Our DNA is 99% similar to chimps, fellow goys!

youtube.com/watch?v=IbY122CSC5w

Evolutionists will defend this lie perpetrated by ScienceTM and (((the media))).

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7244649
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105033441802
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf
news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf
youtu.be/uz5igS5n720?t=6m35s
youtube.com/watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U
youtube.com/watch?v=u0Fx6gpl2gI
youtube.com/watch?v=cPmfVcwoM2A
medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(09)00537-4/abstract
goodrumj.com/Mayr.html
nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs
unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html
nytimes.com/2006/03/12/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622
jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html
pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/29/1109300108
nature.com/news/2011/110905/full/news.2011.518.html
colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

t. underagefag

Your dna is 50% similar to a banana if you see the banana cells they are almost equal to yours

...

this
It's the driver not the car.

niggers are 100%

Evolution: it proves it's assumptions by making assumptions.

And what do you beilive? Some magic man in the sky created you? Fuck off.

...

So no one will address the info clearly presented in this simple 3 min video? Good to know you evolutionists have no defense against this.

if you really believe that then don't take antibiotics or eat anything that you didn't grow

>Hopefully this thread drops off so we don't have to face the lies of evolution.

Explains why jews are always so hairy and have tiny penises

Creotard Science-Hater detected.

Call me anti-Semitic too, it will change the facts in the video, goy.

Cats have 90% of our DNA
Cows have 80%
You seeing something OP?

Humanns don't have the same DNA(100%). We share 99% DNA with fellow humans. So are humans not descendents from humans?

Watch the 3 min video. If they lied about us sharing 99% of our DNA with chimps, why would I believe that cats share 90% of our DNA?

All it takes is 1%.

>letting christfags be in charge of science
The sequences of DNA are 99% similar, the order at which the sequences occur aren't. Read a fucking book.

1% can make a big difference

>Literally won't watch a 3 min video that exposes the lies.

>Mutations

Haha bullshit. Evolution is such a load of crap.

I am anti-Semitic. The jews hate Darwinism..

It isn't a lie; it's a misunderstanding of what is said. 99% of DNA is COMMON between humans and chimps, it just isn't ordered correctly. This is already common knowledge in the scientific community, and everyone who can read a book.

O-

>what is genetic recombination
>what is crossing over
>what is random fertilization
>what is random assortment of chromosomes during mitosis

Mutations are NOT the only mechanism of genetic diversity, lol.

First of all, thanks for actually addressing this topic and not avoiding it. Second, we've all read Biology and Evolution books, so stop acting like you're the only one who has discovered the knowledge hidden within books.

The issue is the lie that 99% of our DNA code is identical to that of chimps. When have you ever heard the scientific establishment tell you that "Oh, actkually it's just not ordered correctly, but it still counts as 99% identical." If I were to write 2 scripts of code with billions of letters, but significantly alter the order of one, would you think that they are for all intents and purposes virtually identical?

What's your argument against it besides "This seems unreasonable".

Do you have any studies or anything at all to cite which refutes the fact that humans and chips share common DNA?

>we've all read Biology and Evolution books, so stop acting like you're the only one who has discovered the knowledge hidden within books.
What do mean by "we"?

>If I were to write 2 scripts of code with billions of letters, but significantly alter the order of one, would you think that they are for all intents and purposes virtually identical?
Genes, sections of DNA, remain 99% the same among humans and chimps, but they are ordered differently; I don't understand how that is hard to understand. You analogy doesn't work, because you compare two entire genomes as scripts; instead, a genome is a computer with a collection of scripts, and the scripts have individual functions. A script will change when it's code is altered the same way a gene would. A organism doesn't change as drastically if a single gene is changed, as Windows is still Windows, even if you was to recode a small portion of it. Your analogy is flawed.

My argument is that the 99% figure is as much of a lie as the 97% consensus on global warming figure. If the true number is, say, 73% of our DNA we share with chimps, then why not just tell us that and not inflate the percentage so as to make us goys think that we are just 1% off from our nearest living relative.

As for sources, see the references in the video's description.

A better way to put it would to compare species to OS's (again with the technology theme). Linux and Mac are both derived from Unix, and they share code with each other, but the code is fashioned in a way to produced different results, the results being two different OS's.

Also, that includes "junk DNA" which are genes that are thought to be inactive. Except for full sequencing, geneticists usually only look at the exome, which are the genes known to be active or activatable. We have very little in common with other species there.

