Here are some facts

Here are some facts that might disturb you:
>The purest human populations are all indigenous Sub-Saharan African
>Every other population has significant Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture (literally less pure)
>Neanderthal DNA is maladaptive, and people with more of it have worse health outcomes (science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/737)
>Denisovan DNA is found at relatively high levels in East Asians and contains traces of very primitive (Homo erectus) DNA
>East Asians are closer to Oceanian population (including Aborigines and Papuans) than either group is to any other major population on Earth, including South Asians, Africans, and Europeans
>All modern Europeans are the result of race-mixing between at least 4 major ancestral groups, and possibly more
>Russian DNA is on average more than 5% East-Asian-related, and this ancestry is found in Estonia, Finland, Hungary, and Eastern Europe as well

How does this make you feel, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Rm5HvG-aeFo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

aryan.

yeah but whites weren't made organically they came to be artificially. Havent you heard of the viking and there thousand year breeding spree

Makes me feel like your definition of "pure" leads to being a nigger. I think you need to change the recipe.

If east asians have so much neanderthal DNA, why are they continuously proven to have IQs ABOVE that of even whites; where as blacks on average have lesser IQs.

Neanderthal DNA is not associated with lower IQ, but a variety of other disease risks and shortened lifespan. East Asians don't have especially much; the highest percentages are among Amerindians, and some Europeans come close.

This is what we call "post hoc" reasoning. Try again.

>Russian DNA is on average more than 5% East-Asian-related, and this ancestry is found in Estonia, Finland, Hungary, and Eastern Europe as well

That explains Russia facial features.

Aboriginals are Aryan

New Sup Forums meme?

>>East Asians are closer to Oceanian population (including Aborigines and Papuans) than either group is to any other major population on Earth, including South Asians, Africans, and Europeans
This just means they have less genetic diversity, i.e., more inbreeding in the past. Which is obvious if you simply look at how phenotypically un-diverse the Chinese are.

>Russian DNA is on average more than 5% East-Asian-related
'East-Asian-related' here means 'Finnic'. Again, it's very obvious that northern Russia and Finland share the same genetic heritage.

That whites evolved and bred with beneficial genes and Africans are at an evolutionary stagnation point.

Now OP is so dumb that he thinks if we just race mix everyone, it'll all be better AKA introduce non-beneficial genes into a good gene pool.

t. smart guy

ofc tyrone shekelbergstein

Are you actually trying to make a point ? Your reasoning is this Sub-Saharan=A+A+A gene pool and this is somehow good, whereas European = A+B+C gene pool which is somehow bad.
>The purest human populations are all indigenous Sub-Saharan African
Calling something pure is not an argument. Pure in no way makes something better. If the smartest brother and sister in the world inbreed their genes might be "pure" but the offspring will be fucked.
>Every other population has significant Neanderthal and Denisovan admixture (literally less pure)
Calling something primative is again subjective and has no quantitative meaning, what does "pureness" signify ?
>very primitive (Homo erectus) DNA
Calling something primitive is subjective and has no quantitative meaning.
You literally have no argument. You might as well be arguing that whites are less "insert nigger slang here"

Thanks for coming out though Jerome.

>That whites evolved and bred with beneficial genes and Africans are at an evolutionary stagnation point.
It's the other way around, 'whites' is the original and most diverse human genetic stock. Africans are an offshoot of 'whites' that went to Africa to inbreed.

(Look at some African documentaries, it's uncanny how every member of a tribe will have the same facial features.)

>This just means they have less genetic diversity
Err, no, this is not what it means. East Asia as a population cluster is fairly diverse; phenotypical trends or your perception of them do not relate underlying genetic relationships. Genetics does.

Oceanians and East-Asians plot closely because they have recent shared ancestry and similar patterns of non-human introgression. Simple as that.

>Again, it's very obvious that northern Russia and Finland share the same genetic heritage.
And again, Sup Forums's obsession with morphology rears its head. Is it obvious that Magyars have traces of this ancestry? Does it even matter how "obvious" it is?

its true though
they're the darkest of the white race

>How does this make you feel, Sup Forums?
I feel a strong urge to

SINK
THE
CHINKS

Can't be very much of a smart guy with an argument like that.

>bred with beneficial genes
Here's when I knew not to invest much effort in this reply, in case you were curious

To be pure shit isn't exactly a compliment.

Yes Africans should have been wiped out like the Amerindians from competing hominids. The only reason they are still around is their usefulness as the perfect slave race. Even if there was no competition with them, the African population should be much smaller. The only thing keeping them alive in the numbers that exist is food aid, medical aid, and the constant militarily interventions were we stop them from killing each other off.

