Selective breeding is literally Darwin tho…

Am I gonna have to be the one to say this? Apparently. Ugh.

It’s no more novel than dog ‘breeds’ aka races. They also have inbreeding depression from the admixture (why it’s called mixing) and mixed race (aka mongrel) fertility issues, like ligers.

Anyone who denies this fact about selective breeding literature is literally anti-Darwin (or just plain ignorant) and against the evolutionary paradigm itself, in biology.
It’s not just in Charles Darwin’s most famous work, it’s cited in chapter ONE, you brainlets!


Teach the book in biology or none of the subject makes sense. It’s the paradigm of brain development, we can see it in scans! It’s definitely at least somewhat real when it dictates how a precious foetus develops.

Proof or it didn’t happen:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2009
“The 6th Edition is often considered the definitive edition.” so STFU.

pre-contents: “In 1843-44 Professor Haldeman (“Boston Journal of Nat. Hist. U. States”, vol. iv, page 468) has ably given the arguments for and against the hypothesis of the development and modification of species: he seems to lean toward the side of change.”

“CHAPTER I. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION.”

Literally the sodding chapter, and the first one!


Also, humans are a species, stop calling us a race. Homo Sapiens is a SPECIES.

It’s a quote gold mine!
and I don’t just mean the Sub-title:

“THE PRESERVATION OF FAVOURED RACES IN THE STRUGGLE FOR LIFE.”

Fitness is real, yo.

e.g.
“When we look to the hereditary varieties or races of our domestic animals and plants, and compare them with closely allied species, we generally perceive in each domestic race, as already remarked, less uniformity of character than in true species. Domestic races often have a somewhat monstrous character; by which I mean, that, although differing from each other and from other species of the same genus, in several trifling respects, they often differ in an extreme degree in some one part, both when compared one with another, and more especially when compared with the species under nature to which they are nearest allied. With these exceptions (and with that of the perfect fertility of varieties when crossed—a subject hereafter to be discussed), domestic races of the same species differ from each other in the same manner as do the closely allied species of the same genus in a state of nature, but the differences in most cases are less in degree. This must be admitted as true, for the domestic races of many animals and plants have been ranked by some competent judges as the descendants of aboriginally distinct species, and by other competent judges as mere varieties. If any well marked distinction existed between a domestic race and a species, this source of doubt would not so perpetually recur. It has often been stated that domestic races do not differ from each other in characters of generic value. It can be shown that this statement is not correct; but naturalists differ much in determining what characters are of generic value; all such valuations being at present empirical. When it is explained how genera originate under nature, it will be seen that we have no right to expect often to find a generic amount of difference in our domesticated races.”

For those who missed the obvious, mixed is not a race. They’re raceless. To argue otherwise is category error because a race is a mutually exclusive classification.

re de novo mutations:
“Some naturalists have maintained that all variations are connected with the act of sexual reproduction; but this is certainly an error; for I have given in another work a long list of “sporting plants;” as they are called by gardeners; that is, of plants which have suddenly produced a single bud with a new and sometimes widely different character from that of the other buds on the same plant. These bud variations, as they may be named, can be propagated by grafts, offsets, etc., and sometimes by seed. They occur rarely under nature, but are far from rare under culture. As a single bud out of many thousands produced year after year on the same tree under uniform conditions, has been known suddenly to assume a new character; and as buds on distinct trees, growing under different conditions, have sometimes yielded nearly the same variety—for instance, buds on peach-trees producing nectarines, and buds on common roses producing moss-roses—we clearly see that the nature of the conditions is of subordinate importance in comparison with the nature of the organism in determining each particular form of variation; perhaps of not more importance than the nature of the spark, by which a mass of combustible matter is ignited, has in determining the nature of the flames.”

This shit even applies to FLOWERS.

“The laws governing inheritance are for the most part unknown;

genetics

no one can say why the same peculiarity in different individuals of the same species, or in different species, is sometimes inherited and sometimes not so;

germline mutation or not e.g. parental age factor

why the child often reverts in certain characteristics to its grandfather or grandmother or more remote ancestor;

atavism

why a peculiarity is often transmitted from one sex to both sexes, or to one sex alone, more commonly but not exclusively to the like sex.

chromosomes and brain development

It is a fact of some importance to us, that peculiarities appearing in the males of our domestic breeds are often transmitted, either exclusively or in a much greater degree, to the males alone. A much more important rule, which I think may be trusted, is that, at whatever period of life a peculiarity first appears, it tends to reappear in the offspring at a corresponding age, though sometimes earlier. In many cases this could not be otherwise; thus the inherited peculiarities in the horns of cattle could appear only in the offspring when nearly mature; peculiarities in the silk-worm are known to appear at the corresponding caterpillar or cocoon stage. But hereditary diseases and some other facts make me believe that the rule has a wider extension, and that, when there is no apparent reason why a peculiarity should appear at any particular age, yet that it does tend to appear in the offspring at the same period at which it first appeared in the parent.

