Superstitious minds

Mini post. Kinda. Why is Benedict Cumberbatch so ugly?

No really. If we’re doing red pill observations, humour me.


I mentioned before about old world superstitions forgotten in recent years.
As recently as my parent’s generation, they considered ugly children the product of sin, that God was punishing their parents for their sin. You can still find this info around if you look but they rarely dive into it.

You could say it’s about STDs but back then people rarely travelled and slept around enough to frequently catch them. The modern microbiome of the slut is more taxed. So what?

Back to the school mocking. If a child had always married parents but became ugly in the teens, questions would be asked openly and they would get teased about whether one or both parents had ever cheated. This is where we get the term bastard. It isn’t actually about bastards, it’s about ugliness. The ugliness of parental deceit.

You can pretty much tell when there’s a birth defect in a baby, the eyes look dull if it’s mental. It’s a known indicator of fatal defects.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875957214001703

2015 Birth Defects in the Newborn Population: Race and Ethnicity

Overall birth defect prevalence was 29.2 per 1000 in a cohort of 1,048,252 live births, of which 51% were Caucasians.

Full white or mongrelised? Let’s assume pureblood despite America (mixed white, mostly). American whites are on average less attractive as white blended than single nation counterparts, even living in America. Models tend to come from homogeneous national areas, (i.e. subrace) a finding that is known to apply to white settlers in Brazil to this day, they send scouts. Specifically.

https://www.thecut.com/2010/06/model_scouts_find_more_than_ha.html

Compared with Caucasians, the risk of overall birth defects was lower in African–Americans (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9) and Hispanics (relative risk = 0.9, confidence interval 0.8–0.9).

Failure to consider abortions for “no” reason or gender as defective. Selection bias. A lot of those already had abortions because they’re high abortion groups!

The risk of overall birth defects was similar in Caucasians and Asians. Relative to the Caucasians, African–Americans had a lower risk of cardiac, genitourinary, and craniofacial malformations but a higher risk of musculoskeletal malformations. Hispanics had a lower risk of genitourinary and gastrointestinal malformation. Asians had a higher risk of craniofacial and musculoskeletal malformations.

Didn’t control for proportion in the population, then non-whites are way ahead.

Craniofacial = ugly. 

Musculoskeletal = ugly. Well, dumpy.

Unless you’re going to argue a big is beautiful for literal birth defects?

And “similar” isn’t same. It isn’t statistical. This is like IVF success studies again (see below).

Why did some old world men witness the birth? All babies look like those reddish potatoes, it can’t be a resemblance. You can tell a resemblance to one parent over another by middle childhood to puberty.
We’re told that it’s about adultery and it might be true if you suspect a man with certain features e.g. skin colour, an extra finger.

Yet, what can you tell at birth? Ugliness.
Whether or not the man in question remembers that reason.

Cinderella effect also applies to genetic but ugly kids (lookism, it’s aka). The parents reject them, even if one genetically caused their fug.

Take Cumberbatch, product of a union involving adultery.
Fugly. Nice voice, but his father is the looker. Mother is a looker too. The issue cannot be genetic.

Some superstitions have a basis in fact.

Why did old ladies peer into a pram to judge the ugliness of the babe?

To see if you’re a SINNER!

[inc Thou shalt not adulterate]

Picking on an ugly white guy wouldn’t be totally kosher. I have other evidence.

We’re looking for spiteful mutants.

Now the post gets huge.

To more data, ever more data, smother the liars in data:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/informationregardingmixedraceparentage

“Please may I request the following information, records and documentation under the Freedom of Information Act:

Information in regard to people of mixed race parentage- often called ‘white and black Caribbean’, ‘white and black African’, ‘white and Asian’, ‘other mixed’- being at increased risk of being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or of suffering from fertility problems in their adult lives, which is related to their mixed race parentage

Information regarding NHS policy and practice on the advising of interracial couples, who are prospective parents, about the increased risk of their child being born with a birth defect, stillborn, or infertile in adult life, which would be connected to their, the child’s, mixed race parentage

Please may I also request statistical information and records which display the following:

The percentage of overall cases of babies born with a birth defect, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of babies still born, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall cases of infertility, which is attributable to each ethnic group

The percentage of overall births, which is attributable to each ethnic group”

Reply:

“In Tables 8 and 10, mixed race is included in a single category of Mixed, Chinese and any other ethnic group. This is because the numbers in these groups are sufficiently low to risk being disclosive, and follows agreed statistical guidelines.
a) being born with a birth defect – this information is shown in Table 10.
b) being still born – this information is not published. However, you could request a special extract (further details of how to do this are explained below).
c) we do not hold any information on infertility, and are therefore not able to answer your question about adults suffering from fertility problems, connected to their mixed race parentage.”

Do not hold information my lily-white arse.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/infertility-ivf-nhs-race-lgbt-asian-black-women-a9216921.html

Table link: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/gestationspecificinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Page does not exist”.

It’s this paper.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/pregnancyandethnicfactorsinfluencingbirthsandinfantmortality/2014-10-15

“Some research suggests that Black and Asian women have shorter gestation than White European women, and that this may be due to earlier fetal maturation (Patel et al., 2004). The discrepancies in gestation by ethnicity may also be explained by socio-economic, behavioural and physiological differences among the different ethnic groups (Gray et al., 2009).”

In an ONS report. They know.

“Table 10 (184.5 Kb Excel sheet) shows that for four of the five combined ethnic groups analysed, the most common cause of infant death was immaturity related conditions

(Black, 54%;

Mixed, Chinese and any other group, 44%;

White, 43%;

For a majority, that’s incredibly low.

and those where ethnicity was

not stated, 49%).

For the Asian group, the most common cause was congenital anomalies (41%). A higher incidence of congenital anomalies in Asian populations is well-documented (Gray et al. 2009).”

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/child-health/gestation-specific-infant-mortality-in-england-and-wales/2012/rft-table-1.xls

Low birthweight and prematurity are both measures of fetal development. Another measure is the baby’s size in relation to its gestational age. Babies whose birthweight lies below the tenth percentile for their gestational age are known as ‘small for gestational age’ (SGA).

Not all babies who are SGA have a pathological growth restriction; they may just be constitutionally small.

read: racially

This may explain why babies of Bangladeshi, Indian or Pakistani origin are more likely to be SGA than White British babies.”

Smaller brains too. Inbreeding depression but also group average by nation. Look at national IQ.

https://www.photius.com/rankings/national_iq_scores_country_ranks.html
Bangladesh 82
Over one whole standard deviation below. According to the likes of Peterson, useless to a Western economy. The average Bangladeshi.
India 82
Recall regression to the mean. Also, friendliness correlates more to low IQ. Do not be fooled.
Pakistan 84
Thailand 91
Philippines 86
Nigeria 84
Jamaica 71, where we’re picking up new NHS nurses.

Enjoy that decline.

Tables 8 and 10 mentioned in FOI request not listed, have to know it’s there.
Under Downloadable Tables:

“Table 8: Live births, neonatal and infant mortality by ethnic group and gestational age at birth, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales

Table 10: Infant mortality by ONS cause groups and broad ethnic group, 2012 birth cohort, England and Wales”

For future reference, write your FOI requests as “concern for services provided to BAME women” and “progressive need for up-to-date medical guidance for mixed race couples and the biracial in family planning”.

You have to download the excel, click to tables 8 and 10, then read the footnote of superscript 1 to know to scroll right.

Table 8: All others^1
7.1% under 37wks
9.2% SGA

Black SGA: 9.2 and 12.3%.
Bangladeshi, Indian, Pakistani only SGA: 17%, 16.3%, 14.2%.
White SGA: 7.2%, 6.2%.
Unknown 8.2%.
ALL SGA average: 8.2%.

Something’s off.

Pre-term neonatal deaths
Total: 869
B,I,P: 9, 30, 47
Black: 39, 13
White: 549, 63
Unknown, not stated: 32
All others^1: 87
For such a vanishingly small percentage of the population, how is it 87?
10% of pre-term deaths were “1 Chinese, Other Asian, Other black, Other and all Mixed groups.”

Do you see what I see?

For non-statistically minded people:

Infant death, pre-term
Total: 1232
B 21
I 41
P 66
Black African: 62
Black Caribbean: 20
W native 750
W other 86
Not stated 48
All others^1: 138

See it yet? If you controlled for population ratio, it’d be more dramatic by far.

This is why they hide it and I have to make my own charts.

Term infant deaths
Total: 895
All others^1: 102.
That’s 11.4% from a tiny group of mixed.

Table 10 screen-capped, do your own charts.

Related studies, I do have a point about measurement error.

https://iussp2009.princeton.edu/papers/93139
2009 Fertility by ethnic and religious groups in the UK, trends in a multi-cultural context

Asian tsunami in USA too
https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rates-by-race-and-ethnicity/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281416/birth-rate-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

From one of the links, can’t find which. Calm down. Either they’re abstaining from having kids once here, infertile, the neonate dies or it’s retarded. Being here is actually a curse since they’re held to the standards and economy of a higher IQ nation. They’re voter birds here for a season or tax chattel and they’ll leave when it’s convenient to.

Ethnicity and IVF

“How a patient’s ethnic background affects her chance of pregnancy, especially with IVF, is a fascinating yet poorly studied area of research. According to a 1995 national survey of family growth, non-Caucasian married women were more likely to experience infertility than Caucasian married women, yet these same non-Caucasian women were less likely to receive any type of infertility treatment—especially treatment with assisted reproductive technologies.

There is very little data in the literature examining ethnicity and its affect upon pregnancy rates with in vitro fertilization (IVF). Ethnic minorities compose a small percentage of patients in the nation’s IVF programs, making it relatively difficult to examine how they respond to various infertility treatments. In the few studies that have examined the affect of ethnicity on IVF pregnancy rates, differing outcomes have been found.

There have been only a few studies specifically comparing IVF success rates between African Americans and Caucasians. The results of two of these studies contradict each other, with one showing that African Americans had decreased pregnancy rates with IVF as compared to Caucasians, and the other finding no difference in pregnancy outcomes with IVF between these two ethnic groups.

