"WE WUZ DESCENDED FROM A SINGULAR ANCESTOR N SHEEEEEEIT"

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.
Not at all. Read The 10,000 Year Explosion.

W-w-will do, thanks?

Who wrote it?

My bullshit detector says that's bullshit. The odds of one single human being developing a mutation that caused blue eyes, surviving to pass on said mutation to their offspring, who then survived to pass it on to their offspring etc. etc. until millions upon millions of people have blue eyes today are just absurd.

This is most likely kike propaganda they'll used to say "LOL DUMB ARYANS YOU'RE LITERALLY THE SAME AS NIGGERS BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE SAME ANCESTOR. ONE RACE THE HUMAN RACE".

Blue eyes come from neanderthals.

Defeatist much, Mr. Dub-Dubs?

I was blond and blue eyed till i was 4 then i went brownish hair, hazel eyes. My beard is ginger colored.

Am i a heterozygote?

The kike propaganda is the shooped niggers.

Discarded.

GTFO otherwise we would all then have African genetic and it's the opposite.

Africans do not have European genetics.

hahah fuck man that cracked me up top kek

Wait a second…

Here's an article from 2008 claiming the same shit.

>livescience.com/9578-common-ancestor-blue-eyes.html

New research my ass.

Hi, (((rabbi))); sit down, get comfy.

Remember: you're here forever.

BusinessInsider is owned by the german Axel "shill for Israel" Springer group, founded after WWII to brainwash the german population into submission until this day.
Keep that in mind when you read any of their shit.

...

And yet it's just more historical (((revisionism))). They are still pushing out of Africa theory.

All Semite dominated history must always be viewed with absolute scrutiny as well as all Semite dominated science and medicine.

Yes.

Fucking what nigger?

They've been switching tactics lately, and just lazily calling people what we call them, in hopes of sowing confusion.

Owls have different eye colors. The dark ones see better at night, is the same true for humans? I am very curious. Biology-anons, can you confirm?

the true test is, what is the color of the hair on your scrote?

Old news as fuck.
Try to understand genetics better here:

...

This is bullshit - but if so, even several non-blue eyed people share the same ancestors because they have blue-eyed ancestors - that is the reason for you to REPRODUCE and have many children - in the future, a whole part of mankind may carry your genes!

WE DIDN'T MIGRATE FROM NIGGERLAND AFRICA NOR DID WE EVOLVE FROM NIGGERS OR MONKEYS!

telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/05/22/europe-birthplace-mankind-not-africa-scientists-find/

And now they want us to think we all stem from the same ancestor because the blue-eyes mutation is also present to a very small degree in the lesser hominid species such as niggers.

Yes. Blue eyes can be light sensitive to the point that daylight hurts.

my wife has blue eyes and our daughter has blue eyes. we count ourselves lucky being of pure aryan stock

You're retard. The Homo sapiens is believed to be 300,000 years old and that Greek monkey is 7million.
Do you even know what does that imply? Did you even read anything? The Graecopytechus isn't even of the Homo clade, he was still a fucking monkey.

I want to cum babies into her.

There are blue eyed africans though

Please no porn - redpill yourself on (((porn))) and collecting images of woman in the internet - it turns you into an addict woman-collector, may make you impotent, and demean several woman!

Point being? The same claim is made as regards the Out of Africa theory, which even the creator no longer ascribes to.

Modern homonids did not derive from African stock - the progenitor stock migrated into Africa, and never left.

Having blue eyes alone isn't enough to claim an Aryan lineage bud.

Negroids will lap this up and start calling us mutant defects etc etc, kill whitey. We are a different species entirely, and Semitic dominated science will never be allowed to state the truth.

Nah.
Those women are aesthetically beautiful and there is no explicitly sexual reqiurement to that beauty - you sound like a fag.

op is either a kike, a nigger, or possibly a spic

Antisage for white camaraderie.

Fuck (((YOU)))!

