Recent evidence supporting Solutrean Hypothesis

Recent evidence supporting Solutrean Hypothesis

Brazil – 50,000 years ago (“Other evidence suggests that these first Americans were later massacred by invaders from Asia” and “Combined with rock art evidence of increasing violence at this time, it appears that the mongoloid people from the north invaded and wiped out the original Americans.”)

Phoenicians – Brazil

Cactus Hill – Virginia – 18,000 years ago (“They also found evidence to support one of the most provocative developments of our time: the growing suspicion among physical anthropologists, archaeologists, and even geneticists that some of the first people who settled in the New World were Europeans.”)

Topper – South Carolina – 16,000-50,000 years ago (“In 1998, Goodyear put the Topper site on the map with his discovery of artifacts that seemed to predate the early Clovis culture that flourished in North America beginning some 13,000 years ago, long the conventional date for the first human colonization of the New World.”)

Meadowcroft Rockshelter – Pennsylvania – 13,000-19,000 years ago

Saltville – Virginia – 14,500 years ago

Mexico – 13,000 years ago (“The latest dating is not only confirmation that humans were present in the Americas much earlier than 12,000 years ago, but also that they were not related to early native Americans.”)

Arlington Springs Woman – California – 13,000 years ago

Monte Verde, Chile – 12,500 years ago; hearth charcoal dated 33,000 years ago

Schafer, Hebior, Mud Lake – Wisconsin – 12,000 years ago

Sloth Hole – Florida – 12,000 years ago

Little Salt Spring – Florida – 12,000 years ago

Windover Pond – Florida – 9,000 years ago

European skull – West Virginia – 1,300 years ago (“The Skull, that of an adult male, was sufficiently preserved to recognize a unique brachycephalic (round headed) feature indicating a possible European origin” and “Mitochondrial DNA was extracted from the roots of the teeth and compared to previously cataloged DNA sequences from ethnic groups around the world. No association was found among North American groups. The closest DNA matches were European.”)

Toloquilla Quarry, Mexico – 1,300,000 years ago (“If these really are (human) footprints, and they were made 1.3 million years ago, that would be absolutely revolutionary.”)

The Biological Reality of Race

The Biological Reality of Race

The concept of race has long been under assault by egalitarian liberals, Boasian anthropologists, and other bien pensants who abhor the idea that every human being is not equally capable of the heights of accomplishment. The notion that humans differ systematically in various characteristics would, if accepted, put a huge damper in many left-liberal projects – one of the most prominent being education, on which the left wants to spend ever more billions in order to finally do away with racial achievement gaps – and perhaps most importantly would rob them of their generalized accusation of racism, directed at whites and used to explain the underachievement – or overachievement in the cases of things like crime, drug use, and illegitimacy – of various non-white ethnic groups.

One of the leading champions of the no-such-thing-as-race school of thought (if it can be said that any thought goes into it) has been the biologist and self-identified Marxist Richard Lewontin. His critique of the concept of race focuses on the fact that most genetic variation occurs within races, which is true enough when looking at only one genetic locus. However, when multiple loci are compared, it is seen that they vary systematically among races, and when these multiple loci are taken into account, it’s possible to classify individuals by race with almost perfect accuracy. Hence, Lewontin’s critique has come to be known as Lewontin’s fallacy.

A new paper by philosopher Neven Sesardic, “Race: a social destruction of a biological concept,” published in the journal Biology and Philosophy, takes the critique further.

A number of contemporary philosophers, anthropologists, geneticists, evolutionary biologists and psychologists have argued for some time that the concept of race does not have a biological reality. But what is actually being denied here? What exactly does it mean that a concept has (or does not have) a biological reality?

Much of Sesardic’s work here involves the clearing up of straw men. For example:

Naomi Zack claims that those who believe in the existence of human races ‘‘to this day… assume the following: (1) races are made up of individuals sharing the same essence; (2) each race is sharply discontinuous from all others…’’ (Zack 2002, 63—italics added).

