Out of Africa - Race, IQ, Geography, Climate

[Winston]

Check out this chapter from this book about race and IQ. It explains how human beings originally came out of Africa, and how geography and climate affected the intelligence of people in each region of the world.

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedric ... n/Race.htm

7
Out of Africa

The latest theory of human origins -- Out-of-
Africa -- provides the final piece to the
puzzle. It explains why r-K theory accounts
for race differences in body, brain, and
behavior. As races moved out of Africa they
evolved away from r-type behaviors and
toward K-type. Moving out of Africa meant
increasing brain size and IQ, but
lowering reproduction, aggression
and sexual activity.

Based on his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin thought Africa was “the cradle of mankind.�
He did not have any fossils from Africa to support his theory but he concluded that humans came from
Africa based on watching the chimpanzee and the gorilla. If the African apes were our closest living
relatives, it made sense that humans first evolved on the only continent where all three species lived.
Evidence from genetics, the fossil record, and archaeology have since all proved Darwin correct.
The human line began with the African fossil species called Australopithecus. Later human ancestors
Homo erectus and then Homo sapiens also appeared first in Africa.
Homo sapiens were fully human. They were in Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Moving to the
Middle East about 100,000 years ago, they then spread out across the world. They replaced the
Neanderthal and Homo erectus groups they met either by fighting or competing for food.
When modern humans left Africa they began to develop the racial traits we see today by adapting
to the new regions and climates. The first split in the human line took place about 100,000 years ago
between groups that remained in Africa (ancestors to modern Blacks) and those who left Africa. Then
about 40,000 years ago the group that left Africa divided once again, into the ancestors of today’s Whites
and Orientals.
This history of moving first out of Africa into Europe and then later into East Asia explains why
Whites fall in between Orientals and Blacks on the life history variables. The split between Africans and
non-Africans happened first, almost twice as early as the split between Orientals and Whites.
The Out of Africa theory explains the good fit between the r-K life history traits and race
differences. It is hard to survive in Africa. Africa has unpredictable droughts and deadly diseases that
spread quickly. More Africans than Asians or Europeans die young -- often from tropical disease. In these
African conditions, parental care is a less certain way of making sure a child will survive. A better
strategy is simply to have more children. This tilts their life history toward the r-end of the r-K scale. A
more r-strategy means not only more offspring and less parental care. It also means less culture is passed
from parent to child, and this tends to reduce the intellectual demands needed to function in the culture.
And the process continues from one generation to the next.
In contrast, the humans migrating to Eurasia faced entirely new problems -- gathering and storing
food, providing shelter, making clothes, and raising children during the long winters. These tasks were
more mentally demanding. They called for larger brains and slower growth rates. They permitted lower
levels of sex hormones, resulting in less sexual potency and aggression and more family stability and
longevity. Leaving the tropics for the northern continents meant leaving the r-strategy for the K-strategy -
- and all that went with it.
40

The Evidence

How can we know if the Out of Africa theory is true? To answer that question, we have to look at
the evidence from genetics, paleontology, and archaeology.
The History and Geography of Human Genes (1994) by Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and his colleagues
looks at thousands of genetic DNA comparisons of the races. Geneticists count the number of gene
mutations in each group to measure which groups are most closely related and when the groups split from
one another. These DNA studies support the Out of Africa theory that the split between Africans and all
other groups was the first to take place.
Fossils of prehistoric humans tell us that early steps in our evolution took place in Africa. Homo
sapiens lived in Africa between 200,000 and 100,000 years ago, but they only reached the Middle East
about 100,000 years ago. Earlier hominids such as the Neanderthals were very different from modern
humans. They had faces that jut further forward and they had larger front teeth than any living Europeans,
Africans, or East Asians. Neanderthals had denser bones, thicker skulls, and more pronounced brow
ridges than any modern humans. By comparison, all living humans are alike, despite our race differences.
Archaeology tells us the same story. The crude, Early Stone Age culture (termed Lower
Paleolithic) of Homo erectus, existed more than one million years before Homo sapiens appeared. The
Early Stone Age tool kit had hand-axes, choppers, and cleavers, all very similar in shape. However, the
Middle Stone Age tool kit of the Neanderthals (termed Middle Paleolithic) included more advanced stone
tools and the use of bone.
When modern humans first appeared on the scene 100,000 years ago, things started to change in
major ways. The Late Stone Age tool kit (termed Upper Paleolithic) was highly specialized. It consisted
of thinner blades struck off of stone cores to make knives, spear barbs, scrapers and cutters. Standardized
bone and antler tools appeared in the tool kit for the first time, including needles for sewing fur clothes.
The Late Stone Age tool kit contained tools made of several parts tied or glued together. Spear points
were set in shafts and ax heads in handles. Rope was used to make nets to trap foxes, rabbits, and other
small animals. Advanced weapons like barbed harpoons, darts, spear-throwers, and bows and arrows gave
Late Stone Age people the ability to kill animals from a safe distance.
Survival in Northeast Asia about 40,000 years ago also required warm clothing. Archeologists
have found needles, cave paintings of parkas, and grave ornaments marking the outlines of shirts and
trousers. We know that warm furs were worn. Fox and wolf skeletons missing their paws tell us that these
animals were skinned to make fur clothes. Houses were dug into the ground to provide insulation. These
large dwellings were marked by post holes and had walls made from mammoth bones. Fireplaces and
stone lamps were used to light the long Arctic winter night.