...

notwithstanding the fact that I am german and she is german you might be right.

Good. Now make more.

XD

(((Business Insider))) has really shown their kike colors really thoroughly over the past few weeks. They've been posting one anti-Trump article after another.

They'll keep pushing whatever angle they can to marginalize whites. The only solution is to kill every jew on the planet.

kind of funny how recorded history is always that 7,000 year number, kind of like another number that's nice definite.
:^)

His name was
MAN
Man/Mannaz. This is where the term Man-Kind comes from. Man-Kin, Kin of Man/Mannaz. The term ManKind ONLY refers to us!

44:10 sums it up

Correct.

They are but Hues of mans whiteness. HUmans.

Payback for Holodomor

Go masturbate little bolshivek

Thanks for providing context. Clear information.

I loathe the way that Europe and especially the Germanic people have been ruined in this way.

trips of truth

This.

500,000 years in Europe, spontaneously develop blue eyes 6,000 years ago.
Funny how almost every mammal has an albino variant. Are they saying those only appeared 6,000 years ago too.
Kike shit propaganda, ignore it.

You kikes are wearing that word and "black-pill" out like it's in your fucking book. I don't think so.

LOL what else do you call shitting on white bonding and brotherhood except blackpill defeatism, there, (((Moishe)))?

GAS YOURSELF!

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

I'll take "what is undirected breeding" for 200, Alex!

And on, and on. Geometric growth means that yes, we really could get billions of blue-eyed people from one person with blue eyes, if you accept that way back in the day people didn't understand that the family unit tended to have children who lived longer and that as a group they tended to do better.

This is how normally recessive traits are bred into animals. Dalmatians are not naturally occurring, for instance.

...

...

That's how mutations work, retard.

FUCK (((YOU)))!

-t phoneposting OP since home from work now

Weren't human footsteps from before niggers quit swinging from trees recently found in Europe?

Yup.

"Out of Ape-frica" meme is dead.

We literally were kings and other stuff too!

Yes.
Out Of Africa has been debunked but (((they))) keep clinging to it because it undermines white racial identity to point and say "HEY GOY, YOU CAME FROM NIGGERS."

Thanks for that post, there, (((Rabbi)))!

=0.02 SHEKELS HAS BEEN DEPOSITED INTO YOUR (((JIDF))) ACCOUNT!==

...

To the contrary, this fucks the kike (((narrative))) in the ass. WE are literally God's own chosen, not the kikes, put here on this planet about 6,000 years ago.

Suddenly I'm down with the idea of the Targaryens in Game of Thrones who marry within their own blood line to preserve the purity.

Wasn't this shit proven to be bullshit?

Fuck niggers

Yeah I know a very special group of (((people))) who did this for generations.

Did you ever consider that if God exists, His methods in the mortal plane would be plainly visible to mortals if they chose to look and not something so unbelievable that mortals would have no choice but to accept His divine presence, as opposed to taking it on faith alone? That he would be so stupid and clumsy as a creator not to work within the framework of His creations, thus providing proof of His Existence?
That perhaps DNA, RNA, etc are God's own Base Code of Life itself and evolution is a natural process where God, using the world He created as a petri dish, strives for greater creations–instead of creating a static, stagnant world?

Incest, even direct sibling incest, has been proven to have no immediate negative genetic impact. It has to be a recurring event before it starts fucking things up. Siblings producing offspring who marry their siblings and produce offspring for three successive generations kind of thing.
Translation: if you want to use eugenics make certain traits dominant, you would *very fucking carefully* manage marriages into and within the clan/family, pairing off cousins who strongly exhibit the traits you want.

They fucked it up because they mongrelized their blood afterwards. Serrano points this out and why it fails them because once the DNA is polluted with foreign blood it's impossible to scrub the impurities out for the most part. Now keeping within their own tribal group creates monstrosities of people without continued foreign blood to unfuck themselves.

