-
-
Seeing that you are inferior, I don't see you as being capable of proving anything. You've yet to prove that you're not inferior yourself. Also, what facts are you referencing? Facts like these?
Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
Published February 22nd 2008
The in depth studies can be found at the article's source, here:
"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.
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.
"What we may be seeing is a 'population genetic echo' of the founding of Europe," said Bustamante.
The Cornell team hopes to study other population groups in search of similar results.
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 ******ia 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.
Native Americans had the least genetic diversity of all, indicating that part of the world was settled last.
"Previously, we've been able to look at the genome and say, 'This part is from Africa, this is from Asia,'" explained ******ia research Andrew Singleton to Wired News. "Now we can look past that and say, 'It's from this part of Africa or Eurasia.'"
A third study, published in the journal Science on Friday, may be the most fascinating of all.
Drawing on 935 individual samples from the French databank, a Stanford University team found deep traces of long-ago population movements, all originating from a "ground zero" in Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.
For example, the Pygmies of the Congo forest were found to be quite close to the Bushmen of Namibia — but both were very different from most other sub-Saharan groups.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
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.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length."
Related Stories:
o Identical Twins Often Have Different DNA
o Early Americans May Have Been 'Stuck' for 20,000 Years
o Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related
o Scientists Produce Synthetic Bacterial DNA
o DNA Molecules Display Telepathic Abilities
Comment
-
The kid obviously needs a dose of unity.
Comment
-
That crap proves nothing.Seeing that you are inferior, I don't see you as being capable of proving anything. You've yet to prove that you're not inferior yourself. Also, what facts are you referencing? Facts like these?
Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
Published February 22nd 2008
The in depth studies can be found at the article's source, here:
"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.
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.
"What we may be seeing is a 'population genetic echo' of the founding of Europe," said Bustamante.
The Cornell team hopes to study other population groups in search of similar results.
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 ******ia 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.
Native Americans had the least genetic diversity of all, indicating that part of the world was settled last.
"Previously, we've been able to look at the genome and say, 'This part is from Africa, this is from Asia,'" explained ******ia research Andrew Singleton to Wired News. "Now we can look past that and say, 'It's from this part of Africa or Eurasia.'"
A third study, published in the journal Science on Friday, may be the most fascinating of all.
Drawing on 935 individual samples from the French databank, a Stanford University team found deep traces of long-ago population movements, all originating from a "ground zero" in Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.
For example, the Pygmies of the Congo forest were found to be quite close to the Bushmen of Namibia — but both were very different from most other sub-Saharan groups.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
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.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length."
Related Stories:
o Identical Twins Often Have Different DNA
o Early Americans May Have Been 'Stuck' for 20,000 Years
o Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related
o Scientists Produce Synthetic Bacterial DNA
o DNA Molecules Display Telepathic Abilities
Who the hell is going to ask you about DNA traces that go back 100 billion years go. You're not speaking with your feet on your ground. If that pleases your simpleton brain, fine, I don't expect a whole lot more.
I don't have to find meaningless articles to prove white superiority, just look around you.Comment
-
Seeing that you are inferior, I don't see you as being capable of proving anything. You've yet to prove that you're not inferior yourself. Also, what facts are you referencing? Facts like these?
Whites Genetically Weaker Than Blacks, Study Finds
Published February 22nd 2008
The in depth studies can be found at the article's source, here:
"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.
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.
"What we may be seeing is a 'population genetic echo' of the founding of Europe," said Bustamante.
The Cornell team hopes to study other population groups in search of similar results.
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 ******ia 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.
Native Americans had the least genetic diversity of all, indicating that part of the world was settled last.
"Previously, we've been able to look at the genome and say, 'This part is from Africa, this is from Asia,'" explained ******ia research Andrew Singleton to Wired News. "Now we can look past that and say, 'It's from this part of Africa or Eurasia.'"
A third study, published in the journal Science on Friday, may be the most fascinating of all.
Drawing on 935 individual samples from the French databank, a Stanford University team found deep traces of long-ago population movements, all originating from a "ground zero" in Ethiopia, Kenya or Tanzania.
For example, the Pygmies of the Congo forest were found to be quite close to the Bushmen of Namibia — but both were very different from most other sub-Saharan groups.
The fierce and proud Bedouin nomads of the Middle East actually have a lot of European and South Asian blood.
The Asian-looking Hazara of Afghanistan are correct in claiming ancestry in Mongolia, but the Han, the dominant ethnic group in China, may be disappointed to discover they're actually two peoples, one north, the other south.