Geography and Race

Africa is warmer than the northern continents, but it is a less stable habitat. Droughts, storms, and
diseases from viruses, bacteria, and parasites cause high death rates, even today. Without modern medical
care, insuring survival in Africa means having many young (r-strategy). In the more stable environments
of Europe and Asia, survival is insured from having fewer young, but caring for them very well (Kstrategy).
The environment of Eurasia produced physical differences between the races. Northern Europe’s
cloudiness meant less sunshine. This decreased the intake of vitamin D, so lighter skin and hair were
needed to let more sunlight get in. As a result, Europeans born with lighter skin and hair were healthier.
They had more chance of having children who would survive and reproduce.
East Asia was even colder than North Europe, but with less cloud cover and more sunlight. There
a thicker layer of fat helped to insulate against the cold. This gives many Orientals a so-called “yellow�
complexion because it reduces the visibility of red blood vessels close to the skin. Meanwhile in Africa
melanin gives the skin a black color to protect it from the scorching rays of the sun.
41
Climate differences also influenced mental abilities. In Africa, food and warmth were available
all year round. To survive the cold winters, the populations migrating northwards had to become more
inventive. They had to find new sources of food and methods for storing it. They needed to make clothing
and shelters to protect against the elements. Without them the people would have died. Both parents had
to provide more care to help their young survive in the harsher climates.
Whites and Orientals in Eurasia had to find food and keep warm in the colder climates. In the
tropics, plant foods were plentiful all year round. In Europe and Asia they were seasonal and could not be
found during many winter and spring months.
To survive the long winters, the ancestors of today's Whites and Orientals made complex tools
and weapons to fish and hunt animals. They made spearheads that could kill big game from a greater
distance and knives for cutting and skinning. Fires, clothes and shelters were made for warmth. Bone
needles were used to sew animal skins together and shelters were made from large bones and skins.
Making special tools, fires, clothing and shelters called for higher intelligence. Moving “Out of
Africa� meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower
growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive
behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were
needed.

Conclusion

Fossil records, archaeology, and genetic DNA studies of the living races support Charles
Darwin’s insight that we evolved in Africa. Humans then spread to the Middle East, Europe, Asia,
Australia, and then to the Americas. As humans left Africa, their bodies, brains and behavior changed. To
deal with the colder winters and scarcer food supply of Europe and Northeast Asia, the Oriental and
White races moved away from an r-strategy toward the K-strategy. This meant more parenting and social
organization, which required a larger brain size and a higher IQ.

Additional Readings

Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., Menozzi, P., & Piazza, A. (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Stringer, C. & McKie, R. (1996). African Exodus. London: Cape.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Some of this is plausible. However, how does this theory account for the fact that Europeans are no longer the highest IQ's in the US today?

Asians from both the subcontinent and the far east have higher IQ's than whites in the USA. Also, many African American families that employ "K strategy" outperform average whites in intelligence and productivity.

The biggest issue I have with this is that it is contradictory. "K strategy" is a nurture over nature argument, yet Darwin still posits that nature influences African under-performance even though he admits that "R strategy" is an important causal factor in lower intelligence.

Missing in this theory is how Europeans came to have higher intelligence; were they born with it or was it developed out of necessity. I think the latter is the case.