Likewise, there are only a few studies directly comparing IVF pregnancy outcomes between Indians and Caucasians. One shows a trend towards decreased pregnancy rates in Indian women and finds that Indian women were significantly more likely to have their cycle cancelled as compared to Caucasian women. In comparison, another study found no significant difference in IVF pregnancy rates between Indians and Caucasians. A more recent study has shown that Asian ethnicity was an independent predictor of poor outcome with IVF. There have been no studies examining IVF pregnancy outcomes in Hispanics in comparison to any other ethnic groups.

We’ll see why.

When I was in training, I published the first study comparing IVF outcomes among multiple ethnic groups. It was a retrospective study utilizing a data set that was the result of the collaboration between three IVF centers in the Boston area: Boston IVF, Brigham and Women’s Hospital IVF Center, and Reproductive Science Center.
We retrospectively reviewed the cycles of 1,135 women undergoing IVF between 1994 and 1998. Only the first IVF cycle for each couple was reviewed. Ethnicity was self-reported. Women who categorized themselves as having a mixed ethnic background were excluded.

Seriously. Measurement bias much?

….In order to better understand how ethnicity affects IVF outcome, it will be necessary to study a larger number of minority patients. In these studies, it is important that all ethnicities be included. If racial differences do exist, IVF treatment protocols could be adjusted to improve the success rates for patients of all ethnic backgrounds. Therefore, further exploration in this area is necessary and very important.”

We did that.

https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/news/bjog-release/

“After adjusting for certain factors including the age of the patient at time of treatment, cause of female or male infertility, and type of treatment (ICSI vs IVF), the study found that White Irish, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black African, and Other Asian women had a significantly lower odds of a live birth than White British women. For example, the live birth rate for White British women was 26.4% compared to 17.2% for White Irish women and 17.4% for Black African women.

The study also found that some groups of women including South Asian Bangladeshi, Black African, Middle Eastern, have a significantly lower number of eggs collected than White British women.

Moreover, South Asian Indian, South Asian Bangladeshi, South Asian Pakistani, Black British, Black African, Black Caribbean and Middle Eastern women were at a higher risk of not reaching the embryo transfer stage.

The paper explores the possible reasons behind the variation and states that while genetic background could be a potential determinant of egg and sperm quality, variation in environmental exposures relating to lifestyle, dietary factors, socio-economic and cultural factors could be influencing egg and sperm quality, accessibility of fertility treatment and behaviour towards seeking medical care and consequently reproductive outcomes.

No, they were living in the same place. Muh Magic Dirt.

Genetics is the ONLY difference now.

You have NOTHING.

DNA causes germline DNA, really? Maybe?

Furthermore, the increased prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) in South Asian women may have an impact on egg quality and lower implantation rates.

Shit tier WHR tipped us off on that one, see end.

Dr Kanna Jayaprakasan, Consultant subspecialist in Reproductive Medicine, Derby Fertility Unit, Royal Derby Hospital; Honorary Associate Professor in Gynaecology, University of Nottingham and senior author of the paper, said:

“The data suggests that ethnicity is a major independent factor determining the chances of IVF or ICSI treatment success.

“While the reason for this association is difficult to explain, the potential factors could be the observed differences in cause of infertility, ovarian response, fertilisation rates and implantation rates, which are all independent predictors of IVF success.

“The main strengths of the study are the use of the UK HFEA national database which includes a large number of women treated in all UK units. However, the numbers in some of the sub-ethnic minorities, such as Bangladeshi women, were low in the study.”

Professor Adam Balen, spokesperson for the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and Chair of the British Fertility Society (BFS) said:

“Infertility affects 10-15% of the population and more people are seeking fertility treatment.

“This interesting study looking at maternal ethnicity provides useful data based on a large number of women undergoing fertility treatment. The reasons behind the variation need to be looked at in more detail but in the future could potentially help improve success rates amongst all groups of women.”

Nope!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1472648315002564

“Black and South Asian women were found to have lower live birth rates compared with White women”
“Black and South Asian women seem to have the poorest outcome, which is not explained by the commonly known confounders. Future research needs to investigate the possible explanations for this difference and improve IVF outcome for all women.”

Almost like Anglo women evolved to breed in the Anglo climate?

The Ice Age killed the boyish ones.

MORE:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636517/

“Variation in risk factors and outcomes was found in infants of White mothers by paternal race/ethnicity.”

I wonder which way.
Inbreeding or outbreeding depression?

Guess.

“Status exchange hypothesizes that in a marriage market framework, minority men marry less-desired White women (e.g., of lower education) in exchange for higher social status. The second hypothesis, in-group preference, simply suggests that people prefer members from their own group, and thus, intermarriage is the less desirable scenario.”

Dudebros like “where’s da studies?”

I’m like “Have you even looked?”

“Together they found that mixed-race couples differed significantly with respect to their sociodemographic characteristics from the endogamous couples. After control for those variables, biracial infants were found to have worse birth outcomes than infants with 2 White parents but better than infants with 2 Black parents.6,8–12 (Henceforth, infant’s race/ethnicity will be referred to by the notation “maternal race/ethnicity–paternal race/ethnicity” [e.g., White–Black].)”

DING DING DING DING DING

TIL Wombs iz white supremacist.

“Consistent with Table 1, infants in the White–unreported group had the worst birth outcomes in each category.”

Trans. mixed. Likely Asian since S. America and Black are already covered.

Learn to read, weebs.

“In general, I found substantial variation in birth outcomes within the group of infants with White mothers and fathers of different racial/ethnic groups. This is interesting because it shows that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the infant’s race/ethnicity, regardless of father’s race/ethnicity, can be problematic.

aka nice way of calling out deception

For example, it is not uncommon for a study to refer to infants of White mothers as “White infants,” even though “White infants” may imply that the fathers are White. In this study, I demonstrated that infants of a White mother and a White father, the real “White infants,” have the better birth outcomes than do those infants of a White mother and a non-White father. Therefore, the practice of using “White mother” to refer to White infants will yield lower estimation of the birth outcomes because there are infants of non-White fathers in the sample.”

They know. It’s a cover-up.

Category errors galore.

“The infants in the White–White group had the most-advantaged birth outcomes, followed by infants in the 3 Hispanic-father groups. Infants in the White–Black group had the second-most-disadvantaged birth outcomes; the differences in birth outcomes between White–Black and White–White infants were statistically significant: White–White infants had a 2% (70 g) higher average birthweight, 26% lower LBW rate (4.64% vs 6.26%), and 39% lower infant mortality rate (0.43% vs 0.71%) than did White–Black infants. Infants in the White–unknown group had the most-disadvantaged outcomes in each category. These heterogeneities within White mothers show that the common practice of using maternal race/ethnicity to refer to the race/ethnicity of the infant is problematic: White–White infants had the best birth outcomes among the groups studied, so any other paternal race/ethnicity pulls down the averages for all White mothers. That is, the birth outcomes of White–White infants are actually underestimated by researchers who use mothers’ race/ethnicity to refer to infants’ race/ethnicity, and thus, the racial/ethnic disparities between White and any other race/ethnicity may be underestimated accordingly as well.”

Relevant!

“…Clearly, the unreported father is a proxy for more-noteworthy factors, because if unreported fathers were merely missing from certificates, their infants’ outcomes should not be so much worse.”

What DO these studies have in common? [Asians]

Could also be child of rape as a confound.

You’ll see.

2012 Biracial couples and adverse birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22776059

“Biracial status of parents was associated with higher risk for adverse pregnancy outcomes than both White parents but lower than both Black parents, with maternal race having a greater influence than paternal race on pregnancy outcomes.”

Evolution is racist or instincts evolved for reasons? Pick ONE.

Your Third World surrogate plan may need retouching.

If it fails or dies or gets retarded, you still gotta pay up! What are the odds?

Why is it so hard to find studies about the most populous race on the planet?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31238617

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30564431
2018
What is associated with IQ and other development issues? Pre-term birth.

“Maternal age, education level, race and ethnicity, smoking during pregnancy, and parity were significant risk factors associated with PTB.”

It’s mentioned along with smoking.

“…The analysis of interactions between maternal characteristics and perinatal health behaviors showed that Asian women have the highest prevalence of PTB in the youngest age group (< 20 years; AOR, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.28-1.54).”

I want more studies about them. I’m not scared of reality.

That suggests a genetic predisposition to be present so young. I’d compare PTB to WHR, personally.

“Pacific Islander, American Indian, and African American women ≥40 years of age had a greater than two-fold increase in the prevalence of PTB compared with women in the 20-24 year age group.”

Their own women.

Pre-term study and IQ:

https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/136/3/415
“RESULTS: Across all assessments, VP/VLBW individuals had significantly lower IQ scores than term-born controls, even when individuals with severe cognitive impairment (n = 69) were excluded. IQ scores were found to be more stable over time for VP/VLBW than term-born individuals, yet differences in stability disappeared when individuals with cognitive impairment were excluded. Adult IQ could be predicted with fair certainty (r > 0.50) from age 20 months onward for the whole VP/VLBW sample (n = 260) and from 6 years onward for term-born individuals (n = 229).

CONCLUSIONS: VP/VLBW individuals more often suffer from cognitive problems across childhood into adulthood and these problems are relatively stable from early childhood onward. VP/VLBW children’s risk for cognitive problems can be reliably diagnosed at the age of 20 months. These findings provide strong support for the timing of cognitive follow-up at age 2 years to plan special support services for children with cognitive problems.”

So it doesn’t cause but it is associated. Humans evolved long gestation for the brain.

Clear defect evidence in the genes- study it!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29903290

But surely, you say, genetic issues would be also hormonal (hormones regulate genes as well) and apply to men?
Well…
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31348744
Yes. Yes it would.

“A total of 9079 patients were reviewed, of which 3956 patients had complete data. Of these, 839 (21.2%) were azoospermic. After adjusting for age, African-Canadians (odds ratio [OR] 1.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28-2.25) and Asians (1.34; 95% CI 1.11-1.62) were more likely to be azoospermic compared to Caucasians.”

Some of us form opinions AFTER reading.
White men are literally more fertile and most fertile with white women.

“Similarly, African Canadians (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.33-2.29) were more likely to be oligospermic and Asians (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.70-0.97) less likely to be oligospermic. Low volume was found in African-Canadian (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.05-1.91), Asians (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.51), and Indo-Canadians (OR 1.47; 95% CI 1.01-2.13). Furthermore, Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.93) and Hispanics (OR 0.58; 95% CI 034-0.99) were less likely to have asthenospermia. Asians (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.57-0.94) and Indo-Canadians (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.35-0.99) were less likely to have teratozospermia. No differences were seen for vitality. No differences were seen for FSH levels, however, Asians (p<0.01) and Indo-Canadians (p<0.01) were more likely to have lower testosterone.”

