American Renaissance

Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds

AR Articles on Science and Genetics
More news stories on Science and Genetics
FoxNews, February 22, 2008

White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.

Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans, researchers found that the former showed much less variation among 10,000 tested genes than did the latter, which was expected.

They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African, which was a surprise.

“Since we tend to think of European populations as quite large, we did not expect to see a significant difference in the distribution of neutral and deleterious variation between the two populations,” said senior co-author Carlos Bustamante, an assistant professor of biological statistics and computational biology at Cornell.

It’s been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.

But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second “population bottleneck,” probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

Click here for the Cornell press release, and here for the full article in Nature.

The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed “bad” mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.

{snip}

For example, Native Americans show even less genetic diversity than Europeans, having descended from a few thousand people who entered North America about 10,000 years ago.

That fact was reinforced by a larger-scale study, also published in Nature, led by scientists from the Universities of Michigan and Virginia who analyzed genetic samples of 485 individuals scattered around the globe whose DNA is recorded in a French databank.

As would be expected with the “out of Africa” theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.

{snip}

Click here for an abstract of that study in Nature.

A third study, published in the journal Science on Friday, may be the most fascinating of all.

{snip}

Native Americans have at least one closely related group in Asia — the Yakuts of eastern Siberia, who themselves are related to other hunter-gatherer Siberian tribes, some of whom build wooden teepees.

The Basques in northeastern Spain and southwestern France may be right to demand their own nation — they’re not closely related to anyone else. Surprisingly, neither are the residents of Sardinia off the coast of Italy.

{snip}

Click here for the abstract of the Stanford study, and here for a comprehensive write-up of all three studies in the Washington Post.

Original article

(Posted on February 25, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment      Search

Comments

I know what they are saying but I wish they didn’t write genetically “weaker.” Many would take this as a way of saying that blacks are physically “stronger” than whites, which is just not the case. Take a look at a boxing match or a UFC/MMA fight to see who is “weaker” in that regard.

As to potentially harmful mutations, I’m sure whites and others are more likely to get, say, Downs syndrome, than blacks.

Posted by Kendall at 7:16 PM on February 25


Why do ‘genetically weaker’ populations flourish and ‘genetically diverse’ populations stagnate? I would guess that Europeans are descended from a small group of extremely intelligent people and Africans are descended from a vast pool of imbeciles.

Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 7:16 PM on February 25


“They also found that Europeans had many more possibly harmful mutations than did African”

Like sickle cell?

Posted by Danny at 7:17 PM on February 25


Okay lets face it now there is nothing new in this article…its like a blank slate.


a)Europeans are sexually selected

b)Africans are environmentally selected

c)Africans are very natural..Europeans are naturally more aristcratic type and prefer law and order

even a 5 yr old third worlder knows all this. My kid studies at the Univ of Texas and he sees it every day..blacks are just much more macho even when compared to Latinos.

Posted by Harjaspal Singh Goraya at 7:40 PM on February 25


“Genetically weaker”?

Is this why we’re more intelligent, better capable of organization and collective effort and more resistant to nearly every disease except malaria?

Posted by Michael C. Scott at 7:41 PM on February 25


If being “weaker” and having less intra-racial genetic diversity is such a disadvantage, then why do the stronger and more diverse people reference in this article want to live among the former category?

I can hardly believe that a people who can have wildly varying colors of hair are said to be less diverse than people who can have hair in any color they want as long as it’s black.

Posted by St. Louis CofCC Blogmeister at 7:50 PM on February 25


It’s been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. (Probably trying to escape a bad neighborhood)

Isn’t that a form of purity?

the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity.

Isn’t that proof of being a mongrel??

If having the greatest amount of genetic diversity is a good thing. How come they never had the wheel or devised a written script???

Who wrote this Franz Boaz????

Posted by Poppycock&Balderdash; at 7:51 PM on February 25


That Basques and Sardinians are not closely related to their neighbors is well known. Back in the 60’s, blood type testing showed Basques to be genetically far removed other Spaniards. And Sardinians have long been known as descendents of Phoenician settlers in antiquity, a time when other residents of what is now Italy were engaged in the Punic wars against the Phoenician settlers of Carthage.

Once upon a time, every educated American would have known the phrase, “Cartago delenda est.”

Posted by PBL at 8:03 PM on February 25


Whites genetically weaker? Tell me again about AIDS in Africa, tell me who is on the verge of paradoxically fornicating themselves almost to extinction.