A human brain is almost like a blank canvass. Depending on how stimulated that brain is will determine how much neurological connections are created thus expanding intelligence. This accounts for the difference in my view.

[ErikHeaven]

Yes use it or lose it!

[Rock]

Some of this is plausible. However, how does this theory account for the fact that Europeans are no longer the highest IQ's in the US today?

Asians from both the subcontinent and the far east have higher IQ's than whites in the USA. Also, many African American families that employ "K strategy" outperform average whites in intelligence and productivity.

The biggest issue I have with this is that it is contradictory. "K strategy" is a nurture over nature argument, yet Darwin still posits that nature influences African under-performance even though he admits that "R strategy" is an important causal factor in lower intelligence.

Missing in this theory is how Europeans came to have higher intelligence; were they born with it or was it developed out of necessity. I think the latter is the case.

A human brain is almost like a blank canvass. Depending on how stimulated that brain is will determine how much neurological connections are created thus expanding intelligence. This accounts for the difference in my view.

No longer? When did they have the highest IQs in the US?

Where did you get your data on Asians from the sub-continent or African American families which employ "K-strategy"? I would be interested to have a look at the results.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Some of this is plausible. However, how does this theory account for the fact that Europeans are no longer the highest IQ's in the US today?

Asians from both the subcontinent and the far east have higher IQ's than whites in the USA. Also, many African American families that employ "K strategy" outperform average whites in intelligence and productivity.

The biggest issue I have with this is that it is contradictory. "K strategy" is a nurture over nature argument, yet Darwin still posits that nature influences African under-performance even though he admits that "R strategy" is an important causal factor in lower intelligence.

Missing in this theory is how Europeans came to have higher intelligence; were they born with it or was it developed out of necessity. I think the latter is the case.

A human brain is almost like a blank canvass. Depending on how stimulated that brain is will determine how much neurological connections are created thus expanding intelligence. This accounts for the difference in my view.

No longer? When did they have the highest IQs in the US?

Where did you get your data on Asians from the sub-continent or African American families which employ "K-strategy"? I would be interested to have a look at the results.

http://www.africaresource.com/index.php ... Itemid=360

Black African Educational Attainment and their Implications for IQ:

The information presented above suggests that African born blacks residing in western countries as a group possess IQs that are between 5 points and a full standard deviation (15 IQ points) above that of whites living in these countries (see, Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Richardson, 2002; Cross, 1994; Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002). So that if one accepts the research suggesting direct casual relationships between academic attainment and IQ (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999) the median IQ for African blacks residing in the west should be about 110! This is especially true for those living in the United States and in the UK. One may also expect to find, according to much of the “corroborative� literature that relates IQ with education, approximately twice the number of African born immigrants with IQs in the 115 range, than among the general white American population (Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999; Williams, 2005; Nisbett, 2002); and more than twice the number of African immigrants in the 125 IQ range (see Gottfredson, 1998; Nisbett, 2002; The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 1999-2000). For example, in the United States, African born blacks and their offspring have been reported to exceed American born whites in several of the most cognitive socio-economic indicators – ‘the areas of educational attainment and occupational status’ -- in ways that are virtually identical to the gaps observed between native born white and black Americans (Nisbett, 2002; Charles, 2007; Le, 2007; Le, 2007; US Census Bureau, Census 2000. "5% Public Use Microdata Sample.").

Some advantages to using academic attainment comparisons for the analysis of major group differences in IQ in Western industrialized nations are that they provide very big numbers, sample sizes often in the hundreds of thousands, that are genuinely random; and consequently specific ethnicities can be compared with statistical confidence. Evidence shows that the differences in overall educational attainment observed between African born blacks in the United States and UK and native born whites are quite spectacular! Indeed, if one chooses to adopt the racial hereditarian thinking of Jensen (1980), Herrnstein and Murray (1994) or Gottfredson (1998), these disparities become suggestive of underlying intelligence differences between the two populations; with these differences in “strong favor� of African born blacks! Though higher cognitive indices are said by some to be predictive of more educational achievements and more education predictive of higher intellectual outcomes (e.g., Brody, 1997; Ceci & Williams, 1997), so that there are reciprocal relationships. Most who study African immigrants attribute their inclination toward academic attainment to be the result of positive cultural factors (Arthur, 2000; Selassie, 1998).

