Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 90402

Actually, it's anthropologically and genetically accurate. Defining human, as distinguished from humanoid, as homo sapien sapiens -- unless a person is a member of either the White European race or the NE Asian race, he is NOT fully human. Those two are the ONLY fully modern human beings on earth. The other "races" or groups are a mixture to varying degrees of archaic pre- or sub-human and modern human. The congoid negro (the negro the jews brought to America into slavery), in fact, has very little modern human in him -- and has scarcely evolved since he evolved. Indeed, he is part chimpanzee -- the only homonin that is so. Archaic homonins were/are dark skinned, dark haired, dark eyed, and small brained because these are all tropical adaptations.

Tenniel, Stormfront 18 Comments [10/31/2012 5:01:23 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: Ash Ketchum
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1
D Laurier

Biological science refuted this nonsense over a century ago.

10/31/2012 5:11:13 AM

UHM

The 17th century has called, they want their theories back.

10/31/2012 5:22:29 AM

ScrappyB

Genetics fail. All humans can interbreed, so they are all the same species.

There are animals with greater genetic diversity within populations than humans have all over the world. For example, I used to keep dart frogs. ALL of these animals are the same species, Dendrobates tinctorius.












10/31/2012 5:27:57 AM

Doubting Thomas

OK then explain why these other races can interbreed with white people. If they weren't human it wouldn't be possible.

But yes, you're just trying to paint people you hate as non-human so it will be easier to hate them.

10/31/2012 5:50:44 AM

Petroleum Jerry

So even after redefining "human" to suit himself, he still gets it wrong!

10/31/2012 6:11:40 AM

Matante

Has anyone pointed out to these people that the first Homo sapiens had larger brains than modern humans? It's a matter of energy efficiency, a large brained individual is more likely to die of starvation.
So if a group had "scarcely evolved" since the current ethnic groups have split, "small brained" is not a good guess for a trait it'd have retained.

10/31/2012 7:29:31 AM

fishtank

Also failing anthropology, I see. Keep it up.

10/31/2012 7:53:02 AM

Reynardine

Chimps are short-legged, hairy-bodied, pale-skinned, straight-haired, thin-lipped, and have big, non-rolled ears. Now, what race does that sound like?*

*and they have very small peters, too.

10/31/2012 8:38:48 AM

J. James

This is ridiculous. First of all, there is no chimpanzee lineage in human beings, period. Second, going by your definition, then white people are actually the "subhuman" species- Europeans tend to have traces of other hominid species such as Homo Neanderthalis in their lineages. They are joined by certain Pacific peoples, who also have traces of Homo Denisova in them. As far as being "pure-blooded human," however you wish to define that, look no further than.... Certain black African peoples.

Oh, shit!

10/31/2012 8:58:17 AM

Pak

Uhhh... nah.

10/31/2012 10:03:33 AM

Anon

@J. James:

Not quite.

Humans are chimpanzees in that both we and the chimps and bonobos share a common ancestor and form one sub-clade of the Homininae (the Great Apes). That last common ancestor has been called "pan prior".

You are quite correct that each and every human is equally related to the chimps. But we also all have the same number of neanderthalis and denisova and idaltu ancestors, because those all died off well before the current identical ancestors point. Different genes from the different clades do show up in different current populations - h. sapiens idaltu was historically more common in sub-Saharan Africa.

10/31/2012 10:21:23 AM

J. James

@Anon

I was referring to the poster's claim that black people somehow interbred with chimpanzees, not common descent. But whatever.

As for the H. Denisova and H. Neanderthalis thing, I'm quite surprised. I had been under the impression that the trace percentage of H. Neanderthalis, while not exclusive to Europeans, was higher in their lineages. And I could have sworn that H. Denisova was the same situation, but in Pacific Islanders. You don't happen to have a source, do you? I'm not questioning your correction, but it would be an interesting read and I'm wondering where you got it from.

10/31/2012 12:03:34 PM

J. James

@Anon

Forgive me, but I was so curious I looked it up myself. From Wikipedia's article on H. Denisova:

"According to recent genetic studies modern humans may have mated with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans. Genetic study indicates approximately 4% of the DNA of non-African modern humans is the same as that found in Neanderthals, suggesting interbreeding. Tests comparing the Denisova hominin genome with those of six modern humans: a !Kung from South Africa, a Nigerian, a Frenchman, a Papua New Guinean, a Bougainville Islander and a Han Chinese showed between 4% and 6% of the genome of Melanesians (represented by the Papua New Guinean and Bougainville Islander) derives from a Denisovan population. This DNA was possibly introduced during the early migration to Melanesia.

Melanesians may not be the only modern-day descendants of Denisovans. David Reich of Harvard University, in collaboration with Mark Stoneking of the Planck Institute team, found genetic evidence that Denisovan ancestry is shared by Melanesians, Australian Aborigines, and smaller scattered groups of people in Southeast Asia, such as the Mamanwa, a Negrito people in the Philippines. However, not all Negritos were found to possess Denisovan genes; Onge Andaman Islanders and Malaysian Jehai, for example, were found to have no significant Denisovan inheritance. These data place the interbreeding event in mainland Southeast Asia, and suggests Denisovans once ranged widely over eastern Asia."