Just look at how far they've come in the 20th century to scrub a lot of the jewish features out with the half-breeds who they then reassemble back into the tribe (hence gene stealers). Creates a shit ton of other genetic deformities because of it. Staying within your own through and through would eliminate all negative possibilities, which is probably why all traces of spirituality and religious doctrine from the beginning of time mention purity explicitly.

Creationist Christcucks are part of the problem. They're a part of a psyop to discredit us.

Creationists tend to be idiots, yes.

However, there is some intelligence in accepting that The Bible was written (mostly by kikes) in a time when people didn't understand that washing their hands and bathing regularly would curtail the spread of disease–let alone that animal husbandry could lead to better animals and then applying that concept to man.
There is nothing wrong, as a christcuck, to adapt new information and ways of thinking to your old time religion, such as provided above.

Personally, I think you're all nuts for following one of the three (((Abrahamic))) faiths. There are things in Christianity that you can take away as good, yes–the Commandments are pretty fucking common sense, for instance. But there's a whole hell of a lot that is either wrong due to ignorance of the times, parable, or pure propaganda. For instance,

Parable: Noak's Arc. There is no physical way it happened as stated.

Propaganda: 666/616 being the numbers of the beast. 'The Beast' was Emperor Nero–who was a pagan (a white man with a white religion) and hated kikes and their usury. The number system was run by kikes at the time, so it was in the kikeish language. Their numbers were also letters (well, kikerunes. close enough). Both 616 and 666 translate to NERO (or the kikeish equivalent) in kikeish. The kikes hates him, especially since there are verses about Jesus saying "pay Nero his taxes."

t. filthy atheist.

Nero:
heisnear.com/666.html

equip.org/bible_answers/what-is-the-meaning-of-666/

TL;DR: Nero's name was trips in kike language, kikes went apeshit over first example of numerical meme magic.
The rest, you probably won't find on most 'reputable' websites, but you will find in older history books with accurate accounts of historical figures.

>Even the "out of Ape-frica" theory is getting (((mainstream))) pushback
When they guy who put it forth in the first place comes out and says he no longer believes that is the case it is pretty much finished.

Satan is actually right on this one. But as says that's not porn.

The raw beauty of a young blonde white woman saved my life. You'll never find your muse on pornhub.

Wtf im a hohol too…

You niggers need to understand something about genetics and incest. Just like that species of rodent that has a recessive trait that kills the rodent instantly, humans have Degenerated genes as well. Radiation and mutation doom us to an inevitability of genetic liabilities. However, Since our bodies consider most defective genes as recessive the minority of these genes will never be expressed. In the rare event that they are expressed the child will be severely defective or in most cases just not develop in the womb or die stillborn, and so the gene never passes on to a degree that it is noticeable. This is why recessive and dominant genes exist to protect against defects in all animals.

On the other hand if the environment changes recessive traits are also essential to the survival of the species. If the mutation that is recessive is a good one like blue eyes it will survive and pass on, while a maladaptive dominant trait will be essentially eliminated by the environment. This eventually results in a shit ton of beneficial mutation that suit your environment being passed on the bad ones dying out (i.e. The Cold lands of yurop where you had to actually think to survive, and you had to have loyalty and empathy to your tribe instead of being a lazy selfish nigger). This is how species form.

When two humans of a statistically similar or identical genetic makeup mate the probability of negative genes appearing increases exponentially. This is why organisms that mate are naturually repeled by incest, just like shit and fags. Incest babies cause the defective genes to spread of the children that aren't stillborn, and incest is usually caused by deluded humans who value some arbitrary human moral rather than their insticts, example muslims, Jews etc.

Blue-Eyed people are God's true chosen people.

Yeah, I don't get it either. Person develops blue eyes. They are recessive. He has children with non-blue eyed people, and so does his children. It shouldn't have propagated at all if that were the case, no? What am I missing here? That green eyes are equally recessive? Are they?

Similar case here.
Blond + blue eyes at first, now brown + blue/grey eyes. Ginger(+brown) beard too.

also am hohol.