We as in most people who have an interest in Science and not ScienceTM.

The sections of DNA that are ordered differently ARE the changes, and all those changes should add up to more and 1% deviation, but they aren't counted as changes, so the 99% figure remains. If the researchers were honest, any change within the base pairs or even on the chromosomal level would count as changes. Hell, humans (minus downies) have 23 chromosomes while chimps have 24. That alone isn't 99% identical, is it?

Thanks again for the open discussion by the way, user.

I have a question for you: why Christian fundamentalists love the jews and Israel so much?

>OMG race realism is real I love science
>LMAO (((peer reviewed))) actual science is not real because it disagrees with my agenda

Literally nobody can at this point convince me that the Right is right

You can't even understand the facts in that video you mongoloid troll. Even grade schoolers know we are not descended from chimps and that we are quite far removed from our common ancestors (as far as species go).
don't try using logic on it. It'll hurt its brain.
>why would I believe
You wouldn't because this is not about belief. And you clearly lack the intellectual capacity for anything beyond it.

>look at this unsourced bullshit graph
If we were different species, race mixing to produce fertile babies would not occur, fashcuck
t. biochemist
>1 allele disproves genetic relations
Again, wrong
Again, the Left is right, every right-winger that denies evolution just convinces me that the redpill is on the opposite side of the spectrum

I dont understand what OP is trying to imply. I watched the video and it was interesting. The video in no way denies evolution at all

I don't think he's trying to contradict evolution but the lie that relatively small genetic differences among humans mean ethnic egalitarianism.

Because even they believe the lies of the Jews after so much media indoctrination.

This topic is beyond your IQ, pleb. Leave now and never come back.

It's from an evolutionary point of view, and even they admit the lies within modern Darwinism. Why lie at all is my point.

>If we were different species, race mixing to produce fertile babies would not occur, fashcuck
We are Human, but not the same species. We are like dogs. A german shepard is a dog. A Boston terrier is a dog. They are not even close to the same. They are both specialized for different jobs based on FORCED evolultion. They can interbreed and the offspring will not be sterile.

That process will create a breed that is not specialized in either of the parents "jobs".

"Forced" evolution of dogs is very similar to the isolation that afrikans had for all that time. Why do we leave indigenous people in the jungles of south america, but we think that afrikans are a-ok to shower with western trinkets?

Protip: Afrikans will always be the slaves of the world. It is not intentional, but incidental based on their cognitive ability. See bell curve, which is PROVEN. You cannot dispute PROVEN science.

>We as in most people who have an interest in Science and not ScienceTM.
That's funny, because you call evolution a lie.
>The sections of DNA that are ordered differently ARE the changes, and all those changes should add up to more and 1% deviation, but they aren't counted as changes, so the 99% figure remains.
The 99% percent figure comes from looking at the genome from a modular perceptive (which is reasonable), not as singular list of GTCA. If we did do the latter, the commonality between humans near 0%, because no one's list of DNA is completely the same, only the genes are. I agree, it is dishonest to only state this and not that the order as changed, but the statement itself isn't wrong.
>Thanks again for the open discussion by the way, user.
You too; discussion about science is rare without someone going flat-earther tier about it.

Leftists are just as if not more in denial about science, granted about different topics. It insidious, because unlike the majority religious right, the left essentially controls what is told as truth within the scientific community. We have our retards like (AKA supremacists that pick and choose parts of race realism that they like or misrepresent information like his graph to make some point), but leftists are no better.

Only the creationist Christian Zionist "Right".
But nowadays the greatest obstacle to Evolutionary Biology is the Left.

Bell Curve is not proven... but anyone who disproves it does so with little contradictory evidence.

The fact is low estimates put variation in IQ at 25% heritable, higher ones 81%, neither of which are insignificant. So if you have mostly low IQ ancestors, you are more likely to have a low IQ.

>It's from an evolutionary point of view, and even they admit the lies within modern Darwinism. Why lie at all is my point.
It wasn't a lie, just a simplification. None of this was ever a secret or hidden at any time.

>That's funny, because you call evolution a lie.

Well, we've all taken different paths in life, and from my years of research in a whole host of topics, I've come to the conclusion that Darwinistic Evolution has no place in true science. I won't be able to convince you of this in one Sup Forums thread, if ever, but I can only hope that more people as inquisitive as you seem to be might realize the impossible complexity within even a single cell. There are a myriad of mechanistic processes (and metadata like DNA) that go on at nanoscopic level that it's not possible, in my eyes, that they developed naturally over time.