In the United States today, most claims regarding differences between ethnic ‘populations’ in relationship to IQ test performance are based on statistically derived data that relate to scholastic aptitude tests (e.g. Flynn, 2006). With this in mind, and acknowledging the superior educational attainment of African blacks in the United States (and elsewhere) it can thus be argued, because of their superior educational attainment levels, that they must also surmount far more in number and more difficult scholastic aptitude tests, in general, which in turn would require higher level IQs (see Gottfredson, 1998; Ostrowsky, 1999). As whites on average do not, or are unable to attain the same levels of academic achievement within these (their own!) academic institutional frameworks, they must also by the racialist thinking employed by some, possess significantly lower cogitative indices on the group level (e.g. Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1986, 1998). In fact, attainment differences of these ‘grand’ magnitudes would suggest that American whites, in particular, are at a significant intellectual handicap when matched against immigrants of black African, East Indian, and East Asian descent. Incidentally, most American whites themselves are the children or grandchildren of “self-selected,� voluntary immigrants from Europe (Ogbu and Simons, 1998), and thus these trends can not be said to result from immigrant selectivity.

African born blacks residing in Western countries tend also to be concentrated in higher level professional occupations, which are considered (by some) to be more intellectually demanding; requiring greater cognitive ability (Jensen, 1980; Gottfredson, 1986; Herrnstein and Murray, 1994), than the average occupations of either American or British born whites (Nisbett, 2002; Dixon, 2006; Li and Heath, 2006; Dustmann and Theodoropoulos, 2006). According to IQ advocates and social Darwinists, alike, these occupational differences should also be indicative of higher levels of intelligence among black African immigrants than among whites (e.g. Gottfredson, 1986; Jensen 1980). Cole (1990), argues that the relevance of school-based skills, such as those found on IQ and scholastic aptitude tests, will grow as the outside-of-school contexts becomes more like that of school itself. While demand for these kinds of school based skills are found most frequently among the clerical/administrative occupations (Richardson, 2002) which African born blacks residing in western countries tend to be found overrepresented (Nisbett, 2002; Dixon, 2006). In fact, as virtually all IQ tests in popular use today were designed specifically for the purposes of predicting academic success and occupational status, it could thus be argued that the west’s hereditarian “Cognitive Elite� (discussed in “The Bell Curve�) could be best described as black men and women from Africa.

Something else to note, according to the New York Times (Roberts, 2005), for the first time in history more blacks are coming to the United States from Africa than during the entire span of the transatlantic slave trade: “Immigration figures show that since 1990 more Africans have arrived voluntarily than the total who disembarked in chains before the United States outlawed international slave trafficking in 1807. “ For example, research shows that around 15% of Ghana’s 20million citizens live aboard (Owusu-Ankomah 2006). Similar trends can be observed among other African states. The U.S. Census Bureau's 2005 American Community Survey counted 114,000 black African immigrants in the Washington metropolitan area, alone, accounting for about 11 percent of the area’s total immigrant population. Less than 6 percent arrived before 1980. In other words: black African achievement can not simply be dismissed as that of a “small group� of elites entirely unrepresentative of the greater continent. Moreover, the academic attainment and occupational achievements of black Africans are not only documented in the United States, but also the UK (Li and Heath, 2006; Dustmann, Theodoropoulos, 2006) and Canada (Guppy and Davies, 1998; Boyd, 2002; The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2008).

I also would look at Race, social class, and individual differences in I.Q. By Sandra Scarr. She spends a great deal of time also looking at black children who are adopted into K strategy homes and therefore have higher IQ's.

[ladislav]

Asians from both the subcontinent and the far east have higher IQ's than whites in the USA. Also, many African American families that employ "K strategy" outperform average whites in intelligence and productivity.

Absolutely! But the key word here is in the USA. The demographics in the US are not natural. The ones that are allowed into most Anglo countries are the ones who are the cream of the crop otherwise they will not get a visa. Also, many families of those born in those countries traditionally stress education because they see it as a way for their kids to advance.

It is the same in Australia, for example. Most whites are blue collar and that is what their families stress as far as careers. The Chinese, though, are either allowed if they have some half a million in the bank or if they pass IELTS exams and get a student visa. Otherwise, they will not be allowed in. Also, no visa to Oz is granted if they do not pass a certain proficiency in English. This way, the low IQ people simply cannot get into the country.
Same with the Jews- study for something intellectual - all other fields had been usually closed to them- or die. Agriculture was not allowed to them. Membership in craft and other professional guilds was not allowed, Plus they had to be studying the Torah by religious requirement and thus were the few among the people in the Middle Ages who could read or write.