Porn for the sake of porn is bad, simply because it desensitizes you to the beauty of women and, if you hit your joy button enough, programs your brain to need more and more degenerate shit to get off (thus releasing that delicious dopamine).

The nude, white female form is beautiful and one of the most aesthetically pleasing things to look upon in nature. There is nothing wrong, dirty, or shameful in taking pleasure in it.
But as with all good things, moderation is key.

Yes, successive incidences of inbreeding can bring out previously dormant traits. This is why in any eugenics program, those traits have to be culled or carefully managed to remain recessive. It's also why you bring in new blood that has the traits you're looking for when possible, and why you pick between furthest relatives with those dominant traits.
Knocking up your sister won't instantly produce Cletus the Fetus, regardless of what kike propaganda tells you.

Us hohols will dominate the earth

Sorry for the fucking shitty English, I wrote that one my phone in one go and didn't really have time to correct it.

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

On the contrary, let's assume that every couple has two kids when they are 30 years old.
The in 6000 years, there are 6000/30=200 generations. That means that the original person who lived 6000 years ago could be the ancestor of up to 2^200=1.61x10^60 people in the current year. This maximal number is if the person's descendants don't interbreed. If they do, it will be lower. However, assuming that each person only has two children who reproduce is a conservative estimate.

Under these assumptions, it would only take 30 generations (900 years) for one person to become the ancestor of over a billion people: 2^30=1,073,741,824.

You mean evolution gave white people a nigger override switch?

As soon as we've payed the jews back for the holodomor.

what's hohol

I could probably believe that.

sort of a nickname for people of Ukraine.

If one person has a recessive mutation, their children will both have the dominant phenotype, but if they (or future descendants of theirs) were to have a child, then two copies of the recessive gene could appear, leading to a recessive phenotype.

Yes. Whitewashing the nigger race is possible, genetically speaking. HOWEVER, it would require:

It would take, at a rough estimate, 8 generations to purge enough nigger DNA for the offspring to look human–and then you still have those occasional nigger dominant traits popping up, like that fucking nose or those nigger gums/lips.
This is why you occasionally, rarely, see 'black people' with blue or green eyes, very light ("dat caramel skin") skin tone, and generally very Caucasian-like features.

Nigger speaking of porn why do you think the Jews push fucking incest so much in their fucking favorite entertainment industry? It's not some small chance 20-30% of children will be born with disabilities in sibling matings. Arab tribes that allow consanguinity have a generational decrease in 3 iq points because the population allows more retards to live and taint their people. If we could genetically engineer humans or have strict population controls maybe then it would be ok to do, but just because we can doesn't mean we should make it possible to fuck our sisters schlomo. By that argument trans people ought to be fucking possible. There's a reason most normal white people are repulsed by incest, if they weren't their line would die out or become Jewish. Mating shouldn't be done with niggers or any form of subhuman nor should it be done with your own direct blood. You either get muds or Jews. Like I said it's funny how these seem to be the fetishes Jews push on normies.

Reported for unscientific slide thread.

For the same reason they push every other degenerate fetish. They want to normalize this shit so they don't get called out on their filth if everyone else is doing it.

I'm not saying you should go to cuckchan and fap to fucking mom/incest threads, shitdick. I'm saying, if in the future mankind (or even one group of humans) needed to start a breeding program, that incest would be a viable way to produce healthy offspring with dominant traits.

Incest happens in the real world more often than you think–especially in small communities. Especially of the 'third cousin or further' variety.

All of these posts have excellent points for debunking the theory within
If blue eyes were a 1-time genetic mutation they would not be passed on due to blue eyes being a recessive gene. You would need at least 1 other with blue eyes to ever cause propagation of the phenotype. Otherwise, dominant eye colors would always take priority over blue eyes, and there would never be another offspring with blue eyes.

Did you even read the 1073741824 post you just quoted? It explains how a recessive phenotype could spread from a single person.