>Calling something pure is not an argument.
I thought Sup Forums had a hard-on for purity? The entire 80-year-old Nazi propaganda you brandish is based on it! Also I like your use of the "not an argument" cliche; hard to strike a balance between cringey and classy, but you made it work!

>Pure in no way makes something better.
Race-mixing when?

>Calling something primative is again subjective and has no quantitative meaning
Actually, it has a very specific meaning. It means that the group in question speciated earlier or deviated from a line of common descent before the other members did. Homo erectus is objectively primitive compared to Homo sapiens.

>what does "pureness" signify ?
Percentage of Homo sapiens sapiens DNA. I don't know that I can dumb this down any further, it's pretty clear-cut.

This is "WE WUZ"-tier. Please be bait.

Here's a fun time to drop another fact I missed in the OP:
>There is more genetic diversity in Sub-Saharan Africa alone than in all of the rest of the world combined, because it contains the two most basal offshoots of humanity (pygmy-affiliated (Mbuti, Baka) and Bushman affiliated (Khoi, San))
>"Black" or "African" is as much a race as "human" or "non-African" is

Purity is good when its something good pure gold > pure shit.

I'm not surprised at the low IQ responses I'm receiving. What, are you all black or something? *chuckles*

If SSA are pure shit, aren't all other humans on average 98% shit?

>implying humans aren't majority shit

Sub-Saharan Africans aren't humans, they're a primitive hominin species.

Makes me feel based as fuck to be honest with you famalam.

DNA test came back a while ago and I'm 95% British Isles, 5% Scandinavian. Ancestors were Scottish. Feels bretty gud.

We already know this you god damned newfag.

Feels like (((THEY))) are trying to push what is "pure" and you like a good goy are believing it.

Clearly some groups did it right and others didn't, if that's what resulted in modern white people and almost the entire array of modern technology.

>Sub-Saharan Africans aren't humans, they're a primitive hominin species.

Wh..... What?

Nigga, do you.... What?

Why the fuck are you in trinidad

Because neanderthals were high IQ autists.

youtube.com/watch?v=Rm5HvG-aeFo

So again, who is to say that being from a later line of descent makes something better ? The crocodile genes are largely unchanged for 200 million years and it remains the top of it's food chain.

And so if the ideal make up for a human to be dominant is a combination of homo erectus and homosapien DNA and history proves this to be the case then why is this not better ?

And if this is the specific formula require to make one "pure white" than I guess that is the winning formula now isn't it ?

You definition of pure is that of "pure homo sapien" well I guess being "pure white" is slightly more beneficial given the empirical data all around you now isn't it ?

nigger what

the longest lived people on earth are Japanese
highest IQ too
10% of Europeans are immune to HIV because of a recessive gene (CCR5)
etc etc etc

when will you accept that niggers are simply inferior?

Except 'homosapien' wasn't created UNTIL cro-mags mated with Neanderthals. The result is modern humans.

Read a fucking book, shitskin.

>>Neanderthal DNA is maladaptive, and people with more of it have worse health outcomes

Despite health complications, there was an advantage to having Neanderthal admixture. Neanderthals had lager brains.

>Denisovan DNA is found at relatively high levels in East Asians and contains traces of very primitive (Homo erectus) DNA

Denisovan DNA is promiment in South East Asians, not East Asians.

>Except 'homosapien' wasn't created UNTIL cro-mags mated with Neanderthals. The result is modern humans.
Y-you're joking, r-right?

>
History wasn't proving this literally anytime before 500 years ago, Europe was a backwards ass place, don't even get me started on GERMANIA

Matter of fact, didn't Europe just take a bunch of gunpowder from the chinese, sail around on their bitch-ass boats with their hoe ass Lateen (ARAB) sails, head west, kill a bunch of savages, and be all around dicks?

>Read a fucking book

You first, retard.

South Asia, East Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East were all more advanced than Europe in every way for almost all of human history. Sup Forumstard ignorance dies hard.

And what were your sub-Saharan Africans doing at the time ?

I'll give you a hint, they are still doing it.

Doesn't matter, your claim that "whites" are culturally superior is myopic and completely demolished by the facts of history. Several "non-white" cultures were almost continuously superior to Europe in almost every measure, and the only Europeans who could compete (Romans and Greeks) are not even very closely related to Western/Northern Europeans who are considered the archetype of "white"ness.