Posted by PBL at 8:10 PM on February 25


“Analyzing the genetic makeup of 20 Americans of European ancestry and 15 African-Americans…”

Seriously - and I’m just asking - is such a small sample size worth anything?

Posted by Jane T. at 8:24 PM on February 25


So any scientific, genetic proof that favors Blacks is permissible, but anything favoring Whites is deemed racist, backwards and not conducive to the healing that needs to go on between the races? Doublespeak at its highest. Welcome to a brave new world…..

Posted by White is Beautiful Robert at 8:32 PM on February 25


How can anyone believe what science says anymore. It has
gotten so perverted today with Leftist doublespeak and
bias. I mean first they say there Is no genetic basis
for race and It’s a social construct, because genetically
we’re all the same. And now they come out with this study
that basically says Whites are genetically weak ??!! How
If there Is no genetic basis for race as they previously
have declared, And now when they say that there are It’s
claiming Whites are a genetically weak race. If that Is the
case, why are more Blacks sick and afflicted with more
genetic diseases according to other studies ? This Is
more Leftist race mixing junk science, notice how the
say Blacks are genetically stronger due to genetic
DIVERSITY - I.E. race mixing.

Posted by Don't Believe The Lies at 8:34 PM on February 25


“The Basques in northeastern Spain and southwestern France may be right to demand their own nation — they’re not closely related to anyone else.”

The new age sector has mediums who “channel” tell them the Basques are the survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis.

Before you laugh, one of the most famous was Edgar Cayce, a man who accurately diagnosed literally thousands of medical cases of people all over the world while in a hypnotic trance. No one today thinks of Cayce as a kook. His effectiveness was proven many times over, and he died a pauper while trying to help people to his last breath.

So does that make him right about Atlantis? I don’t know, but I would trust him over the fumbling politically correct entities who call themselves scientists nowadays, but change their theories to reflect political correctness, like Dr. Watson.

Posted by rip at 8:45 PM on February 25


This should not be a surprise. Look at the diseases that White settlers bought to the new world and gave to the native Americans.

Whites have carried disease wherever they go.

Posted by brotherman at 8:55 PM on February 25


As inferior White people, I feel that it is our duty to warn all Blacks that they should avoid all propinquity with us so as to avoid any pollution of their superior gene pool. This would of course include copulation with White women. Such liasons would certainly weaken the Black genes in any progeny that might be produced as a result of the above couplings.

I wonder when they are going to indoctinate our children. Maybe that wouldn’t be necessary if the official Final Solution to the White question could be initiated as soon as possible.

Posted by at 8:57 PM on February 25


I read the complete study in Nature but due to my inferior European genetic mutations, I was unable to sort out the goobledegook. Perhaps TayQwan or KShawn could explain it to me in simple language more appropriate to my subnormal cognitive powers.

Posted by Taurus689 at 9:01 PM on February 25


…but they won’t dare publish anything that would point out that whites are superior to blacks in other ways

Posted by at 9:05 PM on February 25


I find the objective part of the article interesting, and believe the truth and merit, thereof. However, I also fear that this may be a veiled attempt to convince Whites to genetically intermix (themselves out of existence) with the “Genetically Stronger” Blacks.

I also find the statement, “Whites Genetically Weaker” offensive.

Posted by EA (European American) Steve at 9:23 PM on February 25


*”The doubly diluted genetic diversity has allowed “bad” mutations to build up in the European population, something that the more genetically varied African population has had more success in weeding out.”*

Translation: “Scientifically speaking, you should miscegenate to ‘weed out’ harmful mutations”.

Yet they will never touch the “Racial I.Q. and Genetics” part, unless it involves “Asians/Jews with higer I.Q.s than the average (white)”…

Posted by Obscuratus at 9:46 PM on February 25


“White Americans are both genetically weaker and less diverse than their black compatriots, a Cornell University-led study finds.”