So I was correct, after all: African peoples do not have any notable percentages of H. Denisova or H. Neanderthalis blood whatsoever, rendering this racist's argument spectacularly, hilariously wrong.

10/31/2012 12:10:17 PM



If you're going around spouting off phrases like "has scarcely evolved since he evolved" you have no business accusing other people of having small brains.

10/31/2012 1:59:22 PM

Leighton Buzzard

Well, fuck the racist OP, I just want to say those frogs are well cool.

10/31/2012 2:48:37 PM

farpadokly

First of all, what exactly is "the White European race"? Where does it begin and end? Where, exactly? Which populations, exactly, are included in it? This is a very important question. I could say the same for the "NE Asian race".
The other point is just wrong. All humans on earth are "fully modern" and all are members of one and the same species. The sub-Saharan "negro" is not "part chimpanzee". Go to your nearest big city and find, say, a Nigerian student. Go up to him and start a conversation. You will very quickly notice that he is a human in exactly the same way that you are a human.
And since when did the Jews start the slave trade?
Archaic hominids were dark skinned but it doesn't follow that the populations of sub-Saharan Africa are therefore more related to them than Europeans are. They are fully modern humans who are simply adapted for a different climate. If you go and spend some time in sub-Saharan Africa you will very quickly realise this.
Also, chimpanzees, under their fur, have light skin.

10/31/2012 11:56:37 PM

Vox

Biology and Genetics Fail. EPIC Fail.

Do tell what is it about "white Europeans" and "Northeast Asians" specifically that is "more human" than other people? What is everyone else and if they are "less human"? What species are they? How can one be more or less Homo sapiens? Are they mixed with something else? Technically Africans are the only continental group on Earth that doesn't cross over with Neanderthal DNA or have Neanderthal DNA admixture, so by your "logic" Africans are the MOST Human.

BTW, there is no such thing as a "white European race" or "NE Asian race" or "black African race" genetically-speaking. 93% of all genetic differences between any 2 humans takes place WITHIN continents. Different European ethnicities are more genetically distinct from each other than any of them are from any given Africans. Even more so for Africans - Africans are the most genetically diverse group of humans on the planet. Africans are much more genetically distinct from each other than any is from non-Africans.

It's even obvious on a purely visual level with Africans (though visual appearances are notoriously deceptive when it comes to genetic relations). Can you think of any 2 European ethnicites or 2 NE Asian ethnicities as morphologically and phenotypically different from each other as Ethiopians are from "Pygmys"? Or Nigerians from Somalis? Or Khoi (the so-called "Bushmen") from the Tuareg? Or Kenyans from the Afar people? Or Malians from Amazigh Berbers? Europeans range mostly in hair and eye color, straightness of hair and their skin ranging from pale to beige. Africans range from pale brown to reddish-brown to yellowish-brown to chocolate brown to ebony brown to almost literally black; range in a various array of head shapes and limb ratios (from stout "Pygmys" to tall, long-legged Nilotic peoples to the huskier body types in West Africans that you also see in African-Americans); from peppercorn-like curls in the Khoi people to the wool-like hair of Bantuoid peoples to the lightly curled, wavy and even naturally straight hair of Ethiopian and Somali peoples to the brown and sandy blonde hair of Berbers and Tuaregs, etc.


Part of the problem with a lot of Westerners and non-Africans is that they have exposure to a very limited range of Africans (usually only 1 or 2 types of African ethnicities in their country) and they just ASS-U-ME that all other Africans look the same way. Like white Americans who think a person isn't "truly Negroid" unless they look like Wesley Snipes. They just assume that the West African Niger-Congo phenotype is the monolithic default appearance for all Africans who aren't mixed with something non-black.

11/1/2012 1:20:32 PM

Vox

@Doubting Thomas - Technically even if they were seperate species they might be able to breed - but they would likely not produce fertile offspring. That's what happens when 2 animals of different species but the same family produce offspring - the offpsring are invariably sterile due to Outbreeding Depression. Outbreeding Depression is caused by clashing/deleterious dominant genes from 2 different species not closely related enough to each other have offspring. The clashing dominant genes cause negative effects in the offspring and an array of genetic diseases, including sterility. It's basically the opposite of Inbreeding Depression - when 2 creatures that are very, very closely related breed and wreak havoc with their offspring by passing down an array of deleterious recessive genes.

But all of this goes to disprove that idiot's "point" (and the "point" of all "race realists") - if blacks and whites were different species but of the same family they wouldn't be able to produce fertile offspring. Yet mixed children are no more likely than "monoracial" children to be sterile/barren. There are even 2nd and 3rd generation biracial people (biracial people breeding with other biracial people) like actress Zoe Kravitz.

Even worse he tries to imply blacks and whites are from different Families. If that were true it would be impossible for blacks and whites to breed at all - like cats and dogs trying to breed.

11/1/2012 1:58:51 PM
1