Sesardic shows that hardly any scientist has ever believed Zack’s two propositions. Another straw man set up by a race denier says that there are no alleles distinctive of “this race or that”, and that therefore “races are not biologically real”. Sesardic rightly shows that this statement is a “parody” of what actual scientists believe.

Sesardic points out that the exactness demanded of the concept of race by those who believe that it has no biological reality are so demanding that, were they accepted as legitimate, there couldn’t even be any such thing as species, for, quoting Matt Ridley, “the characters that define a species will not be present in all members of that species and absent from all members of other species”.

As for Lewontin’s fallacy, Sesardic writes:

Lewontin’s univariate approach to the conceptualization of race is particularly clear when he asks: ‘‘How much difference in the frequencies of A, B, AB, and O blood groups does one require before deciding that it is large enough to declare two local populations are in separate ‘races’?’’ (Lewontin 1987, 200) This is the wrong question completely. Races are not distinguished from one another by some specially big difference of allelic frequencies in one trait, but rather by a combination of a number of small or moderate differences in many traits. That is, e pluribus, not ex uno.

Sesardic goes on to show that the best current science manifestly does support the biological reality of the concept of race.

Study: Human Ancestors Originated in Asia

Out of Asia?

Study: Human Ancestors Originated in Asia

By Jennifer Viegas
Discovery News

Three newly discovered primate species that lived 30 million years ago suggest that our first ancestors originated in Asia and not in Africa, challenging the well-known “Out of Africa” theory about human evolution.

The actuality could be something a bit more complicated, such as “Out of Asia into Africa and Back to Asia,” since some researchers now think Asian primates journeyed to Africa, where they evolved into humans, who then traveled both in and out of Africa.

According to a study published in this week’s Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, numerous fossil teeth for the three new anthropoids were found in the Bugti Hills of central Pakistan.

Scientists believe our world-traveling animal cousins were anthropoids, which means “apes” and refers to the group of primates from which humans evolved.

“The Oligocene period (30-25 million years ago) in South Asia was so far totally undocumented paleontologically,” said Laurent Marivaux, lead author of the paper.

“So, it is not surprising that the discovery of fossilized animals from this period is totally new for science, and that they (may) change or modify substantially our previous view on mammal evolution, notably here, the evolutionary history of anthropoid primates.”

He added, “The evolutionary history of these old anthropoid lineages represents the beginnings of the evolutionary history of humans.”

Marivaux and his team named the new anthropoids Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum. They were tiny and somewhat similar to today’s lemurs, according to Marivaux, who is a paleontologist at the Institute of Evolutionary Science at Montpellier II University in France.

Their small, underdeveloped teeth reveal that the primates probably ate insects and fruit. Climate records for this period suggest that the animals lived in a warm, humid tropical rainforest.

Fossil remains for other animals indicate the primates shared the Asian rainforest with more than 20 different species of rodents, bats, carnivores, deer-like animals, pigs, a rhino-like creature, called Baluchitherium, and other primates.

Remains for later primates similar to the new anthropoids previously were found in China, Burma and Thailand. The newly excavated teeth now indicate that anthropoids had a larger range in Asia than thought, since the animals made their way to Pakistan.

Christopher Beard, curator and head of the Section of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, told Discovery News that he generally agreed with the new conclusions.

“Together, the fossil anthropoid primates that are known from China, Thailand, Myanmar and now Pakistan constitute an impressive amount of data indicating that the ‘higher primate’ lineage that today includes all monkeys, apes, and humans must have originated in Asia, not in Africa as earlier scientists believed,” Beard said.

He added that the new evidence, to him, indicated that “an early member of this (anthropoid Asian group) made its way to Africa, where they continued to evolve and diversify, eventually giving rise to living monkeys, apes and humans.”

Christopher Wills, professor of biological sciences at the University of California, San Diego, agreed that early anthropoid evolution likely did not just occur in Africa.