It’s always the damn Asians.
Magic Dirt won’t fix your shitty sperm.

Maybe if we spend more on the NHS! The evolution fairy may visit!

The lower sexual dimorphism of Asians makes them functionally partially infertile. This is why they marry so young (it isn’t traditionalism) and despite this, have a low birth count per person, and are the most populous race on Earth. They’re actually the most r-selected, Mother Nature holds them back from fertilization with mutations. Along with r-selection, more total fertility issues in the male/offspring (azoospermia, infant death), lower volume AND lower testosterone, it all fits!

Is that my fault? No. Stop blaming me for reading. I’m not, in fact, God.

Hey, we have our own group with shitty sperm. Theirs is just bigger and more characteristic of the whole.

from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26962784

“AR-CAG repeat length was longer in infertile men in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08-0.43, P <0.01; SMD = 0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-0.25, P <0.05; SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.15-0.63, P <0.01).

Notice p-value difference is so loose for white it doesn’t meet the medical standard? 0.05 is too high. Absurdly.

The overall study shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility. The subgroup study on races shows that increased AR-CAG repeat length was associated with male infertility in Asian, Caucasian, and mixed races. Increased AR-CAG repeat length was also associated with azoospermia. This meta-analysis supports that increased androgen receptor CAG length is capable of causing male infertility susceptibility.”

In the interest of intellectual honesty.

WHR

We literally have the studies. e.g. It’s metabolic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306982/

“Sixty-four PCOS patients and 40 women served as the control group were studied. The two groups were subdivided according to the body mass index (BMI) into two obese and non-obese groups. Waist:hip ratio (WHR), plasma epinephrine level was estimated, sympathetic skin response (SSR); postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, heart rate variability (HRV), and valsalva ratio were measured in both groups.”
“Compared to the control group, obese PCOS patients demonstrated higher BMI and WHR, reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, altered HRV, higher plasma epinephrine level, and rapid pulse rate. Moreover, non-obese patients show reduced palmar SSR latency and higher amplitude, higher plasma epinephrine level, and higher pulse rate. BMI and WHR of the patients were positively correlated with plasma epinephrine level; while the HRV was negatively correlated WHR.”
“The BMI and WHR were significantly higher in the PCOS patients compared to the control group 36.63±4.23 kg/m2 vs. 34.14±3.39 kg/m2 (p=0.041) and 0.88±0.05 compared to 0.79±0.11 (p=0.001), respectively.”

“We demonstrated high plasma epinephrine level during lying and standing positions in PCOS patients. This could be of obesogenic origin as we noticed a positive correlation between plasma epinephrine level and both of BMI and WHR. PCOS patients of this study exhibited central abdominal obesity and the mechanisms by which central obesity drive an increase in sympathetic activity are not entirely clear. Yet, the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on (16). This was further supported that adipocytes isolated from the visceral fat depot of women with PCOS had increased catecholamine-stimulated lipolysis (17).”

Nice boy hips. Don’t try for kids. (Goes for all races, Spartans forced girls to be lightly athletic to be ready for childbirth as a woman, that broadens hips beyond racial average).
And when the NHS totally fails, picture the fatal correction to reality when these women expect childbirth interventions. No waist? No taste.

Old expression.

It’s genetic. They’re gonna get fat – or the kids will. We’ve all seen them. I’m just saying, the signs were there. Choosing a woman with a shit tier WHR is like electing for a manlet over the average height. It could rarely work out for health, but rarely. Don’t get angry at me.

Click to access 4755-4761-Metabolic-parameters-in-PCOS-and-abdominal-obesity.pdf

“RESULTS: Women with WHR ≥0.8 had higher concentration of glucose and insulin (both fasting and after 120 min of oral administration of 75 g glucose), as well as HOMA-IR value, than women with WHR value < 0.8. Also, abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters. Higher free androgen index and lower concentration of sex hormone binding globulin and dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate were found in female with WHR ≥ 0.8.

There’ll still be guys like “WHR doesn’t matter, medically”.

Muh dudebros going, “at least they’re skinny”. But they’re not?

“Women with WHR ≥0.8 had… abdominal obesity disorders hormonal parameters.”

They’re literally not. Chemically. You can biopsy the tissue and test it.

the fat cells have increased sensitivity to lipolytic agents and/or the factors inducing fat mobilization are turned on”

My feels have zero to do with that, dude. It’s genes?

NOBODY is jealous. You keep your secret fatty.

I implore you to marry the future whale and learn the hard way. They’re a puffer-fish.

Whatever their race. But the shorter they are, the worse it is. Short women should have an even SMALLER waist, since it’s skeletal. My own is far smaller than most Asians, for instance, despite being taller than most of them as white. If you want to piss them off, say (honestly) that men like small waists. Just generally. Gets them every time, although most people wouldn’t say they had a large one (not really looking and they don’t dress for it). They know they’re broad and they hate women who dress to show any different, including lucky exceptions in their own race, since it’s a countersignal. Namely: I can afford to have a smaller midsection, less running and foraging is required.

[If I want to dress to piss off a group of women, bodycon but for the waist only. It’s subtle and you’d imagine as a man they would neither notice nor care. Great way to tell a woman’s natural WHR – do they like bodycon? It needn’t be tight on T&A, actually that’s better, it’s actually about waist fit. Pill women also get larger round the middle, any weight gain is there and ruins WHR so it’s visual slut shaming too. Love it.]

Follicular stimulating hormone, luteinizing hormone, androstenedione, and 17-beta-estradiol, were on similar level in both groups. Elevation in triglycerides, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein levels, as well as decrease in high density lipoprotein level in serum of women with WHR value ≥0.8, were found when compared to women with WHR < 0.8. A statistically significant correlation was found between WHR value and glucose, insulin, sex hormone binding globulin, free androgen index and lipid profile parameters.”

Hips don’t lie because biochemistry.

“CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal obesity causes additional disorders in metabolic and hormonal parameters in PCOS women, which confirmed changes in analyzed parameters between PCOS women with WHR < 0.8 and WHR ≥ 0.8 and statistically significant correlations between WHR value and analyzed parameters.”

Brain size of males by race

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/brain-size-race-and-iq/

includes this

The third piece of evidence is that the racial gaps have existed for a long time. In fact, based on the data from the tables above, the White/Black brain size gap doesn’t seem to have gotten any smaller during the 20th century.

Long before your 60s immigration acts.

The first thing to note is that brain size in the general population has a heritability of 87%. Thus, almost all the differences between individuals in brain size are caused by genes.

Secondly, we should note that racial brain size differences are present at, and even before, birth.

Keep blaming women though, that’ll help.

We need more direct studies like this. Gestation length and other variables must be accounted.

Menarche and other variables like WHR vary by race in the women too. More studies! MORE!

The manosphere is based on a myth of equalism, it was destined to fail.

Fourthly, racial brain size differences have been found all around the world. For instance, the Beals and Smith data set previously referred to features skulls from over 100 populations world wide. Many of the autopsy studies previously cited were done in East Asia, as were two of the MRI studies. This makes any gene independent cultural explanation less likely.

Fifthly, several studies have shown that mulattoes have an average brain size in between that of Blacks and Whites (Pearl, 1934Bean, 1906). This finding has been established on multiple occasions and is what a hereditarian hypothesis would predict since mulattoes are half White and half Black genetically speaking.

Do studies for other mixes.

Sixth, many traits which tend to co-evolve with larger brains also differ racially in a way that mirrors the body size adjusted brain size patternRushton and Rushton (2003) looked at 37 anatomical features which 3 textbooks on human evolution identified as tending to co-evolve in the hominid line with larger brains. For instance, larger pelvic size tends to co-evolve with brain size so that mothers can give birth to larger brained infants.  Rushton then utilized 5 forensic anthropology textbooks to look at racial differences in these traits. These traits followed the East Asian>White>Black pattern in 25 out of 31 cases. The probability of this happening at random is .000000001.

WHR is important.

Follow the tag, there are racial differences in studies.

And East-Asian isn’t a race, at best it’s a sub-group, do more studies. Properly.
Asians fail more often on IVF, also posted about that.

Similarly, Rushton (2004) showed that, across 234 mammalian species, brain size correlates with longevity, gestation time, birth weight, litter size, age of first mating, body weight, and body length. Various studies have shown that each of these variables also differ between the races in a way that, based on what we find across the animal kingdom, would predict the body size corrected brain size differences we observe (Rushton, 1995Templer 2006Rushton and Templer, 2009;).

Longevity – must look at averages e.g. not Danes for all whites nor Japs for all Asians.
Gestation – we know this varies.
Weight – control confounds.
Litter size – look at natural rate of twinning.
Virginity loss is r-select, do not want.
Body weight – vague.
Length – we already know racial height. Still, add to the rest, I guess.

Thus, we have six lines of evidence all of which would be predicted by a hereditarian view on racial differences in brain size. While each line of evidence on its own may not be compelling, the combination of all six seems to strongly imply that racial brain size gaps are partly heritable.

It is worth noting that the racial brain size gaps are probably not entirely attributable to genes. Some authors, including Richard Nisbett, have plausibly argued that nutrition also plays a role. However, there explanations are not mutually exclusive, no environmental variables has been shown to account for the majority of the gap, and,  as we have seen, there are many separate lines of evidence indicating that genes also play a role

A confound, in weight.

I suggest seafood consumption.

There is good evidence that the races evolved different brain sizes in response to climate. Specifically, various studies have found that a population’s brain size correlates with climate related variables. For instance, Pearce and Dunbar (2011) ‘s data set produces a correlation of .74 between a population’s brain size and its latitude. Similarly, Ash and Gallup (2007) found a correlation of .48 between the size of 109 fossilized human skulls and the latitude at which they were found. Further still, Bailey and Geary (2009) analyzed 175 skulls ranging in age from 10,000 years old to 1.9 million years old and found a correlation of -.41 between brain size and winter temperature and -.61 between size and latitude (larger brains were found in areas more distant from the equator).

How dare you use science.

The weebs might reee!