genetics are timed in expression, phenotype

he’s been proven correct ever since, it’s amazing

I believe this rule to be of the highest importance in explaining the laws of embryology. These remarks are of course confined to the first APPEARANCE of the peculiarity, and not to the primary cause which may have acted on the ovules or on the male element;

referring to gamete mutation, especially in sperm

predicting parental age factor over a century before it was mathematically confirmed

in nearly the same manner as the increased length of the horns in the offspring from a short-horned cow by a long-horned bull, though appearing late in life, is clearly due to the male element.

If Christians think humans are special as a species and foetuses while developing are too, they need evolutionary arguments for that. You’re dropping the ball by not using these facts.

Having alluded to the subject of reversion,

also regression to the mean, but Galton already covered that (legit polymath)

I may here refer to a statement often made by naturalists—namely, that our domestic varieties, when run wild, gradually but invariably revert in character to their aboriginal stocks. Hence it has been argued that no deductions can be drawn from domestic races to species in a state of nature.”

All quotes from early chapter 1.

When I use the word evolution, or related TECHNICAL words like race, my definition is correct because I read the literature which explains what these things mean.

Arm yourself with the truth.

Read the book.

We’re the cavemen, not Neanderthals

https://www.mpg.de/7494657/neandertals_leather_tools

“acquired”

Humans never admit they wronged another species.

Some argue that before they were replaced, Neandertals had cultural capabilities similar to modern humans, while others argue that these similarities only appear once modern humans came into contact with Neandertals.

Better than ‘humans’ of the time, clearly.

 “Lissoirs like these are a great tool for working leather, so much so that 50 thousand years after Neandertals made these, I was able to purchase a new one on the Internet from a site selling tools for traditional crafts,” says Soressi. “It shows that this tool was so efficient that it had been maintained through time with almost no change. It might be one or perhaps even the only heritage from Neandertal times that our society is still using today.”

Bullshit.

They know we non-Africans have their genes, they hope we don’t know.

Maybe human genius is just higher percentages of Neanderthal. It would explain NW Europe’s incredible ingenuity and science, even compared to other Whites.

Haven’t you wondered why they want your DNA? (Before whites die out, ofc).

And the companies privately researching never find/report Neanderthal DNA, unlike real geneticists?

You know how they acted like this is a vague finding?

Left until right at the end, where only nerds read:

The results place the Pech-de-l’Azé I bone tool to approximately 50 thousand years ago.

This is well before the best evidence of modern humans in Western Europe, and it is much older than any other examples of sophisticated bone tool technologies.

Negative evidence of ‘human’ superiority.

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?

Human taxonomic diversity paper

Click to access woodley-2009-is-homo-sapiens-polytypic-human-taxonomic-diversity-and-its-implications.pdf

Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications

The term race is a traditional synonym for subspecies, however it is frequently asserted that Homo sapiens is monotypic and that what are termed races are nothing more than biological illusions. In this manuscript a case is made for the hypothesis that H. sapiens is polytypic, and in this way is no different from other species exhibiting similar levels of genetic and morphological diversity. First it is demonstrated that the four major definitions of race/subspecies can be shown to be synonymous within the context of the framework of race as a correlation structure of traits. Next the issue of taxonomic classification is considered where it is demonstrated that H. sapiens possesses high levels morphological diversity, genetic heterozygosity and differentiation (FST) compared to many species that are acknowledged to be polytypic with respect to subspecies. Racial variation is then evaluated in light of the phylogenetic species concept, where it is suggested that the least inclusive monophyletic units exist below the level of species within H. sapiens indicating the existence of a number of potential human phylogenetic species; and the biological species concept, where it is determined that racial variation is too small to represent differentiation at the level of biological species. Finally the implications of this are discussed in the context of anthropology where an accurate picture of the sequence and timing of events during the evolution of human taxa are required for a complete picture of human evolution, and medicine, where a greater appreciation of the role played by human taxonomic differences in disease susceptibility and treatment responsiveness will save lives in the future.

Humans are a species, deal with it.

I don’t care if I’ve posted this before, I’ll post it a hundred times if it’s true.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/a-reply-to-common-race-denial-claims/

Taxonomic approaches to race

There is no race, only the human race.”

Literary terms [1] are anti-science.

Click to access TOQv8n3Hamilton.pdf

Purely to wind up Sargon of Cuckad.

On that last line, boy do I have an interesting post scheduled.

Links or it didn’t poem.

http://www.bartleby.com/205/25.html

Oh! that the Desert were my dwelling-place,
  With one fair Spirit for my minister,        
  That I might all forget the human race,
  And, hating no one, love but only her!