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.
As with the other large-scale study, the Stanford team found the greatest diversity outside of Africa among people living in the wide crescent of land stretching from the eastern shore of the Mediterranean to northern India.
Not only was the region among the first colonized by the African migrants, they theorize, but the large number of European and East Asian genes among the population indicates that it's long been the human highway, with large numbers of migrants from both directions conquering, trading and generally reproducing along its entire length."
Related Stories:
o Identical Twins Often Have Different DNA
o Early Americans May Have Been 'Stuck' for 20,000 Years
o Scientist: All Blue-Eyed People Are Related
o Scientists Produce Synthetic Bacterial DNA
o DNA Molecules Display Telepathic Abilities
If you guys are going to get into some silly racial superiority debate, then this is a very balanced article from a left-wing British newspaper relating to the subject.
Comment
-
YOU "look around", I'll look at the scientific data.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...8/ai_n18741604DO African immigrants make the smartest Americans? If you were judging by statistics alone, you could find plenty of evidence to back it up.
In a side-by-side comparison of 2000 census data by sociologist John R. Logan at the Mumford Center, State University of New York at Albany, black immigrants from Africa average the highest educational attainment of any population group in the country, including whites and Asians.
For example, 43.8 percent of African immigrants had achieved a college degree, compared to 42.5 of Asian Americans, 28.9 percent for immigrants from Europe, Russia and Canada, and 23.1 percent of the U.S. population as a whole.
That defies the usual stereotypes of Asian Americans as the only "model minority." Yet the traditional American narrative has rendered the high academic achievements of black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean invisible, as if it were a taboo topic.
Instead, we should take a closer look. That was my reaction in 2004 after black Harvard law professor Lani Guinier and Henry Louis Gates Jr., chairman of Harvard's African-American studies department, stirred a black Harvard alumni reunion with questions about precisely where the university's new black students were coming from.
About 8 percent, or 530, of Harvard's undergraduates were black, they said, but somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of black undergraduates were "West Indian and African immigrants or their children, or to a lesser extent, children of biracial couples."
If we take a closer look, I said at the time, I bet we'll find that Harvard's not alone. With all of the ink and airwaves that have been devoted to immigration these days, black immigrants remain remarkably invisible. Yet their success has long followed the patterns of other high-achieving immigrants.
As one immigrant Jamaican friend once told me, "I'm too busy working two jobs to worry about the white man's racism."
Now comes a new study that finds a consistent pattern of Ivy League and other elite colleges and universities boosting their black student populations by enrolling large numbers of immigrants from Africa, the West Indies and Latin America.
Immigrants, who make up 13 percent of the nation's college-age black population, account for more than a quarter of black students at Ivy League and other elite universities, according to the study of 28 selective colleges and universities. The authors of the study, published recently in the American Journal of Education, included Douglas S. Massey of Princeton University and Camille Z. Charles of the University of Pennsylvania. The proportion of immigrants was higher at private institutions, 28.8 percent, than at the public ones, where they comprised 23.1 percent of enrollment.
Are elite schools padding their racial diversity numbers with black immigrants who do not have a history of American slavery in their families? This development immediately calls into question whether affirmative action admission policies are fulfilling their original intent.
But as Walter Benn Michaels, a professor of English at the University of Illinois at Chicago, writes in his book "The Trouble With Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Ignore Inequality," the original intent of affirmative action morphed back in the 1970s from reparations for slavery into the promotion of a broader virtue: "diversity." Since then, it no longer seems to matter how many of your college's black students had slavery in their families. It only matters that they are black.
That said, I don't begrudge black immigrants or any other high-achieving immigrants for their impressive achievements. I applaud them. I encourage more native-born American children, particularly my own child, to take similar advantage of this country's hard-won opportunities.
But I also think we need to revisit the meaning of "diversity." Unlike our current system of feel-good game-playing, we need to focus on the deeper question of how education can be improved and opportunities opened up to those who were left behind by the civil rights revolution.
We tend to look too often at every aspect of diversity except economic class. Yet, the dream of upward mobility is an essential part of how we Americans like to think of ourselves.
It's also why a lot more people are trying to get into this country than trying to get out.Comment
-
I'll say it... You need only look at the Richest ,Most educated and Powerful Nations..With the highest standards of living.. And You will have your answers..
All these Stats are widely available..Comment
Tweet
Comment