>So if you have mostly low IQ ancestors, you are more likely to have a low IQ.
This is the proven part. It is not definite, as there is outliers...But the concept is exactly as you put it....You really can't get much further from your parents in most cases. "The fruit never falls far from the tree".

>None of this was ever a secret or hidden at any time.

Go ask any random person how similar our DNA is to that of our closest living relative, the chimp. If they say 99% similar, then there just might to a suppression of new evidence to the contrary. Just like global warming and the 97% "consensus."

The christian fanatic calling others stupid...
Go roast a baby you larper. And if you don't get that, you should go read a history book. But knowing you you'd probably put that on a fire too.

Not only these nanomachines like the motor protein you posted can be generated by darwinian algorithmic processes but also our behavior.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7244649

>We are Human, but not the same species.
Massive b8 but biting.

>We are like dogs. A german shepard is a dog. A Boston terrier is a dog. They are not even close to the same.
Except they are the same species of dog.

>They are both specialized for different jobs based on FORCED evolultion. They can interbreed and the offspring will not be sterile.
Literally just explained to everyone reading your post why your analogy is fallacious.

>"Forced" evolution of dogs is very similar to the isolation that afrikans had for all that time.
Natural selection =/ Artificial selection.

> Why do we leave indigenous people in the jungles of south america, but we think that afrikans are a-ok to shower with western trinkets?
Because of circumstance. Why does this matter/contribute to your "argument"?

>See bell curve, which is PROVEN. You cannot dispute PROVEN science.
I read the Bell Curve, and I agree with what is said, but it is not "proven" by any means.

>the impossible complexity within even a single cell. There are a myriad of mechanistic processes (and metadata like DNA) that go on at nanoscopic level that it's not possible
In what way is it "impossible".

>in my eyes
Sorry friend, but you just destroyed your argument. There is a reason why people write argumentative papers without the use of personal pronouns. Never say "it seems to me" or similar, because that is an easy way to devalue your theory. Darwinism makes more sense than the assumption that God made everything. What is God, why/how does he exist. Until you answer these questions, it's best to leave him out of science. I'm not even a fedora, I'm practically a /x/-tard, but God/gods shouldn't be applied to science, as it leaves too many assumptions.

...

Race is real.

Christianity is cancer. Evolution is real and does explain race. If you deny evolution you have no reason to believe race is real at all.

Well, I'm not going to speak for others, like people who write argumentative papers do. Here's the data, come to your own conclusions. I'm not going to tell you what to think.

...

...

Never said it wasn't, dipshit.

So be it.

If user replaced the term god with an all powerful alien creator being would that be more palatable to you?

Race and Genetics:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/
nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM200105033441802
ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/posters/chromosome/sca.shtml
charlesdarwinresearch.org/TaxonomicConstruct.pdf
news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_Differences_in_Intelligence_(book)
psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/n&n 2005-1.pdf

not sure what you are arguing about then?

...

This.

Anger denotes your inability to keep up with or add anything of use to the discussion. Recess is over now, back to class.

Steven Pinker: "There is a widespread myth that there is no such thing as race whatsoever, that it's purely a social construction"

youtu.be/uz5igS5n720?t=6m35s

Do human Races Exist - with Professor Henry Harpending

youtube.com/watch?v=c4cxOT8Kd7U

Program from Norwegian TV

Both race deniers and race believers are interviewed and their views are matched against one another

Subjects covered: Reality of Race, Racial IQ Differences

>Brainwash 6:7 - Race (part 1/3)

youtube.com/watch?v=u0Fx6gpl2gI

youtube.com/watch?v=cPmfVcwoM2A
If I could be a a nigger for a day, I could live my life the free and easy way...

>Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications

The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies.

medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877(09)00537-4/abstract

>The Biology of Race and the Concept of Equality
>Ernst Mayr, 2002

There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

>Scientists from the Beijing Genomics Institute last month discovered another striking instance of human genetic change. Among Tibetans, they found, a set of genes evolved to cope with low oxygen levels as recently as 3,000 years ago. This, if confirmed, would be the most recent known instance of human evolution.

>Many have assumed that humans ceased to evolve in the distant past, perhaps when people first learned to protect themselves against cold, famine and other harsh agents of natural selection. But in the last few years, biologists peering into the human genome sequences now available from around the world have found increasing evidence of natural selection at work in the last few thousand years, leading many to assume that human evolution is still in progress.

nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

>It was a triumphant moment for the young scientist. He was up for tenure and his research was being featured in back-to-back articles in the country's most prestigious science journal. Yet today, Dr. Lahn says he is moving away from the research. "It's getting too controversial," he says.