This is retarded.

Pick one

Pick one

The older I get, the more I see that evolution is a sham.

I explained why the blue eyes stuff was bullshit with something along these lines, I got a "wow dude that's pretty edgy" in response.

It's how you call a Ukrainian a nigger

implying

See
Have you ever tried researching a family tree, and seeing the sheer number of ancestors you have, as they increase exponentially as you back by generation?

I'll pick two, as outlined in : Let 'a' be recessive and 'A' be dominant.
Then,
First individual's genotype: aa
Second generation genotypes: Aa, Aa
Third gen. genotypes: AA, Aa, aa

meh, that's how Russian mongols use it. it pretty much can be used as slang for Ukrainian without any negative meaning.

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

I'll take "what is the exponential function?" for $200.

It's not totally out of the question that a recessive trait could spread from a single person to the great multitude of people that exhibit blue eyes today within the span of 300 to 500 generations (assuming about 20 years per generation). I think it's far-fetched, but assuming that there is no reproduction within 4 degrees of consanguinity and assigning a random amount of children per couple with lower numbers favored due to prevalence of death before being able to reproduce, you could probably write a program (unless you're illiterate like me) that would at least give some insight as to if it is even theoretically possible for the recessive gene to spread into multiple different family groups/tribes before starting to manifest as blue eyes being wide spread as these family groups marry into each other.

Actually, dirty filthy jews didn't know about hygiene (and still don't, really). Mudskins similarly. At the height of almost every empire, they did know about soap. Multiple rises and falls of bronze age empires, lots of knowledge lost. You'd be surprised how much was known, forgotten, then re-learned.

Typical bluepill fuck.

Using this logic, then it makes no difference if Europe gets Blacked because eventually the Aryan genes will thrive through inter breeding.

Also
Is literally evolution.

Well, in fairness its actually quite possible from a math standpoint. Lets use some easier numbers and go back to the year 1900.

World population was about 1.7billion, blue eyed people make up about 8% of the world population now, so we can assume it was similar then as well (but you'll see towards the end you could easily double that % for back then and it wouldnt matter)

That gives us about 156 million blue eyed people alive then. From 1900 and back average life age tended to be around 30 consistently, to make things a bit easier. We'll also say the average age of first conception was 15, and we'll speculate that a woman gave birth ONLY during the age of 15. SOOOO, we have family tree growth every 15 years, for all of human history, because you'd have kids at 15, you'd age 15 more years and hit 30, at which point your kids would have kids, and you would die. So, we go back like that for 6k years. 6k / 15 = 400 steps or branches on a family tree.

So we have 400 steps to go from ONE blue eyed person, to 156 million. So how many kids are necessary at each step? Well, we can just take the 400th root of 156mill. Before I do that though, I'll explain. If after more 3 generations (or steps) you wanted to have a family size of 8, how many kids would each generation need? That ones simple, you take the cubed root of 8, which is 2. You'd go from the first generation having 2, each of those 2 having two (now 4 at that generation), and each of those 4 having 2 (now 8 total in the last generation). Now, naturally this doesnt actually account for the previous generations who are still alive, so you'd actually have MORE than 8, but you get the point right? If you want the CURRENT generation to be a size of 8, each generation would need to have 2 kids going on for 3 generations.

Its no different for getting 156 million from 400 steps. So, whats the 400th root of 156 million?… drum roll please… iiittts… 1.048. So each blue eyed woman would need to have, on average, 1.048 children with blue eyes, in order to go from a population of 1, to a population of 156 million, over 400 steps. The results can be easily verified, simply put into a calculator 1.048^400

Doing the same thing for current world population is the same, 7 bill x 0.08 = 560mill, the 400th root of that would be 1.051 blue eyed births per family to get to 560 million.