Wills told Discovery News that the evolution probably included “substantial migrations over long distances, in and out of Africa perhaps.”

Beard and Marivaux said the early anthropoids that stayed in Asia continued to evolve too, but not in a direction that led to apes and humans. The consensus among most experts is that humans only emerged in Africa.


Africa Wasn’t Negroid Until Historic Times

Here’s some important information about the racial history of Africa stated clearly and succinctly:

“True” Black Africans appear as a recent adaptive radiation in the above dendrograms, apparently branching off from an ancestral Pygmy population — a line of ancestry also indicated by osteological data (Coon 1962:651-656; Watson et al. 1996). This radiation seems to have occurred somewhere in West Africa. Before the Bantu expansion about 3,000 years ago, true Black Africans were absent from the continent’s central, eastern, and southern regions (Cavalli-Sforza 1986:361-362; Oliver 1966). They were also absent from the middle Nile until about 4,000 years ago, at which time they begin to appear in paintings from Pharaonic Egypt and in skeletal remains from Nubia (Junker 1921).


For more detailed information about the racial differences between pre-historic and modern sub-Saharan Africans, see the work of anthropologist W.W. Howells.


72% of Black Babies Illegitimate

72% of Black Babies Illegitimate

by Jeff Davis

A recent news article reports: “Seventy-two percent of black babies are born to unmarried mothers today, according to government statistics… children of unmarried mothers of any race are more likely to perform poorly in school, go to prison, use drugs, be poor as adults, and have their own children out of wedlock. The black community’s 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.”

The illegitimacy rate for Whites was in the single digits just a few decades ago. It’s reached 29 percent thanks to the wonders of Diversity and decades of brainwashing by the Jewish media.

The article notes “This issue entered the public consciousness in 1965, when a now famous government report by future senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan described a tangle of pathology among blacks that fed a 24 percent black illegitimacy rate. The white rate then was 4 percent.”

The idea of 96 percent of White families having two parents and a stable family environment is hard to imagine today. Home ownership among White families was nearly 90 percent back in the 1960s. This is what’s possible before we allowed illegal aliens to overrun our nation. Thousands of White working class neighborhoods have been overrun by minorities and made too dangerous for Whites.

The article continues “Many accused Moynihan, who was white, of blaming the victim, of saying that black behavior, not racism, was the main cause of black problems. That dynamic persists. Most talk about the 72 percent has come from conservative circles. When influential blacks like Bill Cosby have spoken out about it, they have been all but shouted down by liberals saying that a lack of equal education and opportunity are the true root of the problem. There are simple arguments for why so many black women have children without marriage. The legacy of segregation, the logic goes, means blacks are more likely to attend inferior schools. This creates a high proportion of blacks unprepared to compete for jobs in today’s economy, where middle-class industrial work for unskilled laborers has largely disappeared.”

This modern decadent society has brought out the worst in each race. The Black family has effectively collapsed years ago, and more White people than ever are copying the behavior of the Blacks (and not just those morons with their caps on backwards). Only a radical change in our government and in the control of the entertainment and news media will allow us to go back to a time when virtually all White children had two parents taking care of them.

Partitioning intra- and inter-racial genetic variation

Partitioning intra- and inter-racial genetic variation

We are all familiar with the mantra of the anti-racist when confronted with facts about race: there is more genetic variation within a race than between races.  Is this true?  It depends on how one measures genetic variation.  Using Fst or AMOVA, the split is typically 85/15 between intra-racial and inter-racial variation.  But these measures are based on allele frequency comparisons averaged over individual genes.  It’s hard to reconcile an 85/15 split with the following PCA plot, based on 250,000 SNPs:


Let’s look at 4 populations: YRI (Nigerians, left of plot), CEU (Northwestern Europeans, bottom of plot), CHB (Chinese in Beijing, top of plot), and JPT (Japanese in Tokyo, top of plot).  Considering that the first two principal components account for 87.8% of the variation, and that the distance between samples in the same population is tiny compared to that between populations, this plot suggests that the 85/15 split is not an adequate description of the intra- vs. inter-racial variation.