>What Dr. Lahn told his audience was that genetic changes over the past several thousand years might be linked to brain size and intelligence. He flashed maps that showed the changes had taken hold and spread widely in Europe, Asia and the Americas, but weren't common in sub-Saharan Africa.

>Yet Dr. Lahn, who left China after participating in prodemocracy protests, says intellectual "police" in the U.S. make such questions difficult to pursue.

online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115040765329081636-T5DQ4jvnwqOdVvsP_XSVG_lvgik_20060628.html?mod=blogs

>"Human races are evolving away from each other," Harpending says. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity." He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, "and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then."

unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html

>In a study of East Asians, Europeans and Africans, Dr. Pritchard and his colleagues found 700 regions of the genome where genes appear to have been reshaped by natural selection in recent times. In East Asians, the average date of these selection events is 6,600 years ago.

>Many of the reshaped genes are involved in taste, smell or digestion, suggesting that East Asians experienced some wrenching change in diet. Since the genetic changes occurred around the time that rice farming took hold, they may mark people's adaptation to a historical event, the beginning of the Neolithic revolution as societies switched from wild to cultivated foods.

>Some of the genes are active in the brain and, although their role is not known, may have affected behavior. So perhaps the brain gene changes seen by Dr. Pritchard in East Asians have some connection with the psychological traits described by Dr. Nisbett.

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1

>Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622

>“How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, Formula can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is Formula ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ∼20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, Formula ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.

>Except they are the same species of dog.
Then why does the AKC reconize them as different breeds?

Sure same species. Different breeds. Canis lupis, but totally different in all aspects.

>Natural selection =/ Artificial selection.
Focus on the small stuff, and miss the big picture. We forced dogs to fit out needs. Dogs are very receptive to eugenics.

Negros in afrika developed to be specialized. They never had to leave the riches of their continent. They never had want. they never had a reason to think about the day after tomorrow, because it was the same as today. Riches of food were readily available. Therefore, they evolved to have little forethought.

However, unlike dogs africans ARE different genetically than other "breeds". Neanderthal DNA exists in EVERY "breed" except africans.

This shows that we have the advantage of a different "breed" that may only be 2% or less, but is still different.

Evolution of the brain has been the ultimate survival mechanism. Strong backs only work for so long. You need to see into the future to know what to do now, and unfortunately afrikans seem to be lacking in that department.

Somehow whites with their neanderthal dna were able to plan for winters, domesticate crops and beasts. Cool "science" things like the WHEEL were discovered....

The fucking WHEEL. Afrikans were carrying shit on their heads up until a few decades ago. HOLY FUCK.

They may be the same species, but not the same breed. This applies to many "breeds" across the world....Most scientists see 4 "breeds" and are very distinguishable by their skeletons.

Subsaharan Niggers are a different species. But it is not politically correct to say that.

Neanderthal Natural selection was caused by winter, failing crops and overpopulation.

Afrikan natural selection was when motherfuckers get run down by a hippo or a lion or killed and eaten by their tribe for stealing some bread.

It's only retarded protestants who deny evolution.

No, because both are based on assumptions. Both can exist,h owever, god is way less likely. I am a believer in string theory and multi-verse, so God resting on the 6th dimension seems reasonably plausible; my quarrel is with how God is defined, and that the traditional view of him is contradictory of what is already proven. Even so, I don't have the answers, never do Christianity, Islam, or Kikeism.

>Sure same species.
Ok, you say that we are humans but we aren't the same species, compare us with dog breeds even though dog breeds are the same species, then agree that they are. Either you got caught up on what exactly we are arguing about, or you are really retarded.

>Negros in afrika developed to be specialized.
No. that's not how evolution and natural selection works. Nature doesn't "develop" based on what she wants. Artificial selection is way more powerful in getting genetic changes than natural selection could ever be.

>But it is not scientifically correct to say that.
ftfy

Any inactive holdovers from the past are discounted. Just because the gene is still floating around in there, doesn't mean it's actually doing anything. They are honestly irrelevant.
It would be like listing your old truck for sale, and including the old engine braking system as a selling feature. Sure, it's all still there, but none of it is hooked up to anything. And you can't hook it back up, even if you own the truck.
For people asking, that analogy right there is probably the reason we don't list the inactive genes in some kind of 'disclaimer' with the research. It's difficult to explain in a way that makes sense and is meaningful/accurate. It muddies the waters, and takes attention away from the data that actually matters.