So yeah, math wise its easily possible. It even leaves plenty of room for mass die offs if multiple generations are having more than 1.051 kids on average, if they were having say 2 on average then you could easily account for a vast amount of death or infertiility and so on, and still get from 1 to 156 million or even 560 million over 6k years of breeding

So the Earth WAS created a mere few thousand years ago, because otherwise there'd be trillions of people, not billions.

Atheists still BTFO.

absolutely degenerate

Aryan gene's would survive, they would just hardly ever be expressed.
My previous arguments were only hoping to show that it was possible that a single gene could spread that far in such an amount of time. In order for a single recessive mutation to become so predominant among Northern European populations, then its spread would need to be coupled with an element of selection. For example, sexual selection, or perhaps more light-sensitive blue eyes being more apt for dark, overcast conditions.

That illustrates a flaw in my assumptions: that none of the descendants interbreed. This would be a better approach, but I don't want to spend an hour programming a simulation. Also, there is the question of geographic movement. People moved much less frequently and over shorter distances in the past then they do today. A single gene could spread through a regional population in say ten generations, but may have a harder time branching between regions. But then again, if a single conqueror king has a gene, then it could rapidly be seeded into different population, whereupon it could spread with each.

tfw father has blue eyes and maternal grandfather has blue eyes, but mother has brown eyes. tfw i got the brown eyes. feels not good, man.

...

Not true, some people in middle east have blue eyes.

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.
Hundreds of millions actually.

...

Are there Young Earth Creationist Jews? The whole retarded theory comes from a Jewish book anyway

Also, the unintentional greentext sucks cocks.

also known as wotan / odin the all father.

You do know that the fossil evidence they use to make these claims date back to only ~4-6 mya right? That the finding of an older hominin in east europe blows the idea of africa being the cradle of mankind out of the fucking water right? Do you actually understand what's being discussed?

Also, this Business Insider article is based on a paper from 2008: archive.is/UPsel

Related thought: If colored vs brown eyes truly are a one gene recessive/dominant trait, this means that within a sea of blue there are no brown genes hiding, but within a sea of brown there may be blue eyes hiding. This means that selective pressure for blue eyes will eradicate brown genes more effectively than elective pressures for brown would eradicate blue eyes. Basically, under positive selection, a dominant phenotype will rapidly spread, but there will often be unexpressed recessive genes that can linger for a long time, even if the population is almost entirely dominant-expressing. On the other hand, under selection for a recessive phenotype, the recessive phenotype will spread more slowly, but the spread of the recessive genotype will be more complete, and if the population is almost entirely recessive-expressing, the dominant gene will be nearly extinguished.

So does this mean Yakub didn't create me? Damn…

This proves evolution you idiot, there are less than a billion whites, and blue eyes are rare.

Stupid faggot, six thousand years.

WHITE BLUE EYED ARYANS ARE LITERALLY GOD'S CHOSEN PEOPLE, NOT THE GODDAMNED (((KIKES)))! FUCK!

Like I dont understand how you get a story that says people never had blue eyes until they evolved to have them with a mutation, and then come out thinking that disproves evolution. Evolution says people mutate, and mutations which are beneficial often make it easier to reproduce and pass those genes on than the competition. First woman has blue eyes, has 50 kids. 50 blue eyed kids, everyone wants to mix with them. Bam, blue eyed people. Welcome to evolution.

Youre legitimately retarded.

wut

And of course we do. It's how race works, by descendant of those with common traits.

Thanks for your input, (((Rabbi Bagelstein)))! 0.02 shekels has been deposited into your (((JIDF))) account!

You know the NSDAP pulled Positive Christianity out of their ass, right?

...

We know OP, it in the mythology.

Well literally every trait is a mutation, so…

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

So the math does not work out is what you are saying????

Interesting the the first civilizations, Sumeria, started about 6000 years ago.

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

Are you born retarded or something? Do you know what the population of the entire earth was 6.000 years ago alone? Read the 10.000 year explosion.