Lynn (2015) used Smith and Beals data set of 20,000 skulls from 122 populations to estimate that roughly 30% of the African-European IQ gap can be statistically accounted for by brain size differences. By contrast, brain size differences would actually predict an Asian-European IQ gap 35% larger than the one that actually exists. Thus, brain size is probably one of many factors, both biological and environmental, which account for racial intelligence differences.

Can ya rig the test?

https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/intelligence-and-corruption/

Easy, who’s the most innovative?

Especially before colonialism spreading info. Right?

You can rig IQ tests and college transcripts, not more advanced farming equipment when the other group invented it centuries prior.

Snippets of news

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-highly-accurate-stock-market-predictor-just-hit-its-most-bearish-level-since-the-internet-bubble-2019-08-01

Why trust maths on… maths?

considering
https://www.investors.com/news/stock-market-hits-record-highs-facebook-amazon-google-chipotle-boeing-twitter-earnings/

what goes up, must go up!

The smart money has left the building.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-investors-should-enjoy-the-party-but-know-when-to-leave-2019-08-01

Nothing to see here:
https://www.rt.com/business/465557-central-banks-gold-purchasing-record/

The people pumping out fiat always show a fundamental distrust in their legitimacy but this is… unusually open.

Like a signal.

Aluminium smuggling, not dodgy at all…
https://www.rt.com/business/465540-china-billionaire-aluminum-smuggling/

Going to the gym is indeed a sign of being gay
https://www.rt.com/news/418612-malaysia-gay-detector-list/
the way to tell for sure is a gay photo of them topless on social media after.

Tan? Super gay. Waxed? Gaylord.

Straight men work in construction or some real job that builds muscle normally.

Gay guys have a muscle fetish and need machines to bulk certain areas like the arms unnaturally. Women in studies prefer light muscle probably because veiny bulk cues gay.

RE is forced, sending your kids to a school you know has prayers is fine.
https://www.rt.com/uk/465364-bible-school-lawsuit-atheist-uk/

RE is multiculturalism class, that’s why they make it compulsory.

That’s why they lie about the religions.

White genocide requires disowning you of your homeland
https://www.rt.com/news/451766-swedes-outraged-ancestors-documentary/

by lying about your history.

People with dark skin at those altitudes die of Vit D deficiency. Even in England, the NHS warn about this, let alone Sweden with even FEWER rays. How did their cranial morphology magically evolve, then?

Multi-Regional FTW.

Africans have zero Neanderthal DNA so pretty easy to test for. They have it? Not black.

There is plenty of proof of African-Asian mixing, however.

http://www.realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/China_2.htm

This explains their lower IQs in many nations, larger overall heads and stronger jaws.

HUGE lips, too.

Naturally the page tries to lie about white people as all magic albinos BUT the Asian part has this:

And morphology considerations:

Of the three crania Upper Cave 101, the “old man”, has been studied in more detail primarily due to its better preservation and clearly adult status. In comparison to modern East Asians the cranial vault is extremely long and low, with a receding frontal squama and marked angulation in the occipital region. The forehead is broad and the supercilliary region well developed. The nasal bones are pinched, with a high bridge, and the nose must have been more prominent than is common amongst living East Asians. The orbits are relatively low and rectangular, which is a common feature in terminal Pleistocene and Neolithic crania from many parts of the world. The lower border of the nasal aperture is gutted, which is customary amongst East Asians, Australian Aborigines and sub-Saharan Africans.

East Asians are just mongrels. They simply didn’t exist as we know them today and the modern Indian is typically a halfbreed with a Brit a century or two ago. This caused their ‘caste’ system.

All analysis of “Early Humans” in China, agree that the Mongoloid type Humans currently inhabiting the area, did not start to appear until quite recently.
But here the devil is in the definitions; we know that modern Chinese (Mongols) are a Mulatto/Mixed Race of Mongol featured Blacks like the San, their Albinos, the Albinos of Central Asians (who later became Europeans), and Blacks like the Jomon in Japan. But understanding just when these admixtures took place requires we know exactly what was meant by “Primitive Mongoloid” or “Evolving Mongoloid” and how is that different from Eskimo? (Not saying that Eskimo are primitive).

Any admixture was usually rape.

As was shown with the Peking man nonsense, many Albino and Mulatto Chinese are loath to admit that they derive from Africans. But the fact is that the Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and South Asians, have all been scientifically proven to be Africans. Albeit, as is true in many places i.e. the Americas, the Middle East, etc. They are a mixture of Albino people and the original Native Blacks.

I don’t believe albino is a race, it’s a mutant and they’re often sterile.

But Asians do have substantial African morphology, you can see it in their face.

Waist-Hip Ratio and female beauty

The sexual dimorphism for this metric is obviously lowest on Asians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8366421

Evidence is presented showing that body fat distribution as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is correlated with youthfulness, reproductive endocrinologic status, and long-term health risk in women. Three studies show that men judge women with low WHR as attractive. Study 1 documents that minor changes in WHRs of Miss America winners and Playboy playmates have occurred over the past 30-60 years. Study 2 shows that college-age men find female figures with low WHR more attractive, healthier, and of greater reproductive value than figures with a higher WHR. In Study 3, 25- to 85-year-old men were found to prefer female figures with lower WHR and assign them higher ratings of attractiveness and reproductive potential. It is suggested that WHR represents an important bodily feature associated with physical attractiveness as well as with health and reproductive potential. A hypothesis is proposed to explain how WHR influences female attractiveness and its role in mate selection.

Hello sexual selection, tied intimately to natural selection.

PDF here: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05d6/0e201efb208e8561641d13df30fc6ba3bc1a.pdf

also connected to “desire and capability for having childrenp7 or 299.

so K-type women may have better WHR.

Normal weight women have the most positive attributes associated.

Overweight category was universally unattractive.
It’d be nice to see a male study on this. I think Western women would want more children if fewer men were obese.

Why Asians are considered youthful but not sexy (they’d usually fall in the underweight group):

The variables of attractiveness, sexiness, and good health were located close to each other, suggesting that subjects perceived them to be closely related.

Attributes of desire and capability for having children were located close to each other in the solution space but farther from attractiveness, sexiness, and good health, implying that subjects did not perceive a great similarity between these two sets of attributes.

Finally, the attribute of youthfulness was located alone and away from both sets of other attributes. Thus, subjects apparently did not perceive youthfulness to be related to any other measured attributes of good health, sexiness, attractiveness, and desire and capability for having children.

So there’s that. Nobody’s jealous.

Figure N7 was located closer to attractiveness, sexiness, and good health as well as desire and capability for having children than any other Figure.

Normal weight for frame (and race) + most nubile WHR would make sense.
More of those genes survived.

Figure N9 was located closest to desire and capability for having children, whereas Figure N8 was located between Figure N7 and Figure N9. The figure N10 was grouped along with overweight figures, which were not perceived to be closely associated with any of the attributes under investigation. Underweight female figures, U7 and U8, were associated only with youthfulness. However, underweight figures with high WHR (U9 and U10) were perceived as neither youthful nor healthy, in spite of the fact that their depicted body weight was quite similar to figures with lower WHR.

Women with an atrocious WHR (boy hips, no waist) and under or overweight for their skeleton are objectively unattractive from an evolutionary standpoint. This would apply whether it’s a Jap, a Ruskie or an American.

Stop calling sexy science ‘racist’ because it doesn’t share your fetish.

This chart drags you harder than I ever could.

Your Asian girlfriend with the boy hips is approximately as attractive to the world as the average WHR white fat chick. That’s your level, accept it.

It’s also a fact we cannot accurately perceive attractiveness of the racial outgroup as well as our own, so an awareness of ingroup flaws changes nothing.

Most modern women straight up don’t look healthy, whether they’re American, European or, yes, Asian.

Stop trying to make boy hips = sexy happen. It’s not going to happen.

Look at the damn gradient on that underweight thing. The solution to fat women isn’t anorexia. That also suggests bad genes. In fact, at least the fat percentage on slightly overweight 0.7 WHR women suggests femininity and fertility.

“Overall, it seems that subjects inferred reproductive capability from body fat”

What does a foetus feed from?

“Thus, it seems that although WHR is related to health and attractiveness, body weight is perceived to be related to reproductive capability”

Obviously.

“As a group, underweight figures were assigned the lowest reproductive capability, followed by overweight figures and then normal weight figures.”

Suck on that, soyboys.

You actually tend to downgrade. That’s why the Democrat-voting soyboys all want an Asian girlfriend and expressly don’t want kids with it.

“Overall, it appears that both fatness and thinness are perceived as unattractive, and such figures are not perceived as having especially high reproductive potential. “

Not womanly. Remember that word? This:

Not girly, not sexy, not cute, not hot. Womanly.

You can’t discuss women in a reproductive, evolutionary context without it.

Thus, consistent with the present findings, men did not find thin or underweight figures attractive.

If you only care for other male opinions.

There is some evidence that suggests that being extremely underweight or overweight can have adverse effects on female reproductive functions.

Ya don’t say?

A critical body mass has been shown to be significantly related to the onset of menstrual cycle and its maintenance (Frisch & McCarthur, 1974), although recent evidence (DeRidder et al., 1990) suggests that it is the body fat distribution, rather than body fat mass or body weight, that is related to early pubertal development.

Distribution varies by race.

Africans are the most pronounced in women then Europeans shapely but delicate then Asians last – no shape, very yang flesh (broad but flat or full in the middle like cortisol fat) and almost nothing to distribute.

Am I imagining all of this?

Underweight females (15% below ideal body weight) have been reported to have a higher incidence of oligomenorrhea (menses 35 days or more apart) and amenorrhea and to have a higher prevalence of ovu-latory infertility than normal weight females (Green, Weiss, & Daling, 1986).

Underweight women also give birth to infants who are small and growth delayed, and such infants often have permanently impaired intellectual and physical development (Supy, Steer, McCusker, Steele, & Jacobs, 1988).

Menstrual dysfunction and ovulatory infertility also occur more often in females who are 20% above ideal body weight (Green et al., 1986). Morbid obesity in females with high WHR has been shown to increase the degree of androgenicity (increased percentage of free testosterone) and associated menstrual and ovulatory problems (Kirschner & Samojilik, 1991). Thus, the reproductive success of a woman may be low in spite of a high level of fat deposits if the regional distribution of fat is not appropriate, that is, gynoid.