Darwin on extinction (from Origin)

“The old notion of all the inhabitants of the earth having been swept away at successive periods by catastrophes, is now generally given up. On the contrary, we have every reason to believe that species and groups of species gradually disappear, one after another, first from one spot, then from another, and finally from the world.”

Link: The decline and Neanderthal DNA

http://vault-co.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/anyone-who-appears-to-be-able-to-reason.html

Thus far, the genetic studies have vindicated this position, to my knowledge.

http://www.livescience.com/7153-scientist-humans-strange-neanderthals-normal.html
There are a race of human: http://www.livescience.com/1122-neanderthal-99-5-percent-human.html

But excavations and anatomical studies have shown Neanderthals used tools, wore jewelery, buried their dead, cared for their sick, and possibly sang or even spoke in much the same way that we do. Even more humbling, perhaps, their brains were slightly larger than ours.

The results from the new studies confirm the Neanderthal’s humanity, and show that their genomes and ours are more than 99.5 percent identical, differing by only about 3 million bases.

New human “species”: Homo naledi

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11855405/Homo-naledi-a-new-species-of-human-discovered-in-a-cave-in-South-Africa.html

They’re terrified of saying race. Wonder why.

this is awkward

At least 15 skeletons of the species – named Homo Naledi – were found hidden deep in a cave dubbed the ‘Star Chamber’ in which is thought to be the earliest form of ritual burial ever discovered.

The early humans stood just five foot tall and weighed 100 pounds. Their hips were similar to our earliest ancestor, the hominid Lucy, but their shoulders were well designed for climbing but legs and feet were human like. Their skulls are like early humans, but their brains are tiny, just the size of an orange.

I’ll take the high route and say this is consistent with another human racial group. Too much similarity for another species.

Before the discovery scientists believed that only Homo sapiens had enough compassion and self awareness to bury the dead.

……Neanderthals don’t exist then, bitch?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/
We learned how to bury and care for the dead from them. From modelling them.

“We are also left with the idea that they did not live there. There is no archaeology. That has led us to the rather remarkable conclusions that we have just met a new species of human relative that deliberatley disposed of its dead inside of the chamber in cradle of mankind.

Like a Missing Link of sorts?

Their deliberate ignorance of evidence is astounding. Confirmation bias much?

“Overall, Homo naledi looks like one of the most primitive members of our genus, but it also has some surprisingly human-like features, enough to warrant placing it in the genus Homo.”

THANK YOU.

H. naledi’s teeth are described as similar to those of the earliest-known human relatives, as are most features of the skull but the shoulders are more similar to those of apes.

Dr Tracy Kivell of the University of Kent, in the UK, said: “The hands suggest tool-using capabilities.

……

“Surprisingly, H. naledi has extremely curved fingers, more curved than almost any other species of early hominin, which clearly demonstrates climbing capabilities.”

*looks at own hands*
I am a monkey? They look like mine. Longer thumb though but bone curvature is normal variance.

“The feet, combined with its long legs, suggest that the species was well-suited for long-distance walking,” he said.

Make your sodding mind up.

Ethics: If you’re an egalitarian, how come you’re a speciesist?

http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2015/02/if-youre-an-egalitarian-how-come-youre-a-speciesist/

On any of the versions of egalitarianism presented above, the individuals among whom value should be equalised are all those whose lives can go well or badly. They include all sentient beings. Since most nonhuman animals are sentient, our concern about inequality among individuals should be extended to them as well. To exclude some sentient beings from the scope of equality on the grounds of species membership (simply because they are not human) would be unjustified – an instance of speciesist discrimination. Therefore, any sound version of egalitarianism must reject speciesism.

Logically, if chimps were smarter than us, we should let them kill us. According to the egalitarian’s version of sentient value. The death warrant of egalitarian philosophy was written the moment we discovered DNA. Here is a thing which varies between all sentient organic beings, and yes, we can measure it.

I think they intend to use the term anthropocentric, but it’s a good read if you’re into that sort of thing.

Am I the only one who did the reading rdj tony stark

n.b. Being the smartest person in any given room isn’t usually a problem until the reverse never occurs.

Neanderthals’ DNA legacy linked to modern ailments

Full from http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/01/neanderthals-dna-legacy-linked-to-modern-ailments/ ;

Remnants of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans are associated with genes affecting type 2 diabetes, Crohn’s disease, lupus, biliary cirrhosis, and smoking behavior. They also concentrate in genes that influence skin and hair characteristics. At the same time, Neanderthal DNA is conspicuously low in regions of the X chromosome and testes-specific genes.

The research, led by Harvard Medical School (HMS) geneticists and published Jan. 29 in Nature, suggests ways in which genetic material inherited from Neanderthals has proven both adaptive and maladaptive for modern humans. (A related paper by a separate team was published concurrently in Science.)

