White supremacist finds out hes part black

That woman in the middle laughing her tits off makes the video great.

"

Head_Less wrote:

Indo-european sapiens are mixed with Neanderthals. White skin colors probably come from Neanderthal mixing.

Definitely the neanderthals left a minor trace in the europid genome, but their influence to the skin color is unknown.

Proto indo-europeans were actually darker, europid race have its light skin due to the mix with the remainings of the neolithic farmers, those who survived the genocide - mostly the Bell-Beaker culture (left untouched by unknown reasons), and partially the survivors in the Balkan mountains.

The neolithic farmers had white skin, and they spread it around the continent after they conquered and replaced the hunters-gatheres, which had darker skin.
You can take a look at pictures of sardinian people, their genome contains more than 80% of the genes of the neolithic farmers, as they managed to escape to a distinct area and lived as isolates for long.

Saying that white skin is a mutation therefore black skin is natural feels like cherry picking.

A long time ago having skin at all might have been a mutation...

Skin color is an environmental adaptation. Melanin rich skin is an adaptation to regions receiving a great deal of solar UV light, while lighter skin is an adaptation to regions where solar UV light is less intense, allowing for more efficient processing of sunlight into vitamin D. Regional variations in skin tone are simply biological refinements of the above. =^[.]^=

No need to legit discuss a post which was basically a thinly veiled anti-white statement. Austin is just "trolling".

"

Xavderion wrote:

No need to legit discuss a post which was basically a thinly veiled anti-white statement. Austin is just "trolling".

Austin is not trolling he just bring an extra chromosome in every conversation he participate.

"

torturo wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Are you suggesting there are other theories to explain the light skin phenotype? Please share one and the evidence supporting it.

To share evidence? Lol.

No serious study (besides some old racists theories) denies the reasons for the spread of the light skin (though there are yet some strange archeological facts).
Nor I said anything about it, you are putting words in my mouth.

There are two leading theories about the initial skin color - if the light skin was a mutation, or the opposite, the dark skin was one, followed by chain of phenotype mutations related to the geographical areas the human beings inhabited.

Mind these are all raw theories, without any certain proofs, which I was inquired to give. Leading scientist in archeology and archaeogenetics can't provide any, nor do I. kek

We don't know anything for certain.

Or there is third way - we were told lies about human race and its beginning.

Check Michael Creemo work (for example publication "Forbidden Archeology"). But see his work NOT shitty wikipedia.

"

de99ial wrote:

"

torturo wrote:

"

DurianMcgregor wrote:

Are you suggesting there are other theories to explain the light skin phenotype? Please share one and the evidence supporting it.

To share evidence? Lol.

No serious study (besides some old racists theories) denies the reasons for the spread of the light skin (though there are yet some strange archeological facts).
Nor I said anything about it, you are putting words in my mouth.

There are two leading theories about the initial skin color - if the light skin was a mutation, or the opposite, the dark skin was one, followed by chain of phenotype mutations related to the geographical areas the human beings inhabited.

Mind these are all raw theories, without any certain proofs, which I was inquired to give. Leading scientist in archeology and archaeogenetics can't provide any, nor do I. kek

We don't know anything for certain.

Or there is third way - we were told lies about human race and its beginning.

Check Michael Creemo work (for example publication "Forbidden Archeology"). But see his work NOT shitty wikipedia.

Although I see value in history, the further back the less useful it becomes. I'd say my level of fucks given would be proportional to t^-.5, where t=time. As a result, I'm not even interested in evaluating whether this Creemo is right or not; if it's more than 5000 years before Babylon, I just don't give a fuck.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Although I see value in history, the further back the less useful it becomes. I'd say my level of fucks given would be proportional to t^-.5, where t=time. As a result, I'm not even interested in evaluating whether this Creemo is right or not; if it's more than 5000 years before Babylon, I just don't give a fuck.

That would mean you don't care about dinosaurs. You are a sick sick person.