=Womanly.

Finally, the finding that underweight figures were assigned high rankings for youthfulness but not for attractiveness (or other attributes related to reproductive potential) is difficult to reconcile with some evolutionarily based mate selection hypotheses.

Normal men aren’t pedos.

Youthfulness and health have been proprosed as absolute criteria for female attractiveness (Symons, 1987).

Stick with health.

Health has good or bad, you have no negative way to assess youth e.g. immature.

Features of physical appearance associated with youth supposedly provide the strongest and most reliable cues for female reproductive potential. The present finding illustrates that the relationship of youthfulness and attractiveness is quite complex.

Not really.

A woman who is judged to be attractive is also found to be youthful; however, youthfulness alone does not make a woman attractive. Apparently, youthfulness is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition, for determination of female physical attractiveness.

crazed pointing-

also, don’t try to chalk this up to taste:

“Furthermore, if the ideal of female attractiveness is arbitrary and ever changing, no evidence of transgenerational stability in the meaning of WHR should be found, as older men are more likely to be exposed to different ideals of attractiveness than are younger men.”

but

“Older men did not associate health with underweight figures, including those with lower WHR.”

TLDR: Pedos are wrong. Underweight, waistless wonders are not attractive.

Study 2, rubbing salt in that fact.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009042

Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men

Secondary sexual characteristics convey information about reproductive potential. In the same way that facial symmetry and masculinity, and shoulder-to-hip ratio convey information about reproductive/genetic quality in males, waist-to-hip-ratio (WHR) is a phenotypic cue to fertility, fecundity, neurodevelopmental resources in offspring, and overall health, and is indicative of “good genes” in women. Here, using fMRI, we found that males show activation in brain reward centers in response to naked female bodies when surgically altered to express an optimal (∼0.7) WHR with redistributed body fat, but relatively unaffected body mass index (BMI). Relative to presurgical bodies, brain activation to postsurgical bodies was observed in bilateral orbital frontal cortex. While changes in BMI only revealed activation in visual brain substrates, changes in WHR revealed activation in the anterior cingulate cortex, an area associated with reward processing and decision-making. When regressing ratings of attractiveness on brain activation, we observed activation in forebrain substrates, notably the nucleus accumbens, a forebrain nucleus highly involved in reward processes.

These findings suggest that an hourglass figure (i.e., an optimal WHR) activates brain centers that drive appetitive sociality/attention toward females that represent the highest-quality reproductive partners. This is the first description of a neural correlate implicating WHR as a putative honest biological signal of female reproductive viability and its effects on men’s neurological processing.

Quality.

Study 3

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X08002298

Men report stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces when their testosterone levels are high

Many studies have shown that women’s judgments of men’s attractiveness are affected by changes in levels of sex hormones. However, no studies have tested for associations between changes in levels of sex hormones and men’s judgments of women’s attractiveness. To investigate this issue, we compared men’s attractiveness judgments of feminized and masculinized women’s and men’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high and test sessions where salivary testosterone was relatively low.

This is why we need studies on men too.

Men reported stronger attraction to femininity in women’s faces in test sessions where salivary testosterone was high than in test sessions where salivary testosterone was low. This effect was found to be specific to judgments of opposite-sex faces. The strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in men’s faces did not differ between high and low testosterone test sessions, suggesting that the effect of testosterone that we observed for judgments of women’s faces was not due to a general response bias. Collectively, these findings suggest that changes in testosterone levels contribute to the strength of men’s reported attraction to femininity in women’s faces and complement previous findings showing that testosterone modulates men’s interest in sexual stimuli.

Study 4

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886906004995

Beauty is in the eye of the plastic surgeon: Waist–hip ratio (WHR) and women’s attractiveness

Attractiveness conveys reliable information about a woman’s age, health, and fertility. Body fat distribution, as measured by waist-to-hip ratio (WHR), is a reliable cue to a woman’s age, health, and fertility, and affects judgment of women’s attractiveness. WHR is positively correlated with overall body weight or body mass index (BMI). Some researchers have argued that BMI, rather than WHR, affects judgments of female attractiveness. To evaluate the role of WHR, independent of BMI, we secured photographs of pre- and post-operative women who have undergone micro-fat grafting surgery. In this surgery, surgeons harvest fat tissue from the waist region and implant it on the buttocks. Post-operatively, all women have a lower WHR but some gain weight whereas others lose body weight. Results indicate that participants judge post-operative photographs as more attractive than pre-operative photographs, independent of post-operative changes in body weight or BMI. These results indicate that WHR is a key feature of women’s attractiveness.

Duh.

Let’s look historically. Study 5

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/72/6/1436/4729453

Trends in waist-to-hip ratio and its determinants in adults in Finland from 1987 to 1997

Background: Although abdominal obesity has been shown to be an important risk factor for cardiovascular disease and a variety of other diseases, secular changes in fat distribution in populations have rarely been documented.

Objective: Our objective was to assess trends in waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) in the Finnish population during a 10-y period. In addition, we investigated the associations of WHR with body mass index (BMI), age, education, and lifestyle factors.

Design: Three independent cross-sectional surveys were carried out at 5-y intervals between 1987 and 1997. Altogether, 15096 randomly selected men and women aged 25–64 y participated in these surveys.

Results: The WHR increased in both men and women during the 10-y period (P< 0.0001). In men, the strongest upward trend took place in the first 5-y period and then seemed to plateau; in women, the WHR continued to increase into the 1990s. In both sexes, the most prominent increase was observed in subjects aged ≥45 y. The WHR increased in all education-level groups, the lowest WHR being among those with the highest education. Age (18% in men, 12% in women) and BMI (33% in men, 25% in women) accounted for most of the variation in WHR, whereas only 3% was explained by education and lifestyle factors.

Conclusions: Abdominal obesity is a growing problem in Finland, especially in persons aged ≥45 y. These adverse changes in body shape continued to take place, particularly in women, in the 1990s.

Something in the food?

More history, prehistoric. Study 6

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123284

Preferred Women’s Waist-to-Hip Ratio Variation over the Last 2,500 Years

The ratio between the body circumference at the waist and the hips (or WHR) is a secondary sexual trait that is unique to humans and is well known to influence men’s mate preferences. Because a woman’s WHR also provides information about her age, health and fertility, men’s preference concerning this physical feature may possibly be a cognitive adaptation selected in the human lineage. However, it is unclear whether the preferred WHR in western countries reflects a universal ideal, as geographic variation in non-western areas has been found, and discordances about its temporal consistency remain in the literature. We analyzed the WHR of women considered as ideally beautiful who were depicted in western artworks from 500 BCE to the present. These vestiges of the past feminine ideal were then compared to more recent symbols of beauty: Playboy models and winners of several Miss pageants from 1920 to 2014. We found that the ideal WHR has changed over time in western societies: it was constant during almost a millennium in antiquity (from 500 BCE to 400 CE) and has decreased from the 15th century to the present. Then, based on Playboy models and Miss pageants winners, this decrease appears to slow down or even reverse during the second half of the 20th century. The universality of an ideal WHR is thus challenged, and historical changes in western societies could have caused these variations in men’s preferences. The potential adaptive explanations for these results are discussed.

Should’ve controlled for race.

Why not look at male WHR? Plus sperm health? Found:

https://www.drelist.com/blog/bmi-waist-circumference-semen-quality/

  • The volume of ejaculate decreases in a linear fashion with increasing BMI (suggesting an inverse relationship).
  • The sperm quality and viability declines with increasing waist circumference.
  • Investigators also discovered that quality of semen decreases (such as sperm viability, motility, semen volume) with increasing body size; however, no relationship was observed between sperm DNA fragmentation index and physical activity or obesity.

Latter requires time.

Various research and clinical studies suggests that subfertility in men is multifactorial i.e. several factors can impact the quality of reproductive health.

  • Abnormal sperm production: Study conducted by Jensen and associates (2) suggested that abnormal BMI is very strongly linked to impaired sperm production. One of the many reasons is, abnormal metabolism of testosterone (which plays a key role in the production of healthy and viable sperms).
  • Abdominal obesity and risk of metabolic disorders: According to a new study reported in the Human Reproduction (3), investigators provided statistical evidence that abnormal BMI and abdominal obesity is very strongly linked to a number of health issues (such as cardiovascular dysfunction, atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and others). Needless to say that these health issues have a deleterious effect on the sexual health regardless of the body-mass index (or BMI).
  • Obesity, physical activity and testosterone: Testosterone levels tends to decline in males who have a sedentary lifestyle. Various research and clinical studies indicates that aerobic activity or exercise can improve testosterone metabolism in males significantly.

1. Eisenberg, M. L., Kim, S., Chen, Z., Sundaram, R., Schisterman, E. F., & Louis, G. M. B. (2014). The relationship between male BMI and waist circumference on semen quality: data from the LIFE study. Human Reproduction, 29(2), 193-200.

2. Jensen, T. K., Andersson, A. M., Jørgensen, N., Andersen, A. G., Carlsen, E., & Skakkebæk, N. E. (2004). Body mass index in relation to semen quality and reproductive hormones among 1,558 Danish men. Fertility and sterility, 82(4), 863-870.

3. Hammiche, F., Laven, J. S., Twigt, J. M., Boellaard, W. P., Steegers, E. A., & Steegers-Theunissen, R. P. (2012). Body mass index and central adiposity are associated with sperm quality in men of subfertile couples. Human reproduction, 27(8), 2365-2372.

Yet they don’t tell men this information.

Back to women

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24789138

Cross-cultural variation in men’s preference for sexual dimorphism in women’s faces.

Both attractiveness judgements and mate preferences vary considerably cross-culturally.

Racially.

We investigated whether men’s preference for femininity in women’s faces varies between 28 countries with diverse health conditions by analysing responses of 1972 heterosexual participants. Although men in all countries preferred feminized over masculinized female faces, we found substantial differences between countries in the magnitude of men’s preferences. Using an average femininity preference for each country, we found men’s facial femininity preferences correlated positively with the health of the nation, which explained 50.4% of the variation among countries. The weakest preferences for femininity were found in Nepal and strongest in Japan. As high femininity in women is associated with lower success in competition for resources and lower dominance, it is possible that in harsher environments, men prefer cues to resource holding potential over high fecundity.

Asia is weird for dimorphism studies.

Hence the focus on health.