Could you imagine a Cornell University study loudly proclaiming something inflammatory like “Black Americans are genetically both less intelligent and more prone to violence than their non-black compatriots.” ?
But it’s OK to claim anything you want about whites, however inflammatory.
Of course the term “genetically weaker” is a term of insult, to imply genetic inferiority, not a scientific term. It is meaningless. It refers to the fact that non-blacks have a much tighter genetic distribution. That does not make them “weaker”, whatever that means.
Of course, you read further in the article and find that other races are just as “weak” genetically or even more so (per the peculiar definition of “weak” used by this gleeful hate-whitey reporter). But it would not have been PC to say “study shows American Indians are more genetically weak than anyone else…”. Or “study shows Asians are more genetically weak…”. No, as typical, whites are singled out for propaganda purposes. You must read on to find out that statement was not true. If accuracy in reporting were the purpose, the statement would have been “study shows that there is a tighter genetic distribution among non-blacks than among blacks.” But then you’d loose an opportunity to try to falsely imply racial inferiority of whites to those who only read the first paragraph or title of an article.

“It’s been known for years that all non-Africans are descended from a small group, perhaps only a few dozen individuals, who left the continent between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago.”

This shows that the idiotic racist term “people of color” which singles out white Europeans for exclusion is absurd: It is all NON-BLACKS who have much more in common and are much more closely related to each other than they are with blacks. So a more sensible term would be something like “people of light” to refer to everyone who is not of sub-Sahara African origin. All people of light are close cousins. The chasm is between people of light and blacks. Offended by this? Then keep this in mind the next time you hear the offensive nonsense term “people of color”!
As an act of protest I urge all to freely and often use the term “people of light” until the term “people of color” is recognized as the racist exclusionary term it is.

Posted by at 10:25 PM on February 25


Notice how they first paint us as a genetically inferior race, then buried near the end, they add as an afterthought that we are stronger than everybody BUT Africans. (Middle Easterners are technically mulattos… has anybody looked at Zacarias Moussaoui?)

Posted by Brendan at 11:45 PM on February 25


Think they’ll railroad the professor of this study into forced retirement like Dr. James Watson?

And also, what are “bad” mutations anyway? Red hair, green eyes, etc.?

Guess we missed the “good” ones like sickle cell anemia or low IQ.

Posted by ZKR at 12:14 AM on February 26


Yes, we whites are generically inferior. So protect yourselves and your future offspring, you blacks, and start avoiding our women.

Posted by at 12:43 AM on February 26


This article is obviously an attempt to encourage miscegenation, saying that whites, being inbred due to their geographic cocoon have failed to evolve the strengths of healthily varied races, even though, as we all know, there is no such thing as race. This type of propaganda fails to investigate the obvious limitations of any other group on the planet, all of which look to Europeans for salvation, money, medicine, innovation and education.

The Kenyan, Congolese and Rwandan tribes, the crazed religious sects of North Africa of the Middle East, and the multiplicity of tribal and political factions among the Hispanics of South America do not show that this supposed diversity in itself is of great benefit. On the other hand, given the extremely limited capacities of the Asian who flock to accounting and business colleges, together with their obsession with trends and conformity, reflect an oppressive homogeneity much at odds with the aspirational individuality of even the most drone-like white.

The author is obviously part of some insidious movement to make whites think they would prosper by interbreeding biracially. This type of urging is far more extreme than any miscegenation laws that had been used in the past for our protection, protection our misguided rulers have abandoned.

Posted by at 1:39 AM on February 26


Now this is the type of research that Cornell and Fox News find acceptable.

You gotta love that sample size — 15 and 20. Wow, that is a huge study. Where did they find all those people.

Posted by at 1:59 AM on February 26


“The Basques in northeastern Spain and southwestern France may be right to demand their own nation — they’re not closely related to anyone else.”

What’s this? A major media corporation declaring that an ethnic group may be right to demand their own nation?

I can only assume they feel it is by now well understood that this includes the caveat:
As long as they are not white.

Posted by W.D. at 2:15 AM on February 26


Hmmm… Judging from what I learned at the conference there seems to be a direct correlation between “genetic strength” and lower than average IQ levels. Go figure.

Posted by at 5:20 AM on February 26


That’s odd?! Most of the strongman contests and world weight lifting records have been set or won by caucasians.

Posted by Dan at 7:20 AM on February 26


By this same thinking, the Chimp is more genetically diverse than the African. The diversity in African DNA is not all good. Some leads to greater negative mutations such as hair lips and other birth defects. Can anyone imagine a headline in a major newspaper that declared without question or comment that Whites were smarter than blacks or that black were more prone to disorder and violence.