The same goes for African students. These are the ones who have passed exams and are the cream of the crop again. Those who are in Eastern Europe have an IQ higher than the average local in the country they go to. Otherwise, well, no visa!

Also, IQs do not measure social intelligence, compassion, creativity, musical, artistic or sports intelligence or spirituality/philosophical wisdom. They do not measure common sense. And they were created by those who had no exposure to other culture's values.

[Repatriate]

Moving “Out of
Africa� meant moving into a K-type life-history strategy. That meant higher IQ, larger brains, slower
growth, and lower hormone levels. It also meant lower levels of sexuality, aggression, and impulsive
behavior. More family stability, advanced planning, self-control, rule-following, and longevity were
needed.

Really now? I think geography and environment had more to do with this. Western europe is geographically located on extremely fertile soil. It was inevitable that agrarian societies would spring up around there. This is in contrast to Africa where there was far less fertile land for agriculture and probably why people gravitated towards hunter-gatherer type existences. Plus the horse had a huge influence on the development of asian, middle eastern, and european civilizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Globa ... p_USDA.jpg


Also i'm not so sure about the less "aggression" part. "Europeans" have always been in an almost continuous state of war. Much of the reason why European nation-states sprang into existence was this competitiveness over territory and boundaries. A large part of the cultural and social concept of "property" is tied to agrarian fiefdoms and feudal land ownership. Modern day colonialism and imperialism was just an extension of this constant state of competitive expansionism that European states had with each other. When you're in a state of constant competition then you have the drive to delve into anything that will give a competitive edge. Military is tied to scientific development and to economic dominance. So there was always an incentive to learn more in order to dominate those fields.

In China people were similarly aggressive/expansionist but the difference is that you had long dynasties of one ruling class of people (usually Han) or another. When people weren't actively competing for resources or kingdoms it was split into vast geographic territories that was different from European city-states. In more ways than one this is what caused long periods of stagnation in NE Asia. People weren't competitive _enough_ with each other. The existential threat (plains nomads like the Mongols or Huns) were less developed than the Chinese civs but more naturally developed at primitive mounted warfare so anytime the threat had to repelled it was usually on military rather than economic terms. There was little technological or economic cross over that benefited Chinese kingdoms from winning against Mongols or Huns but there was a lot to lose when they lost on the field of battle.

I believe in the case of Europe you had many nation-states/city-states who were relatively equally matched and or developed along similar lines. So when one conquered the other there was a natural sharing of technological and economic progress.

[Winston]

Videos debunking the "Out of Africa" myth of human origins.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f66h_2dRcWs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oojNtLen9fc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW-p9PlDYiQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBPR6UPKo0k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z9NWJrWKRY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi_zNGWVyVE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NY-YaYgT-4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGOeMzoFabY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8btMBRX9Xo

[Winston]

I dont get something. If all races came from black people then how come africa isnt the most evolved race and oldest souls? How come africans act like the infant souls described in the video series, soul ages? Like they are one step away from the animal kingdom?

Is it proven that we all came from blacks? Arent there people like Robert Sephr and Jared Taylor that contest it?

I saw a video clip where an asian scientist discovered that mutation in fish genes can turn black fish into white fish. It was hailed as genetic proof that white people came from black people. However that only has to do with individual mutations, not of a whole race right?

I also heard that white people have DNA from Neanderthals but black people do not, thus proving that they are separate races. Is that true? Can anyone look it up?

[Mr S]

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/613 ... frica.html

Humans originated in Europe, not Africa: study
Press Trust of India, Berlin, May 23 2017, 16:49 IST

Humans may have originated in Europe - and not in Africa - much earlier than previously thought, according to the study of a 7.2 million-year-old pre-human fossil that could potentially rewrite the history of evolution.

According to an international research team, the common lineage of great apes and humans split several hundred thousand years earlier than assumed.

The researchers, led by Madelaine Bohme from the University of Tubingen in Germany and Nikolai Spassov from the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, studied two fossils of Graecopithecus freybergi with state-of-the-art methods and came to the conclusion that they belong to pre-humans.

The findings, published in the journal PLOS ONE, further indicate that the split of the human lineage occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean and not - as customarily assumed - in Africa.