“Now that we can estimate the probability that a particular genetic variant arose from Neanderthals, we can begin to understand how that inherited DNA affects us,” said David Reich, professor of genetics at HMS and senior author of the paper.

In the past few years, studies by groups including Reich’s have revealed that present-day people of non-African ancestry trace an average of about 2 percent of their genomes to Neanderthals — a legacy of interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals that the team previously showed occurred between 40,000 to 80,000 years ago. (Indigenous Africans have little or no Neanderthal DNA because their ancestors did not breed with Neanderthals, who lived in Europe and Asia.)

Several teams have since been able to flag Neanderthal DNA at certain locations in the non-African human genome, but until now, there was no survey of Neanderthal ancestry across the genome and little understanding of the biological significance of that genetic heritage.

“The story of early human evolution is captivating in itself, yet it also has far-reaching implications for understanding the organization of the modern human genome,” said Irene A. Eckstrand of the National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which partially funded the research. “Every piece of this story that we uncover tells us more about our ancestors’ genetic contributions to modern human health and disease.”

Deserts and oases

Reich and his colleagues — including Svante Pääbo of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany — analyzed genetic variants in 846 people of non-African heritage, 176 people from sub-Saharan Africa, and a 50,000-year-old Neanderthal whose high-quality genome sequence the team published in 2013.

The most powerful information the researchers used to determine whether a gene variant came from a Neanderthal was if it appeared in some non-Africans and the Neanderthal, but not in the sub-Saharan Africans.

Using this and other types of information, the team found that some areas of the modern non-African human genome were rich in Neanderthal DNA, which may have been helpful for human survival, while other areas were more like “deserts” with far less Neanderthal ancestry than average.

The barren areas were the “most exciting” finding, said first author Sriram Sankararaman of HMS and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “It suggests the introduction of some of these Neanderthal mutations was harmful to the ancestors of non-Africans and that these mutations were later removed by the action of natural selection.”

The team showed that the areas with reduced Neanderthal ancestry tend to cluster in two parts of our genomes: genes that are most active in the male germline (the testes) and genes on the X chromosome. This pattern has been linked in many animals to a phenomenon known as hybrid infertility, where the offspring of a male from one subspecies and a female from another have low or no fertility.

“This suggests that when ancient humans met and mixed with Neanderthals, the two species were at the edge of biological incompatibility,” said Reich, who is also a senior associate member of the Broad Institute and an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Present-day human populations, which can be separated from one another by as much as 100,000 years (such as West Africans and Europeans), are fully compatible with no evidence of increased male infertility. In contrast, ancient human and Neanderthal populations apparently faced interbreeding challenges after 500,000 years of evolutionary separation.

“It is fascinating that these types of problems could arise over that short a time scale,” Reich said.

A lasting heritage

The team also measured how Neanderthal DNA present in human genomes today affects keratin production and disease risk.

Neanderthal ancestry is increased in genes affecting keratin filaments. This fibrous protein lends toughness to skin, hair, and nails and can be beneficial in colder environments by providing thicker insulation, said Reich. “It’s tempting to think that Neanderthals were already adapted to the non-African environment and provided this genetic benefit to humans,” he speculated.

The researchers also showed that nine previously identified human genetic variants known to be associated with specific traits likely came from Neanderthals. These variants affect diseases related to immune function and also some behaviors, such as the ability to stop smoking. The team expects that more variants will be found to have Neanderthal origins.

The team has already begun trying to improve their human genome ancestry results by analyzing multiple Neanderthals instead of one. Together with colleagues in Britain, they have developed a test that can detect most of the approximately 100,000 mutations of Neanderthal origin they discovered in people of European ancestry; they are conducting an analysis in a biobank containing genetic data from half a million Britons.

I VOLUNTEER.

“I expect that this study will result in a better and more systematic understanding of how Neanderthal ancestry affects variation in human traits today,” said Sankararaman.

As another next step, the team is studying genome sequences from people from Papua New Guinea to build a database of genetic variants that can be compared to those of Denisovans, a third population of ancient humans that left most of its genetic traces in Oceania but little in mainland Eurasia.

How did I find this story? Funny story.
A moron on tumblr who doesn’t understand evolution. For lolz;

SJWsdon'tdoDarwinwtfhowfacepalmingsrsly
No one told them Neanderthals had high IQs and ginger hair. Hush. Don’t spoil it for them.
Let them drone on about discredited Afrocentrist ‘racial purity’ pipedreams. And evolution is a constant process for the record. “We are changing the main narrative. Neanderthals were just as adaptable and in many ways, simply victims of their own success.” How’s Africa doing on the global scale compared to every other country? Still rape and murder capital of the world? Hmm.