While the economy is bad, it isn’t surprising men prefer manly looking women.

It’s temporary. There’ll be a flood of divorces as the economy improves. Men will suddenly see how mannish the wife has been and be repulsed. Menopause also makes women look more mannish, including higher WHR. So much for a youth argument there.

Click to access nihms827194.pdf

Factors Underlying the Temporal Increase in Maternal Mortality in the United States

They don’t say more non-white mothers or more mixed race babies, so it’s wrong. They guess.

What makes a species classification?

Assuming you’ve read previous links about mixed race fertility issues and health problems.

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-species.html

“Most evolutionary biologists distinguish one species from another based on reproductivity: members of different species either won’t* or can’t mate with one another, or, if they do, the resulting offspring are often sterile, unviable, or suffer some other sort of reduced fitness.
In a new paper published in the journal eLife, the researchers show that sex chromosomes evolve to be genetically incompatible between species faster than the rest of the genetic chromosomes and reveal the factors at play in this incompatibility.

*White women are a different species?

True.

So sexual repulsion is part of species classification.

https://phys.org/news/2016-03-sex-evolve-prof-laurence-hurst.html

“This variation is manifested at the genetic level: sex generates some organisms within the species with lots of harmful mutations and some with relatively few. Supporters of the so-called mutational deterministic theory argue that if organisms with many mutations have disproportionately low survival chances, many bad mutations tend to die out with their hosts, generating a large number of organisms that are free from such mutations.”

“This sort of evolutionary game of cat and mouse is known as Red Queen evolution, from the character in Alice in Wonderland who insisted that one must run just to stay in the same place. Indeed, genes related to immunity are some of the fastest evolving we have. There is also recent evidence that species can increase the amount of genetic mixing they do when they sense that they are infected with a parasite. This means their offspring will be even more different from one another and their parents.”

Hard times make strong men.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-human-evolution-possibly-faster.html

“But neutral evolution can’t explain why some genes are evolving much faster than others. We measure the speed of gene evolution by comparing human DNA with that of other species, which also allows us to determine which genes are fast-evolving in humans alone. One fast-evolving gene is human accelerated region 1 (HAR1), which is needed during brain development. A random section of human DNA is on average more than 98% identical to the chimp comparator, but HAR1 is so fast evolving that it’s only around 85% similar.

Though scientists can see these changes are happening – and how quickly – we still don’t fully understand why fast evolution happens to some genes but not others. Originally thought to be the result of natural selection exclusively, we now know this isn’t always true.”

“The human mutation rate itself may also be changing. The main source of mutations in human DNA is the cell division process that creates sperm cells. The older males get, the more mutations occur in their sperm. So if their contribution to the gene pool changes – for example, if men delay having children – the mutation rate will change too. This sets the rate of neutral evolution.”

I have covered paternal age before. Few times.

Men delaying fatherhood is killing the West more than low birth rates. Having a few sprogs when you’re older only works if they’re higher quality than you could’ve had earlier.

Although obviously the birth rate CANNOT rise without marriage rates rising first.

https://www.livescience.com/609-hundreds-human-genes-evolving.html

“This study addresses the question ‘Are humans still evolving?’, and the answer is ‘Absolutely,'” study team member Benjamin Voight”

“The researchers also found positive selection in four pigment genes important for lighter skin in Europeans that were not known before. Scientists think humans evolved lighter skin in Europe as an adaptation to less sunlight.”

or it could be like domesticating foxes and be a visible side effect of lower criminal aggression, more civilization?
just test albinos in non-white groups

“And in East Asians, they found strong evidence of positive selection in genes involved in the production of alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH), a protein necessary for breaking down alcohol. Many East Asians can’t metabolize alcohol because they carry a mutation that prevents them from making ADH. The new finding suggests that the mutation may confer some currently unknown additional benefit.”

naturalistic fallacy, mutations can hold you back too

for example, if being able to produce it made you more prone to alcoholism, a disadvantage

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131031124612.htm

“Only a few genetic changes are needed to spur the evolution of new species—even if the original populations are still in contact and exchanging genes.

Multiculturalism isn’t the risk you think it is.

[The risk to democracy, however….
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/08/120827122410.htm ]

Once started, however, evolutionary divergence evolves rapidly, ultimately leading to fully genetically isolated species, report scientists.”

“”Our work suggests that a few advantageous mutations are enough to cause a ‘tug-of-war’ between natural selection and gene flow, which can lead to rapidly diverging genomes,” Kronforst said.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/10/171012143324.htm

“A study of diverse African groups by geneticists has identified new genetic variants associated with skin pigmentation. The findings help explain the vast range of skin color on the African continent, shed light on human evolution and inform an understanding of the genetic risk factors for conditions such as skin cancer.”

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/07/180711114544.htm

The one tribe in Africa thing was always a myth.

https://www.livescience.com/445-darwin-natural-selection-work-humans.html

“The findings suggest that about 9 percent of the human genes examined are undergoing rapid evolution.

“Our study suggests that natural selection has played an important role in patterning the human genome,” said Carlos Bustamante, a biologist at Cornell University.

A separate study announced last month indicated the human brain is still evolving, too.

Compared to chimps …”

If there’s reproduction, there’s evolution.

BC mutation.

Another 13 percent of the genes examined in the study showed evidence for negative selection, whereby harmful mutations are weeded out of the population. These included some genes implicated in hereditary diseases, such as muscular dystrophy and Usher syndrome. The latter is the most common cause of congenital blindness and deafness in developed countries.

Medical geneticists are interested in finding genes sensitive to negative selection because they might one day be useful for predicting an individual’s likelihood of developing a disease if the types of mutation to a gene and the environmental conditions are known.

Being able to determine which classes of genes are particularly vulnerable to negative selections is a first step, Bustamante said.”

Negative selection.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140821124835.htm

“A newly-discovered species of ant supports a controversial theory of species formation. The ant, only found in a single patch of eucalyptus trees on the São Paulo State University campus in Brazil, branched off from its original species while living in the same colony, something thought rare in current models of evolutionary development.

Nope!

“Most new species come about in geographic isolation,” said Christian Rabeling, assistant professor of biology at the University of Rochester. “We now have evidence that speciation can take place within a single colony.”

The findings by Rabeling and the research team were published today in the journal Current Biology.”

B-b-b-but…

Where’s the evidence?

Outbreeding depression

There need to be more studies on this but I know scientists are busy with buttered toast experiments and rating their own farts.

This is the genetic thing you never hear about, despite everyone and their purebred* dog knowing about inbreeding depression.
Hybrid vigour doesn’t even apply to modern wheat.

And hybrid is misused.

I saw this explanation:

A hybrid is a cross between two closely related strains such as an Arab and a Jew or a Swede and a Spaniard. A mongrel is a cross between different races such as a Mulatto, a Mestizo, a Eurasian, etc.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123847195000733

Positive outbreeding studies are conducted on flies.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024081416729

…I don’t even, insects are already heavily inbred by default so outbreeding isn’t really possible.

Outbreeding depression is more of an issue than inbreeding (some inbreeding is good for a gene pool, the most fertile and healthy couple combinations and normal historically), which is fixed by breaking the pattern for a few generations. However, you cannot undo outbreeding depression in part due to its novelty. It’s easy to add, impossible to take away.

Click to access FrankhamConsBiol2011.pdf

Actually it’s the combination of genes that makes the organism unfit.
(The fact of lower parental singular quality aside, two mutts won’t make a prize dog).

Its ideal environment doesn’t exist. In any other environment, it’s defective.
In the race for life, they’re disabled. It’s like mixing wines, they lose their distinctive character but other examples haven’t. In a competition…

Easy example:

One nose selection gene for cold weather, one selection for hot.
Result: poorly adapted child for either.

*They care about the dog’s bloodline more than their grandkids, who will hate their guts.

Paper: Race: A social destruction of a biological concept

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225799711_Race_A_Social_Destruction_of_a_Biological_Concept

It is nowadays a dominant opinion in a number of disciplines (anthropology,
genetics, psychology, philosophy of science) that the taxonomy of human
races does not make much biological sense. My aim is to challenge the arguments
that are usually thought to invalidate the biological concept of race. I will try to
show that the way ‘‘race’’ was defined by biologists several decades ago (by
Dobzhansky and others) is in no way discredited by conceptual criticisms that are
now fashionable and widely regarded as cogent. These criticisms often arbitrarily
burden the biological category of race with some implausible connotations, which
then opens the path for a quick eliminative move. However, when properly
understood, the biological notion of race proves remarkably resistant to these
deconstructive attempts. Moreover, by analyzing statements of some leading contemporary
scholars who support social constructivism about race, I hope to demonstrate
that their eliminativist views are actually in conflict with what the best
contemporary science tells us about human genetic variation.

mentioned here

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/three-race-realism-papers-for-some-reason/

Britons little changed in DNA since Ice Age

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today’s white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.

In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.

Note the precision of language. That is a scientist.

Technically, there’s no such thing as British.

There was no British Empire, it was the English Empire. You didn’t see the Welsh fucking up anyone.

Despite all the Guardian articles trying to make out we were awful, the People aren’t fooled.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-people-are-proud-of-colonialism-and-the-british-empire-poll-finds-a6821206.html

 

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain’s history of colonialism while only 21 per cent regretted that it happened. 23 per cent held neither view.

The same poll also asked about whether the British Empire was a good thing or a bad thing: 43 per cent said it was good, while only 19 per cent said it was bad. 25 per cent responded that it was “neither”.

Americans don’t understand how political and meaningless the term British is.

Since the collapse of the Empire, it’s been meaningless.

People are either English, Welsh, Irish or Scottish. Sometimes a combination.

There are also little islands like Jersey that have their own flags.

Cooler than ours but derived from England’s original Three Lions heraldry.

The British is typically, Great Britain, and the union of the four countries is incredibly recent (Union Act 1707, 1800). It’s a term about what the Queen owns, similar to the UK but without pesky parts of Ireland.  Jane Austen’s novels are older than Great Britain. England is a country in its own right, Parliament and the Queen are based there. It’s the central country.

The British Isles covers the most landmass. It’s huge. It’s geographic and includes a lot of tiny islands.

