spencer Wells and Alice Roberts, both of whom are tools used by men behind the scenes setting the agenda.  To what extent are these behind-the-scenes individuals European as opposed to Jewish, let’s say (or Subcon, Chinese, etc.)?

All this stuff is not necessarily a case of “Euro-race people doing it to themselves.”  Far from it, I suspect.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 May 2009 23:50 | #

The phenomenon on display in the person (young, attractive, “intellectual” blonde Euro female) and psychology of Alice Roberts, as discussed in the Lawrence Auster entry linked in my last comment, is on display in the person and psychology of Haley Koch, the college student who led the violent demonstration that shut down Tom Tancredo’s talk last month:

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/05/student-who-led-tancredo-protest-may.html

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/05/young-american-liberals-in-africa.html

http://s729.photobucket.com/albums/ww293/haleygoestoafrica/

Camille Paglia once described exactly the fundamentals of this phenomenon, which she had seen all over the place around college campuses in exactly this young female phenotype, but I don’t have a link.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 May 2009 01:52 | #

Here’s Prof. Alice Roberts, the one who’ll soon be informing us we were all West-Central African Negroes 35,000 years ago, explaining the male erection:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIMbsosjRXA .

(Hat tip:  a commenter in this VFR thread:  http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013161.html )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 May 2009 12:21 | #

If only this “we are all one and must take care of each other because it is all one world yadda yadda yadda” cult saw fit to include the white working- or middle-class Christian married heterosexuals with children, etc., in its global embrace, what a wonderful world this would be. Will the pretty Miss Roberts visit a bar in a Pennsylvania steel town next?  Well, of course she won’t, because the one-world bibble-babble is all about destroying traditional white societies in favor of the new internationalist elite and their multitudinous brown playthings […].

( http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013160.html )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 16 May 2009 00:02 | #

“n/a” (aka “Northerner”) weighs in on the Haley Koch/Prof. Alice Roberts phenomenon (see comments above):

”I happen to have seen the BBC program (a complete waste of time, incidentally).  Alice Roberts evinced zero attraction to any African—though she did seem quite taken with a (muscular/tattooed) white American scientist.  Looking at the Haley Koch photos, I similarly see no evidence the girl is attracted to black men.  She seems to be traveling with a (white) boyfriend.  If she had any desire to fuck congoids, she wouldn’t need to go to Africa to do so (likewise for Alice Roberts […]).  Mind you, I find the politics these two promote repulsive and I agree a healthy society would generally keep women on shorter leashes.  A certain degree of paranoia is probably healthy, but the pathological need to attribute these women’s actions to an ‘erotic fixation on Africa’ rests on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the world.  More plausibly, these two view Africans as children and/or tokens in a status game.”

( http://racehist.blogspot.com/2009/05/austermangan-faggotry.html )

With JWH completely off the radar, Dienekes having revealed himself a hopelessly pathetic Europe-denying dagoe, Prof. John Hawks vying just as hard as he can, every single day of his life, for the title Mr. Politically Correct Universe 2009, Peter Frost posting stuff that could pass for something written by the Honorable Elijah Muhammed with effusive praise from Martin Bernal, Heidi Beirich, and Morris Disease ( http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/05/first-european.html ), the repulsive Carl Zimmer a typical Jewish race-denier and cultural marxoid, and GnXp.com an anti-white Desi cesspool I’ve refused to set foot in since 2002, I think I’ll start logging onto “n/a’s” site for my regular biology fix:

http://racehist.blogspot.com/ .

The guy’s an especially unpleasant, surly nordicist — picture Desmond Jones with a degree in population genetics, on a really bad hair day, on steroids, trying to cope with ‘roid rage in the middle of a godawful migraine, who’s just gotten solicited at his front door by an Irish Catholic, an Italian, and a Jew going door-to-door asking for donations for a Canadian taxpayer-subsidized outfit called “Ukrainian Canadians United Against Xenophobia, Racism, Anti-Semitism, and WASP Hegemony,” and you’ll have an idea what this guy is like 24/7 — but my impression is his blog is a better read than some of the above.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Sat, 16 May 2009 20:14 | #

Thanks Freddie. It’s an honour to be placed in the company of such an esteemed, erudite Yankee gentleman.

Celebrate gentlemen of WN persuasion. It was 85 years ago tomorrow, May 17, 1924, when the “fighting Irish” of Notre Dame, our white brothers from another mother, the “real” Americans, fought for truth, justice and the American way.

The race-replacement that shall not be named.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 23 May 2009 19:51 | #

In a comment in a thread over at Peter Frost’s,

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3734925856292601239&postID=3408512414530409117 ,

Peter Frost writes,

The shift to a more European phenotype is placed by Holliday (1997) at around 20,000 BP— during the last ice age and well after the arrival of modern humans.

and

‘Negroid’ populations seem to have originated in West Africa as a later evolutionary development, perhaps in association with the advent of female-dominated agriculture about 10,000 years ago in the Upper Niger valley.

By this view, the idea that Euros used to be Negroes can’t be true since Euros have been around twenty thousand years and Negroes ten:  if Negroes first came into existence ten thousand years after Euros did, Euros cannot ever have been Negroes.

Previously, Frost had a paper at his site setting forth the view that there didn’t use to be Negroes until one branch of pygmies turned into them twleve thousand years ago, and that’s where they originally came from:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/kinship_and_fertility/#c55570 .

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 25 May 2009 15:50 | #

“J the Israeli Water Engineer” can’t keep his Jewish Nation-Destroying Pro-Miscegenation Gene under control:

http://h2oreuse.blogspot.com/2009/05/african-genes-in-ancient-greece.html .

I guess sooner or later it had to come out, J — we understand, it’s beyond your control.  We don’t blame you — “What’s bred in the bone breeds true in the flesh.”  Notice “J” doesn’t specify that Jews are really Negroes and therefore shouldn’t object to Negro immigration into Israel, only that Greeks are, and shouldn’t into Greece, then he implicitly chides Dienekes for being “emotionally invested in this subject.”  Gee I wonder what made him do that?

Latté Island, in the comments under J’s log entry, is a Jew who seems to have gotten her Jewish Nation-Destroying-and-Miscegeneering-Gene sorted out — appears to be controlling it rather than letting it control her.  Could J maybe ... visit her site more often? 

You know, it’s like people with alcoholism in the family, they have to go through life on their guard against getting hooked on the stuff.  You let your guard down for just one moment and that alcohol-craving gene could start expressing itself. 

J looks like he’s let his guard down ...