One common statistical technique for partitioning variation is ANOVA (to be specific it is partitioning variance, or the variation around a mean).  Here is a short introduction to the method.

I took 100,000 random autosomal SNPs from the HapMap 3 data set and determined the genotypes for 100 individuals (excluding children) from CEU and YRI at those positions.  For each SNP, I determined which is the most common allele in the overall population (I’ll call this the globally most common allele, or GMCA).  I then calculated the total number of GMCAs for each individual, across all SNPs.  The GMCA totals where then used with a single factor (population, with 2 levels: CEU and YRI) to perform a one-way ANOVA.  This procedure was performed 3 times. (note: the results should be similar if, instead of choosing a ‘GMCA’, I just chose a random allele).

The median ratio of the treatment sum of squares to the total sum of squares was 0.985 (range: 0.979 to 0.986).  Racial group explains 98.5% of the variation.

The distribution of GMCA counts within CEU and YRI are relatively normal.





The variance for CEU and YRI is 36761.77 and 38314.7, respectively.  The rule of thumb is that there should be less than a 4-fold difference in the variance of any groups used in the analysis, so this is fine.

A plot of the residual versus fitted values does not suggest problems with heteroscedacity (variance increasing or decreasing with the magnitude of the fitted value):


The residuals look to be fairly normally distributed:



The normal Q-Q plot suggests that normality breaks down at very high and low values, but this does not look worse than some plots I’ve seen which are said to be ok.

So far as I can determine, there are no major violations of the assumptions required for ANOVA.

The 98.5% inter-racial variance is more in line with the PCA plot shown at the beginning.  Another approach, instead of using ‘GMCA’, would be to use the eigenvalues for the significant principal components from PCA for the samples in each population.  For example, if ANOVA on the values for principal component 1 of the above PCA showed that 99.5% of the variation was between groups, this would be converted to proportion of total variation by multiplying 99.5% by 75.9% (the percentage of variation accounted for by PC1), giving 75.5%.  Suppose ANOVA for PC2 showed 95% of variation as inter-group, this would then add 11.3% (0.95 x 0.119), for a total of 86.8%.  This would be done for the rest of the significant principal components.

In summary, the 85/15 partitioning of genetic variation is based on a single, limited definition of genetic variation.  Methods that consider large numbers of genes can apportion more variation between races.

Female race consciousness as prudence

Female race consciousness as prudence

So do women value ethnicity over income in a mate? They certainly seem too. If income was the more important factor in mate choice these numbers would be small; it would take very little additional income to entice a woman to date a man of a different race. The fact that the numbers are so large suggests that a man’s race is significantly more important that his income.

Big Think has a post, Do Women Value Ethnicity Over Income in a Mate?:

The results are striking. An African-American man would have to earn $154,000 more than a white man in order for a white woman to prefer him. A Hispanic man would need to earn $77,000 more than a white man, and Asian man would need, remarkably, an additional $247,000 in additional annual income.

So do women value ethnicity over income in a mate? They certainly seem too. If income was the more important factor in mate choice these numbers would be small; it would take very little additional income to entice a woman to date a man of a different race. The fact that the numbers are so large suggests that a man’s race is significantly more important that his income.

And men? Well the problem is that men don’t seem to care about income at all. So even though their behaviour suggests they care less about their partner’s race than women do, the income needed to encourage them to make the trade-off between races is incalculably large. To really estimate how much men care about race you would have to find a different measure, like perhaps physical beauty.

First, there has been research controlling for physical beauty. So the white male disinclination toward black females can be accounted for mostly by the fact that they aren’t as physically attracted to them. When you limit the sample of black women to those which they are physically attracted to the discrepancy mostly disappears. In contrast, when you similarly constrain the samples of black men which white women judge as attractive the discrepancy in dating preference remains (the same when you do so for Asian men).

Female race consciousness as prudence