>he didnt overcome his own genetic boundaries and blames all his failures and successes on genes

And yet, Sub-Sahara Africa never developed.

I don't give a shit.

If you don't think this is some foxy nigger, then there is something wrong with you, or maybe you're just racist.

It did produce the Sahelian kingdoms and almost produced civilization a few times, most notably in Zimbabwe. It also developed agriculture indigenously a few separate times and developed proto-writing a few separate times as well. Also, Egyptians and other North Africans definitely had (and have) African admixture, and some important figures in Egyptian history were known to be mostly SSA ancestry (Nubian).

Sounds like a logical argument, I better call tyrone a nigger now

And by that logic, only subsaharan africans could be considered inferior, not anyone who has more melanin than you, and we know for a fact (from history) that whites aren't interested in figuring out intricate differences in others that are not similar to them

It means pure humans are shit.

>Neanderthal DNA makes us smart and beautiful
pretty ok desu, breh.

Oh, I'm familiar with Egyptians being multiracial by our modern standards. I think both kangz and vikangz are stupid, and neither can lay claim to it. So, I'm not here to play that game, and I hope you aren't either.

We are here about Sub-Saharan Africa, not north Africa. It produced cultures for sure, but for what ever reason they did not make civilization despite being in a place that would allow for it. Also, there is unknown archaic hominid genes in sub-Saharan Africans, so they too are not "pure". Not that it really matters to me, it is what it is and isn't really a superior or inferior question; each group has evolved to adapt to their environment, and those environments developed wildly different peoples.

Makes me glad as fuck my ancestors traveled out of Africa and mixed with other sub species so I don't have a 70 IQ.

God damn newfags baiting the fucking Slavs and Germans.

We already know that Eastern Europeans act like niggers.

>purest
In what way?

I agree with everything you said, but it's difficult to ascertain which African populations have ancient hominid admixture and from which groups. Overall it seems they are still, collectively, the most "human" human population on Earth today (least deviation from Homo sapiens sapiens DNA).

I am of the opinion that if Africa had more time to itself, it would have produced advanced civilization in the next few thousand or even hundred years, particularly in the extreme South, West, and East. The descendants of Bantu travelers had to cover lots of land with relatively few people, and this puts a strain on attempts to found civilization. It took Amerindians more than 7k years after peopling the Americas to establish any civilization, and Africa had been pretty sparsely populated before Bantu expansion and the arrival of farming with it.

Sauce.

>oh, OP content?

The purity of a gene pool equates to an avoidance of new genetic drifts and is what the phrase means generally. You know this. The rest of your argument is bait.

Not exactly, I used the subsaharans because it was his opening point about them being the "purest" implying somehow that their pureness (by his measure) is somehow a qualifier for racial superiority.

It is a strawman argument to imply that because I used that example, only they could be considered inferior.

Subsaharan is his prime example for "pureness".
The items are mutually exclusive.

I suppose it's not as clear-cut as purity, then.

Wonder what it is that makes niggers nig and whitey not nig?

Why are sub saharans so stupid violent and lazy?

A specific sequencing of ATC and G. We want to generally preserve that sequencing as whites are unique in some facets of talent.

We really can't be totally sure until we know what it was they mated with. Honestly, I don't see the trouble. It's fascinating prehistory, who we preserved in our genes.

Really, it's like playing a strategy game. They lost, but they weren't eliminated either. Now, they get to create a past for their descendants, if they would like to.

Personally I'm more interested in what the coasts hide. The last glacial has many treasures beneath the sea...

Despite the fundamental irrationality of these movements, they have often masqueraded as the essence of scientific or philosophical objectivity. They have all sought the aura of science.

>Lateen (ARAB) sails
The west invented square rigging, which was far more important to the age of sail.

Hey, I don't feel so bad.

My genes are really good. I've never heard of anyone in my family getting cancer. My great-grandmother lived to 92. My mother looks so young people ask if she's my sister. My father's answer to sickness is "drink more water." Me and my siblings are all fairly attractive. I can trace myself to an all-white bloodline back to 1618 when my 10th-great grandfather was born in England.

I live miles away from a town of 2,000 people. We're pretty secluded here, but we're all white. Our ancestors liked this place because the climate was similar to what they were used to back in Europe.

I'm only 19, but I hope I can do some good for our race one day, guys. I'm just a little too young to feel like I'm ready to.

>things that never happened

nope

>Europeans are the only ones who got the mix right.

Niggers are not even homo erectus

nogs have shorter lifespan