So again, if you’re discussing where a person is from, to say they’re from Britain is technically incorrect. At least, what Britain? Great? Isles? What? It’s like saying someone is European, unless you mean the continent (correct but vague) you cannot mean the legal construct (EU) because nobody’s DNA originates from a legal fiction. There is no such physical PLACE. There is no DNA for Britain, (sometimes ancient Briton, as in the study above) but it’s either English from England, Irish from Ireland, Scottish from Scotland or Welsh from Wales. British is meant to be from Britain but nowadays everybody has a British passport, a passport grants citizenship and financial entitlements it changes nothing about your DNA. To refer to blood, genes and ancestry, you cannot be British. It would be like referring to your occupation, it’s a legal thing.

Recently they’ve tried to claim dilution.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5312697/DNA-map-Britain-Ireland-reveals-Viking-genes.html

“Researchers have found 50 distinct genetic clusters (classified into broader groups) in Ireland and Britain”

That contradicts your headline.

“Native Americans” a myth

http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask41

“Also the language spoken by some Native American people closely resembles ancient Asian languages.”

They’re trying to whitewash how they conquered that land by using the multiple migrations line, like it was all peaceful and refugee signs.

“Some years ago archeologists found the remains of an ancient settlement in Chile. They were surprised to find that it was 12,500 years old. This is much more ancient than the Clovis People! Also, the skeletons found in this site resemble more the people of Polynesia than the inhabitants of Siberia. The theory is that these people may have arrived by boat to America from Polynesia. Now we believe that there were separate groups of people who came to America from Asia.”

And what did they find there?

No people whatsoever?

Pull the other one.

“Scientists looked at mtDNA from many Native Americans and many Asians. They were surprised again. Based on their DNA, Native Americans belong to five different groups. Groups 1-4 are closely related to Asian people. The fifth group is most closely related European or Western Asian people! So it seems most Native Americans are originally from Asia and as you said fundamentally Asian. However, it seems there are some whose origins are from Europe

You don’t think the Spanish had anything to do with that last bit?
Notice the concealment of saying Truth OR easily explained Lie.

This is also why you don’t take the current population donating genes for the original population by label.

See Turkey for a wealth of examples.

NatGeo, who recently sank to the depth of letting Emma Watson use one of their accounts, corroborates this lie.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

“Great Surprise”—Native Americans Have West Eurasian Origins

Yes, it is a great surprise to anyone who reads. When we showed up, they didn’t live in a White-level culture. They were still shitting anywhere like animals (China still has this problem), using women like animals (Middle East) and living a primitive lifestyle, like animals.

Red =/= White.

The only “white supremacy” I’ve ever seen is how every other race tries to claim at some point that they’re secretly actually white to dilute the term and borrow achievements. No, go to another treehouse.

“Oldest human genome reveals less of an East Asian ancestry than thought.” One study by liars = fuck-all.

Noble savage photo because why not?

We introduced horses but ignore that fact.

https://www.livescience.com/9589-surprising-history-america-wild-horses.html

“The last prehistoric North American horses died out between 13,000 and 11,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene” the noble savages ate them

“It is well known that domesticated horses were introduced into North America beginning with the Spanish conquest”

Back to NatGeo

“The study authors believe the new study could also help resolve some long-standing puzzles on the peopling of the New World, which include genetic oddities and archaeological inconsistencies.

That happens when your field has almost as many liars as social psychology.

For those not in the know

Fields by penetration of liars:

  1. theoretical physics, where no idea is ever stupid enough (we’ll find something eventually, give us money)
  2. social psychology and sociology, social pathologies (illegal since the time of Stalin*)
  3. forensics and genetics, archaeology including cultural (you are not who you think you are, give us money)

For 2, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

Sub*: (you are all sinners against the State and we can help you, give us money)

“I hadn’t expected anything like this. A genome related to present-day western Eurasian populations and modern Native Americans as well was really puzzling in the beginning. How could this happen?”

Uhuh.

Only Eurasian though, huh?

You couldn’t go the full hog and say exclusively European. There is no Eurasian. It’s a labeling convention.

“DNA from the remains revealed genes found today in western Eurasians in the Middle East and Europe,”

See? Do you see why the bit above now? The assumption is false. The whole thing after falls apart.

“humans occupied this region of Siberia throughout the entire brutally cold period of the Last Glacial Maximum, which ended about 13,000 years ago.”

Humans never migrated during the Ice Age….

“This study changes this idea because it shows that a significant minority of Native American ancestry actually derives not from East Asia but from a people related to present-day western Eurasians,” Willerslev said.

Well, does that mean the Asians 4/5 genome invaded and slaughtered the European part?
If only there were a name for such an event.

“The meeting of those two groups is what formed Native Americans as we know them.”

Meeting? Like, round a table or a stump…?

I hope you’re learning how to spot this.

“Although we know that North Americans are related to East Asians, it’s striking that no contemporary East Asian populations really resemble Native Americans,” he said.

Wait, race is not only real but biological, traceable and you can SEE it?

“It’s not like you can say that they are really closely related

sub-race

to Japanese, Chinese, or Koreans, so there seems to be something missing. But this result makes a lot of sense regarding why they don’t fit so well genetically with contemporary

maybe they’re primal ones? Occam’s Razor.

East Asians—because one-third of their genome is derived from another population.”

That’s called rape. You think the Spanish just decided to stop playing nice one day?

The findings could also allow reinterpretation of archaeological and anthropological evidence, like the famed Kennewick Man, whose remains don’t look much like modern-day Native American or East Asian populations, according to some interpretations.

There it is, the money shot. The purpose for doing the study and publishing in Nature. As an excuse to twist and hide other, real findings. I knew it.

Kennewick Man isn’t allowed to be an original settler of different racial composition because it doesn’t fit the Narrative. Calling one group Native when they’re not is really, really biased?

“Maybe, if he looks like something else

Suddenly ambiguous “scientist”.

Many questions remain unanswered, including where and when the mixing of west Eurasian and East Asian populations occurred.

trans. This lie is not consistent but fuck you, we’re going with it.

The Siberian child “was found buried with all kinds of cultural items, including Venus figurines, which have been found from Lake Baikal west all the way to Europe.

Yes, I’m sure he was a feminist. It can’t have been a sculpture of his mother to play with?

Why do all found objects of women have to be sexual? It’s a kid, it’s a toy.

“So now we know”

yes, that’s how science works

“the individual represented with this culture is a western Eurasian, even though he was found very far east.”

Sample of one. No. Where are your boundary lines?

He could’ve just moved or been isolated by the weather conditions. No guarantee he permanently lived there.

“It’s an interesting question how closely related this individual might have been to the individuals carving these figurines at the same time in Europe and elsewhere.”

Now the exclusively European thing comes in. AFTER all the “evidence”, with this one guy’s opinion.

There is no white people apparently, only shades of Asian. That’s the new narrative. White people don’t exist, never existed. Sure, Asians can’t do dairy but if you dare suggest that was evolution, why, you’re basically Hitler.

This guy’s opinion

“The scientific enterprise that Dr. Willerslev helped invent now sometimes crosses into culturally sensitive terrain.”

He’s the standard but he can’t, like, lie to us with it.

“Last June, he and his colleagues published the genome of an 8,500-year-old skeleton from Washington State known as Kennewick Man, or the Ancient One.”

Well, he got what he wanted. In 2015.

“During his research, Dr. Willerslev met with representatives from the tribes. One tribe agreed to donate DNA for his study.

Kennewick Man, Dr. Willerslev and his colleagues concluded, was related to living Native Americans.”

Pings to me. Why wouldn’t you follow procedure and publish the ancient DNA first, in public, THEN compare to known tribes, plural?
Do you know the odds of that, based on the diversity of the tribes alone? It happens to match this one guy? Do you know how astronomically unlikely that is? He just happens to shoot a bulls-eye on horseback from 500 yards away.

I wonder what his political motive is:

“The Yukaghir were not an exotic tribe living in utter isolation. In fact, virtually all of them could count Russians and people from other ethnic groups among their ancestors.”

Prior study: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/247747.php

In what they describe as the most comprehensive survey of genetic diversity in Native Americans

clue: more than one guy

so far, the researchers studied variation in Native American DNA sequences.

not matches, magical pixie dust matches

They found that while most Native American populations descend primarily from one migration, there were two later ones that also made a significant genetic contribution.

The first migration, that led to the majority of Native American populations, was of a single group called the “First Americans” that crossed from Asia to America in a land bridge called Beringia, that existed during the ice ages more than 15,000 years ago, say the researchers, whose efforts were co-ordinated by Professor Andres Ruiz-Linares of the department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment at University College London (UCL) in the UK.

“The Asian lineage leading to First Americans is the most anciently diverged, whereas the Asian lineages that contributed some of the DNA to Eskimo-Aleut speakers and the Na-Dene-speaking Chipewyan from Canada are more closely related to present-day East Asian populations,” says Reich.

Contrast this with Mr They’re NOT Related to Japanese/Chinese/Koreans.
Someone is lying.

It appears that 50% of the DNA of Eskimo-Aleut speakers comes from the First Americans, while in the Na-Dene-speaking Chipewyans, 90% of their DNA descends from the First Americans.

In the West-East re-mix, it seems some Eskimo-Aleut speakers migrated back to Asia, as the genomes of Naukan and coastal Chukchi populations of north-eastern Siberia carry some “First American” DNA.

Backwash truth, not original lies. Fuck you, first guy. This one actually conducted his research first by date but isn’t in National Geographic.

The analysis was not straightforward, because the researchers had to find a way to rule out genes from the European and African populations that arrived in the Americas from the late 15th century onwards.

Bold theirs. That time.

Ruiz-Linares says they managed to develop a method to “peel back” the addition of those genes to the mix, which he says “allowed us to study the history of many more Native American populations than we could have done otherwise”.

The team included researchers from: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, France, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, the UK, and the US.

Point me the better study.

You know it’s important when the Guardian gets on board and sticks in an oar.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jan/03/ancient-dna-reveals-previously-unknown-group-of-native-americans-ancient-beringians

“This is a new population of Native Americans,” said Eske Willerslev

Guess from that line.

2018 – new race guys! I just tripped over one this time! I dunno why these groundbreaking new findings keep happening to me!

compared the genetic makeup of the baby, named Xach’itee’aanenh t’eede gaay or “sunrise child-girl” by the local community, with genomes from other ancient and modern people. 

Old + New = Old but also New? WTF.