Posted by Johann von Braun at 8:18 AM on February 26


Right, because genetic diversity is our strength…

“Weak” whites can only build europe and north america, while “strong” blacks created the all powerful Africa, proving once and for all our genetic inferiority. What a mangling of the english language.

Posted by Diamed at 8:21 AM on February 26


Bizarre article. I have heard this claim many times before that Africans are the “most genetically diverse,” but that does not seem to mean anything more than that they are the oldest race, with fewer genetic bottlenecks in their history. Even if the bottleneck did result in a slightly higher chance for certain harmful mutations (hard to believe, since this occurred 30,000 years ago, plus its obvious there were plenty of beneficial adaptations to a cool, cloudy, northern climate), I think most people would accept the trade-off between a 1% increased incidence of some rare disease and a gain of 15 IQ points, on average.

Posted by at 10:26 AM on February 26


To Brendan:

The first time I saw a picture of Zacarias Moussaoui, in the aftermath of 9-11-01, I thought it was Charles Barkley!

Just this sort of “study”, will spur calls to increase miscegenation rates. And they assailed James Watson for suggesting that Africans were less-developed because of lower intelligence.

Posted by Soprano Fan at 10:34 AM on February 26


Some of you are missing the point. The research paper itself from Cornell did not come to these conclusions that white people are somehow “weaker” or “inferior”…It was a rather unexciting paper…The point is that it was interpreted that way by FOX news website…You know…The “fair and balanced” people….and I am sure it is only a coincidence that this is Black History Month…

Posted by Milton at 10:39 AM on February 26


Since when are Basques “not white”?

Posted by at 11:21 AM on February 26


“The doubly diluted genetic diversity”

What the hell is that?

I’m a big Sci Fi fan, and during the 90’s, I noticed many of the shows trying to mention how great ‘genetic diversity’ is.

I fully expect the nations schools to begin the day with “I pledge alliegiance, unto the flag of the United States of American, and unto the diversity, for which it stands”

It’s wise to match up the appearance of things, with what goes on inside. At least, that’s what I expect at schools that don’t begin the day listening to the black national anthem, like many of them have been doing for the last 60 years.

Posted by at 11:46 AM on February 26


Basing ALL of humanity on a survey of 35 people is like interviewing 10,000 people and from that deriving that 650,000 people killed in Iraq. Why do such slim analysis’ ever manage to get into print?

GH

Posted by grob hahn at 12:52 PM on February 26


“and a gain of 15 IQ points, on average.”

Closer to 33 points. The black African IQ median is around 67, the American mulatto is claimed to be 85.

Posted by TabuLa Raza at 1:07 PM on February 26


Keep in mind mutation is key for evolution, no mutations also means no evolution.

I am a little unsure about these “genetically weaker” claims, most of the worlds best weightlifters are Northern European. It seems to me, blacks actually ARE naturally more athletically built than whites at a young age, but they virtually all become morbidly obese come middle age.

Where I live, in New York, it seems almost all whites, are in pretty good shape, whereas if you walk around any Black area and you see fastfood restaurants on every corner all overflowing with massive bulbous bodies.

I remember reading this NY Times study a year or two ago claiming that 25 percent of the adult population of East Harlem had diabetes and the average life expectancy for black males was around 50 so being “genetically stronger” is probably not all it is cracked up to be.

Posted by at 1:49 PM on February 26


Tell it to the body builders. The strongest ones in the world are all caucasian. The Russian ones are monsters.

Posted by Bobby at 2:12 PM on February 26


Many whites have such a lack of genetic diversity, to hear these people tell it, it’s a wonder they don’t simply fall over and die.

On the plus side, since humans have more genetic diversity, than say, worms, and worms more than bacteria; since blacks have more genetic diversity than whites, this could be the ultimate proof blacks are more advanced than whites. I don’t expect the diversitiods to jump on this information. After all, even the blackest nations in africa, for whatever reasons, constantly sell versions of this ‘white supremacy’ idea, even if only to claim themselves victims of it.

Posted by Dr Smith at 2:29 PM on February 26


Chimpanzees are more genetically diverse than humans, including black africans. Does that make them superior?

Posted by Peejay in Frisco at 2:32 PM on February 26


All they’re talking about is mutational load (# harmful mutations/genome). They’re not thinking about beneficial mutations at all, very half assed.

For example, think about the Ashkenazi population- they’re famous for their genetic diseases, but look at their average IQ…

Posted by at 3:04 PM on February 26


This should not be a surprise. Look at the diseases that White settlers bought to the new world and gave to the native Americans.