Present-day chimpanzees are humans' nearest living relatives. Where the last chimp-human common ancestor lived is a central and highly debated issue.

Researchers have assumed up to now that the lineages diverged five to seven million years ago and that the first pre-humans developed in Africa.

According to the 1994 theory of French researcher Yves Coppens, climate change in Eastern Africa could have played a crucial role. The new research now outlines a new scenario for the beginning of human history.

The team analysed the two known specimens of the fossil hominid Graecopithecus freybergi - a lower jaw from Greece and an upper premolar from Bulgaria.

Using computer tomography, they visualised the internal structures of the fossils and demonstrated that the roots of premolars are widely fused.

"While great apes typically have two or three separate and diverging roots, the roots of Graecopithecus converge and are partially fused - a feature that is characteristic of modern humans, early humans and several pre-humans including Ardipithecus and Australopithecus," said Bohme.

The lower jaw, nicknamed 'El Graeco' by the scientists, has additional dental root features, suggesting that the species Graecopithecus freybergi might belong to the pre-human lineage.

"We were surprised by our results, as pre-humans were previously known only from sub-Saharan Africa," said Jochen Fuss, a PhD student at University of Tubingen.

Graecopithecus is several hundred thousand years older than the oldest potential pre-human from Africa, the six to seven million year old Sahelanthropus from Chad.

The research team dated the sedimentary sequence of the Graecopithecus fossil sites in Greece and Bulgaria with physical methods and got a nearly synchronous age for both fossils - 7.24 and 7.175 million years before present.

"It is at the beginning of the Messinian, an age that ends with the complete desiccation of the Mediterranean Sea," Bohme said.

"This dating allows us to move the human-chimpanzee split into the Mediterranean area," said Professor David Begun, a University of Toronto.

Researchers demonstrated that the North African Sahara desert originated more than seven million years ago. The team concluded this based on geological analyses of the sediments in which the two fossils were found.

Although geographically distant from the Sahara, the red-coloured silts are very fine-grained and could be
classified as desert dust.

"These data document for the first time a spreading Sahara 7.2 million years ago, whose desert storms transported red, salty dusts to the north coast of the Mediterranean Sea in its then form," researchers said.

"The incipient formation of a desert in North Africa more than seven million years ago and the spread of savannahs in Southern Europe may have played a central role in the splitting of the human and chimpanzee lineages," said Bohme.

[Winston]

According to science, they are starting to move away from the "Out of Africa" theory, because science has now shown that we did not all come from one race. Whites and asians are different from blacks, because they have Neanderthal DNA, but blacks do not. So blacks may be more indigenous to Earth whereas whites and asians are hybrids and came from genetic intervention or manipulation. Robert Sepehr has videos showing how Noah fathered the European race after the flood. So the Asians may have been part of the pre-Adamic races that survived the flood. Not everyone died during the global flood. There were probably some survivors up on the mountains or some who went underground and waited it out.

These videos by Robert Sepehr below contain clips that talk about how science now has discovered that we are not all the same race after all, but different hybrids, for some of our ancestors mated with non-human species as well.

[Moretorque]

Winston how you can be so spot on and then so lost baffles me.......

[Winston]

Science now says that Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA in them, but blacks do not. So we are different hybrids. See the news articles about this below.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/scie ... -asia.html

https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/neanderthal/

https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015 ... europeans/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbree ... ern_humans

https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontolog ... han-others

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencen ... story.html

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Science now says that Europeans and Asians have Neanderthal DNA in them, but blacks do not. So we are different hybrids. See the news articles about this below.

Well, that is not so clear @Winston........

Exactly How "Black" Are Black Americans?

* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.

* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.

* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.

* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.

https://www.theroot.com/exactly-how-bla ... 1790895185

There might be reason to believe that indigenous Africans have a greater proportion of people without Neanderthal DNA, but even they have both European and Arab admixtures in ways that are not so apparent to the eye.

[Moretorque]

The thing that gets me is how he would believe anything put out by the Jew York Times or the other more than likely Jewish controlled publications.

What better way to get a race war going then tell the blacks they are from apes and that the whites are from Noah linked to god the father.

I'm not buying it, were all just different variations of niggers and weather you like it or not the black man is more than likely the father of the human race and created all we see over time as far as mans achievements go and you just be a RACIST NAZI! trying to start a race war.......