>suppression
There was no suppression. This info was publicly available.

>Just like global warming and the 97% "consensus."
oh boy

thats bullshit thought I'd say 90% of all christians deny evolution just because you personally dont doesn't mean that the majority doesn't. Its extremely dishonest to say shit like that. Most arguments christians on this board use the same anecdotal evidence and logic as do leftist when pointing at racial differences. They assume because a few outliers exist that niggers have the possibility to be just like whites when they don't.

Blacks from families with incomes of more than $100,000 had a mean SAT score that was 85 points below the mean score for whites from all income levels, 139 points below the mean score of whites from families at the same income level, and 10 points below the average score of white students from families whose income was less than $10,000.

jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

Genetic evidence for archaic admixture in Africa

pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/29/1109300108

nature.com/news/2011/110905/full/news.2011.518.html

>Many people believe that a bad social environment is a major contributor to crime. They believe that if people of all races had the same education, income, and social status, there would be no race differences in crime rates. Academic research, however, shows that these differences persist even after controlling for social variables.

Figures 14 through 17 show correlations for the 50 states and Washington, DC, between rates of violent crime reported to the police in 2002 and different social factors. In all the charts, the highest point is Washington, DC. A positive correlation can vary from zero to one, and the steeper the trend line, the higher the correlation and the stronger the association. The graph with the steepest trend line and highest correlation, Figure 14, compares violent crime rates to the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic. The other graphs show that there are relationships between violent crime and other social factors, but the correlations are much weaker.

In fact, the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic accounts for crime rates more than four times better than the next best measure: lack of education. Furthermore, even controlling for all three measures of social disadvantage hardly changes the correlation between racial mix and crime rates. The correlation between violent crime and the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic is 0.78 even when poverty, education, and unemployment are controlled, versus 0.81 when they are not. In layman’s terms, the statistical results suggest that even if whites were just as disadvantaged as blacks and Hispanics the association between race and violent crime would still be almost as great. It may seem harsh to state it so plainly, but the single best indicator of an area’s violent crime rate is its racial/ethnic mix.

colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf

>No. that's not how evolution and natural selection works
I know that is not how "natural selection" was explained in school. Africkans did not have the same "Natural conditions" that northern neanderthals had. The "selection" process was totally different.

Northern people needed to think ahead. Afrikans needed to only think about right now....for thousands of years.

The "breeders" in afrika were the strongest, not the smartest. The "breeders" in the north had to have food/shelter. They were thinking ahead and will survive the cold.

Conditions force natural selection. Comparing afrika to european evolution is not a 1:1 comparison.


How do you explain the difference in skull structure and brain sizes? Why do europeans have larger brains with more folds? Why are afrikans better at physical activities? I don't dispute the positive points of "evolution" of the breeds.

Species discussion. Anyone with neanderthal DNA is part of a different species. Sub-species or whatever...you can dispute semantics all you want. There are proven physical differences. Just because you can cross breed does not mean that you are the same species. I have a occipital bun....a big one too. My kids got it. My wife got it. No full blooded african can ever have neanderthal DNA.

It is "polite" to keep it to breed talk, because everyone gets butthurt when you talk about species. Everyone hates the facts, but yet still there they are.

I love asking people to tell me about successful afrikans....Only to find out most of them have neanderthal dna. That is just a coincidence. People hate to talk about this because it is "racist". It can be, if used in a negative fashion.

My first roommate when I was 18 was a full blooded black guy. 6'-5" tall and huge as fuck. He was every stereotype imaginable, and we laughed about it. For 4 years we drank 40s, ate watermelon and fried chicken. He was a great dude, and very nice....but he was dumb as fuck.

>My first roommate when I was 18 was a full blooded black guy. 6'-5" tall and huge as fuck. He was every stereotype imaginable, and we laughed about it. For 4 years we drank 40s, ate watermelon and fried chicken. He was a great dude, and very nice....but he was dumb as fuck.
I refuse to live with another stinky fuck like that ever again. I can't stand the "black" smell now. It clung to my clothes, even though I had my own goddamned room. Everyone knew I had a negro for a roommate.

I don't know what that smell is, but lots of blacks have it. Its like old people, but different. I hear rumors that it has something to do with kidney differences in Afrikaans vs European decent.

Yuck.