Whites have carried disease wherever they go.

Posted by brotherman at 8:55 PM on February 25
Almost all diseases came from Asia and Africa. Europe was relatively free of diseases until Marco Polo returned from China not to long before the black death. Almost all new diseases still come from Asia.

Posted by at 4:40 PM on February 26


Darwin lied; some men turn into monkeys.

Posted by gee vee at 4:50 PM on February 26


How soon we forget the findings of DR. Frank Ellis who said Blacks are less intelligent than Whites. He was fired for his research on this subject. How come these racist are not railroaded out of biz. for there research? We all know why!

Posted by at 5:06 PM on February 26


Did you ever notice it so okay to make sterotypes about black people … as long as the sterotypes are positive.

So blacks have the fleeting advantage of strength over whites? That may be important the first 25 years of your life but what about the remaining 50-55 years?

Posted by Dennis at 5:26 PM on February 26


I would guess that Europeans are descended from a small group of extremely intelligent people and Africans are descended from a vast pool of imbeciles.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 7:16 PM on February 25

They’ll never print this though it is the truth. Trying to boost black egos without doing anything for it!!!

Posted by Violet at 6:14 PM on February 26


No race would benefit as much from eugenics as ours. We
have many incredible people and many inferiors. Imagine if we
could maximize the progeny from the former and limit the numbers
of the latter. But no, that would be hate-even if we just focused
on our own race. Our enemies know our potentials better than we
do ourselves.

Posted by Freyr at 9:05 PM on February 26


The article doesn’t elaborate on what is meant by “genetic strength”. Does it mean high intelligence, physical health and strength and vitality? Africans and blacks in general seem to possess very little of these qualities. Whatever the objective of this so called study the results are far from conclusive.

Posted by Super Dave at 10:19 PM on February 26


Genetic racial studies are OK as long as you can spin it for Black Supremacy!

Posted by at 10:46 PM on February 26


“If having the greatest amount of genetic diversity is a good thing. How come they never had the wheel or devised a written script???”

Europeans didn’t invent the wheel either, nor did they invent writing. Both were brought to them via the middle east. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Posted by Gonzo at 1:25 AM on February 27


Makes sense I suppose. If you’re prepared to copulate with anything your race will become more diverse.

Posted by Iain at 5:39 AM on February 27


But the Cornell study, published in the journal Nature Thursday, indicates that Europeans went through a second “population bottleneck,” probably about 30,000 years ago, when the ancestral population was again reduced to relatively few in number.

You mean, like the Noah flood families’ dispersal? As the ‘elect of God’ that founded monotheism, and became the Chosen People- the nations of Europe, unlike say, certain Turkic tribes mentioned by authors such as Arthur Koestler?

Hmmm.

Posted by Fr. John at 9:56 AM on February 27


Read Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond.

Posted by Gonzo at 1:25 AM on February 27

Jared Diamond is notoriously anti-Western and anti-white. His screed is filled with more fantasies than most Afro-centric history books. He’s your typical deceptive, hypocritical Marxist.

Posted by Jared is no Diamond at 3:20 PM on February 27


To hear these people tell it, I have so little genetic diversity I’m liable to keel over and die

Posted by at 5:03 PM on February 28


I’m a big advocate of eugenics. There’s way too much contamination in the White gene pool. What started with some settlers breeding with the Indians has now exploded into large scale miscegenation. People just aren’t taking care of themselves anymore by practicing good breeding. I saw a big fat White woman in the store last week with her mulatto baby in tow. This woman was functionally black. She spoke blackanese and she had her hair in those “raked spaces”. Then there’s the White guy who looks like he suffers from klinefelders syndrome (small hands, peach fuzz, lanky) accompanied by his mail order bride from the orient. I don’t believe in miscegenation but I suppose it’s better that people like this are removed from our gene pool.

Posted by at 7:52 PM on February 28


To by brotherman who at 8:55 PM on February 25

This should not be a surprise. Look at the diseases that White settlers bought to the new world and gave to the native Americans. Whites have carried disease wherever they go.

1) The most devastating of illnesses brought to the new world was smallpox which is believed to have come from Africa:

https://dermatology.about.com/cs/smallpox/a/smallpoxhx.htm

The origin of smallpox is uncertain, but it is believed to have originated in Africa and then spread to India and China thousands of years ago. The first recorded smallpox epidemic was in 1350 BC during the Egyptian-Hittite war. Smallpox reached Europe between the 5th and 7th centuries and was present in major European cities by the 18th century.