Why not just publish the girl’s DNA alone THEN… oh, nevermind. You know, you know.

They found that nearly half of the girl’s DNA came from the ancient north Eurasians who lived in what is now Siberia.

white?

The rest of her genetic makeup was a roughly even mix of DNA now carried by the northern and southern Native Americans.

how

literally, how does that work? And both? Despite little to no admixture, in the other guy’s study?

“Using evolutionary models”

Oh, okay, he just made it up.

“About 25,000 years ago, this group mixed and bred with ancient north Eurasians in the region”

Lies you will like, in newspaper form.

Is that a snide reference to conquest and rape? Denying the backflow? Who knows, it’s so vague you could throw a kitchen sink in there and make it work.

Those who settled in the north became the isolated ancient Beringians, he said, while those who moved south, around or through the ice sheets, split into the north and south Native Americans about 15,700 years ago.”

So you found …nothing.

The other guy said about the initial migration. You just made up a name and stuck it (see the issue with shitty labels?) on an already-known group. A purer group.

But there is another possibility. Ben Potter, an archaeologist on the team from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, suspects that the Beringians split from the ancestors

that’s called a race

of other Native Americans in Asia

are they Asian or not?

before both groups made their way across the land bridge to North America in separate migrations. “The support for this scenario is pretty strong,” he said. “We have no evidence of people in the Beringia region 20,000 years ago.”

translation: We have no convenient evidence of Asians in the region.

To piss some people off: Absence of  evidence is not evidence of absence.
If only their job were getting evidence.

Like a real scientist.

I may not be an expert on fishing but something doesn’t smell right about this.

Connie Mulligan, an anthropologist at the University of Florida, said the findings pointed to a single migration of people from Asia to the New World, but said other questions remained.

Questions like, what are you smoking?

My money is on Benjamins from the taxpayer. I’m right, aren’t I?

You aren’t allowed to notice the black swans and maybe it will go away, maybe people will forget.

He added that he was unconvinced that the ancient Beringian group split from the ancestors of other Native Americans 20,000 years ago, because even tiny errors in scientists’ data can lead to radically different split times for evolutionary lineages.

Oh, the Harvard guy can science. Excellent.

Nice to know someone’s almonds are shaking.

Yes, “errors.”

When this fraud comes out, can the people doing it go to prison, please? If you robbed the Fed directly they would but if there’s academic fraud…. suddenly they can play dumb?

It even happens in cancer research: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/cancer-researcher-ohio-state-university-resigns-following-multiple-misconduct-findings

Guess the race of the guy cheating. Clue: same as Eton.

I didn’t know – when it was their job, they accepted money to do?

They actively applied for this money, and suggested they did know?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/mysterious-link-emerges-between-native-americans-and-people-half-globe-away

Both detect in modern Native Americans a trace of DNA related to that of native people from Australia and Melanesia.

American Indians actually aborigines?

They concluded

falsely

that all Native Americans, ancient and modern, stem from a single source population in Siberia that split from other Asians around 23,000 years ago and moved into the now-drowned land of Beringia.

We wuz Siberians.

But the Science team also found a surprising dash of Australo-Melanesian DNA in some living Native Americans, including those of the Aleutian Islands and the Surui people of Amazonian Brazil.

They looked for evidence?!

And found it?!

I am shook.

Some anthropologists had previously suggested an Australo-Melanesian link.

So it isn’t new.

They noted that certain populations of extinct Native Americans

who killed ’em

(hint: other “Native Americans”)

had long, narrow skulls, resembling those of some Australo-Melanesians

everything skull is phrenology people in the distance, stampeding

distinct from the round, broad skulls of most Native Americans.

They’d love to say that isn’t science.

That’s a typical Asian skill btw.

drew on a different source population in Asia. A similar claim was made for the Kennewick Man, the iconic 8500-year-old skeleton from Washington state, but was refuted when his genome was published by this team last month: He is related only to Native Americans

Was it?

And doesn’t that strike anyone as unusual at all?

The Science results also counter the Paleoamerican model. When the team sequenced the DNA of 17 individuals from the extinct South American populations with the distinctive skulls, they found no trace of Australo-Melanesian ancestry.

No trace? What could this mean?

I’m sure they’ll tell us what to think, hold onto your European horses.

So how did living South Americans get a dose of this Australo-Melanesian DNA?

this nobody can deny, nobody can deny!

“A possible explanation is that the connection reflects more recent gene flow,” says Science co-lead author Eske Willerslev

That guy. Again.

You see, once something is refuted, nobody bothers to double-check it for… centuries.

Don’t question the High Priests of Science, kids! Ignorant is the new Evil!

This is a unique situation because there were two studies on the same subject in the same field published at the same time. Hence my spotlight. One of them is either innocently misguided (uhuh) or lying.

Hubbe, however, counters that the study could have missed telltale DNA in the ancient populations because its sample size is “extremely small.” geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and leader of the Nature team, agrees, noting that the genomes from the 17 ancient relict populations are incomplete and provide very low coverage.

I wonder which is which….

Hubbe, however, counters that the study could have missed

he knows, he knows they’re full of it

That’s the “bitch, I KNOW you iz lying” of academia.

telltale DNA

actual evidence

in the ancient populations because its sample size is “extremely small.”

fuck-all

geneticist David Reich of Harvard Medical School in Boston and leader of the Nature team, agrees, noting that the genomes from the 17 ancient relict populations are incomplete

they know this before doing it

and provide very low coverage.

Planned, totally planned. They don’t care about the methodology, only what they falsely conclude and agree to, ahead of time.

Well, when in doubt, the guy getting the most coverage in the Guardian is lying.

His own paper also finds this mysterious Australo-Melanesian DNA in some of the same modern populations 

Look for evidence, it pops up!

reaches a different conclusion about its source. His team analyzed partial genome sequences of 106 Native Americans from 25 populations in Central and South America, and compared them with DNA data from 197 populations from outside the Americas.

Which is the better method, I dunno.

through a now extinct population they call “Population Y”

note no stupid new naming labels for the idiot-papers

that may have lived somewhere in East Asia and contributed genes to both very early Paleoamericans and to Australo-Melanesians.

That fits!

That fits the evidence around us so much better!

Let’s go back to 2001

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11543902

We have been studying polymorphisms of HLA class I and II genes in East Asians including Buryat in Siberia, Mongolian, Han Chinese, Man Chinese, Korean Chinese, South Korean, and Taiwan indigenous populations in collaboration with many Asian scientists.

Regional populations in Japan, Hondo-Japanese, Ryukyuan, and Ainu, were also studied. HLA-A, -B, and -DRB1 gene frequencies were subjected to the correspondence analysis and calculation of DA distances.

See JF’s video what is white? for genetic distances.

The correspondence analysis demonstrated several major clusters of human populations in the world.

Hmm.

“Mongoloid” populations were highly diversified, in which several clusters such as Northeast Asians, Southeast Asians, Oceanians, and Native Americans were observed. Interestingly, an indigenous population in North Japan, Ainu, was placed relatively close to Native Americans in the correspondence analysis.

Think back to Mr They Can’t Be Related To Japanese, where’s the evidence?
One google search, you POS.

Distribution of particular HLA-A, -B, -DRB1 alleles and haplotypes was also analyzed in relation to migration and dispersal routes of ancestral populations. A number of alleles and haplotypes showed characteristic patterns of regional distribution. For example, B39-HR5-DQ7 (B*3901-DRB1*1406-DQB1*0301) was shared by Ainu and Native Americans.

specific alleles not good enough for you?

They are more Japanese than they could ever be Siberian.

A24-Cw8-B48 was commonly observed in Taiwan indigenous populations, Maori in New Zealand, Orochon in Northeast China, Inuit, and Tlingit.

subraces also apply in Asians, true

These findings further support the genetic link between East Asians and Native Americans. We have proposed that various ancestral populations in East Asia, marked by different HLA haplotypes, had migrated and dispersed through multiple routes. Moreover, relatively small genetic distances and the sharing of several HLA haplotypes between Ainu and Native Americans suggest that these populations are descendants of some Upper Paleolithic populations of East Asia.

So-called modern “Native Americans” are genetic Asians, deal with it.

We can look one allele at a time.

We can specify the types of Asian they are and are not.

Now for some Asian slavery to round things off, I’m tired.

There are plenty of studies like this if you actually cared to look.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707606557

However, this, together with other odd features of the island’s Y-chromosomal gene pool, is best explained as the genetic impact of a 19th century Peruvian slave trade in Polynesia.

These findings underscore the need to account for history before turning to prehistory

you can’t say that’s ancient unless modern is discounted entirely

and the value of archival research to understanding modern genetic diversity. Although the impact of the Atlantic slave trade on the distribution of modern genetic diversity has been well appreciated, this represents the first study investigating the impact of this underappreciated episode on genetic diversity in the Pacific.

 

 

Video: What is white?

Apply to the BBC.

If they say no, you must be white.

Make a joke.

If you are told you are Hitler, you must be white.

Walk around a diverse area.

If you are raped…

Note: modern invaders of European countries e.g. Turkey, Italy, do not magically change DNA thanks to particles of feels in the dirt. This has been a PSA from Captain (Fucking) Obvious.

The books are online for free.

No, you don’t need to take a course to understand Darwinian evolution (there is no other).

He wrote a book you can see for free.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2009/2009-h/2009-h.htm

It is here.

THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES BY MEANS OF NATURAL SELECTION;

OR

THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.

By Charles Darwin, M.A., F.R.S.,

Author of “The Descent of Man,” etc., etc.

Sixth London Edition, with all Additions and Corrections.

Pause to consider:

The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.

If you want the raw form?

With slightly less information?

Also see Project Gutenberg Etext #1228 for the First Edition.

Here.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1228

You have no excuse now.

I am not one of those people who lie about Darwin. I encourage you to read the bloody books. Plural, this is the first one you start with or don’t use that word around me. Picture someone going on and on about cookery who doesn’t know how to crack an egg. That’s how you all sound.

The atheists are shit scared of this being required reading in schools.
That’s because it deals in fact and compares humans with other animals.

I know you’ll see my way if you have any capacity for logic and literacy.

Note: genes can jump within and between chromosomes within an organism.
“Jumping genes” so-called and ignored for decades.
This was discovered by a woman so don’t be shocked you weren’t taught it in school.

Barbara McClintock. Look her up.