The first African slave brought to Mexico is said to be one Juan Cortés, a slave who accompanied the conquistador Hernán Cortés in 1519. The Indians, reportedly astonished by his dark skin, having never seen an African before, took him for a god! Another of the early conquistadores, Pánfilo Narvaez, brought a slave who has been credited with bringing the devastating smallpox epidemic of 1520. Mexican anthropologist Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán estimates that there were 6 blacks who took part in the conquest of Mexico.

https://www.afromexico.com/brief.htm

These early slaves were more personal servants of their masters, who may be thought of as squires. These slaves were most likely taken from Africa, then transported to Seville, where early slaves were Christianized, and they probably spoke Spanish by the time they reached the New World. These slaves didn’t come over on slave ships as part of an overt slave trade.

2) If you had understood the article, it indicates that Blacks would most likely be better equipped genetically to withstand diseases than Whites and hence be better carriers to transmit devastating illness. That said you generally can’t blame the transmission of catastrophic illness on any race, since in general it was random. (With a few notable exceptions…)

Posted by Stillwarm at 3:27 AM on February 29


Hmmm.. an interesting and if phrased differently.. inflammatory headline.. let’s look at the body of the text:


“As would be expected with the “out of Africa” theory, the researchers found Africans had the greatest amount of genetic diversity, followed in turn by Middle Easterners, then Europeans and South Asians at about equal levels, then East Asians.”

“For example, Native Americans show even less genetic diversity than Europeans, having descended from a few thousand people who entered North America about 10,000 years ago.”


Oddly enough (gee I wonder why..?) there was no commentary as to whether East and South Asians and American Indians are genetically weaker than Whites (since apparently all of the aforementioned groups have less genetic diversity than Europeans…)

And lets see how this genetic diversity versus genetic homogeneity plays out in the real world.

Life expectancy in various countries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy


Posted by Stillwarm at 4:03 AM on February 29


Whites probably are genetically weaker, meaning we’ve suffered from recent dysgenic evolution and currently have more unwanted mutations. All we need to do is reorient society to selecting survival of the fittest, while opposing any sort of genetic tampering - I’d far rather be a proud white rather than a weak GMO… We need to preserve the genetic heritage our Creator gave us.

Mixing can create weaker hybrids from parts that do not work well together. All we need to do is remove the unwanted mutations and preserve our genetic heritage.

Posted by Frank at 8:00 PM on March 2


WOW, you guys really don’t know what “Genetic Diversity” is. It has nothing to do with Stronger or Smarter. All that means is when you break people down genetically you will have more to deal with when looking at an African. Because everybody came FROM Africa, those that were IN Africa for thousands of years before anyone left had the time to generate the most genetic mutations. And these are not “mutts” the variation is African variation. Also IN Africa, the country that has the most genetic diversity is the African horn - Ethiopia where many people left in the out of Africa scenario. In those populations with the mutations that left a few stayed inside Ethiopia, which shows the variation that we see today. What this means is there are now populations that are resistant to HIV in Africa, this will probably never happen anywhere else on the globe. Also if there were a killer Virus that every human caught that wiped out 95% of the earths population………Those left would probably be Africans because with all that genetic variations in the Genes of Africans the virus would hit a genetic roadblock. For the record about 93.5 % OF ALL GENETIC VARIATION IS FOUND IN AFRICA.

Posted by astenb at 7:11 PM on March 4


i wish someone would stop blaming the black diet for their diseases.i make biscuits with lard and buttermilk,we eat desert often,grits,etc…all four of my white children are extremely thin.they also ride horses,hike,dance,play tennis,football,in other words they are active.[my oldest girl can out run most of the black boys in her p.e. class]so either the blacks are lazy or unable to metabolize animal proteins and fats the way white people do

Posted by whitemama at 2:40 PM on March 5


In my experience of working with and managing these naturally cut and ‘straight-off-the-boat strong’ blacks, those good ole boys will out work them any day of the week. It starts at home.

Posted by at 12:37 AM on March 8


Did they factor in the fact that many African slaves in the New World had mixed with White ancestors? White+White=not so diverse. Black+White=more diverse.
Duh.

Posted by at 7:06 AM on March 8



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)