Oh God, a Christcuck. There is no "chosen people" and the Jews are nothing more than inbred subhumans clinging to their genetically inherited schizophrenic desert fairy tales.

There are countless examples of recent evolution, not just in other animals but humans

nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Ethnic background influences immune response to TB

newscientist.com/article/dn23826-ethnic-background-influences-immune-response-to-tb.html#.Ug09E20UluI

Gene Sleuths Find How Some Naturally Resist Cholera

nytimes.com/2013/07/04/health/gene-sleuths-find-how-some-naturally-resist-cholera.html

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1

Adventures in Very Recent Evolution

The Sumerians were making blue eyed statues 6000 years ago. But that's when some African suddenly became white, right? Just understand that evolutionary biology and history are sciences that are completely coopted and corrupted. You'll be lucky to get a grain of truth out of them. In all likelihood our race is millions of years old and has no relation to Africans, nothing besides Jewish scripture and Jewish academia indicates anything else.

>A separate explanation for such long-lasting character traits may be emerging from the human genome. Humans have continued to evolve throughout prehistory and perhaps to the present day, according to a new analysis of the genome reported last week by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the University of Chicago. So human nature may have evolved as well.

In 2007, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimated that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. Hawks is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison and Associate Chair of Anthropology, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Faculty Fellow, and an associate member of both the Department of Zoology and the J. F. Crow Institute for the Study of Evolution. Many of the new genetic adjustments, Hawks observes, are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.
dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/human-evolutionary-change-100-times-higher-in-past-5000-years-todays-most-popular.html#more

unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html

The Twists and Turns of History, and of DNA

>In a finding that countered a common theory that human evolution has slowed to a crawl or even stopped in modern humans, a study examining data from an international genomics project describes the past 40,000 years as a time of supercharged evolutionary change, driven by exponential population growth and cultural shifts. The findings may lead to a very broad rethinking of human evolution, especially in the view that modern culture has essentially relaxed the need for physical genetic changes in humans to improve survival.
In 2007, a team led by University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist John Hawks estimated that positive selection just in the past 5,000 years alone -dating back to the Stone Age - has occurred at a rate roughly 100 times higher than any other period of human evolution. Hawks is Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison and Associate Chair of Anthropology, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) Faculty Fellow, and an associate member of both the Department of Zoology and the J. F. Crow Institute for the Study of Evolution. Many of the new genetic adjustments, Hawks observes, are occurring around changes in the human diet brought on by the advent of agriculture, and resistance to epidemic diseases that became major killers after the growth of human civilizations.
dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/08/human-evolutionary-change-100-times-higher-in-past-5000-years-todays-most-popular.html#more

Human Evolutionary Change 10,000% Higher in Past 5,000 Years

Ethnic background influences immune response to TB

newscientist.com/article/dn23826-ethnic-background-influences-immune-response-to-tb.html#.Ug09E20UluI

Gene Sleuths Find How Some Naturally Resist Cholera

nytimes.com/2013/07/04/health/gene-sleuths-find-how-some-naturally-resist-cholera.html

Insulin Differs between Ethnicities, Study Finds

medicalxpress.com/news/2013-06-insulin-differs-ethnicities.html

nytimes.com/2010/07/20/science/20adapt.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
>Trying to explain cultural traits is, of course, a sensitive issue. The descriptions of national character common in the works of 19th-century historians were based on little more than prejudice. Together with unfounded notions of racial superiority they lent support to disastrous policies.

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/weekinreview/12wade.html?_r=1

My god you're a fucking retard. This is how evolution works: one member of species is born with a mutation - usually it's harmful, sometimes it is beneficial. Ever single trait you have started with a random mutation. I have a barrel chest - that's a mutation that wasn't fatal, but wasn't beneficial. It started with one member of our species, just like blue eyes, just like eyes period. This is if you buy into the theory of evolution. If you're creationist, then you should reject OP's article altogether, because it's an evolutionist theory, you fucking god damned idiots.

The Twists and Turns of History, and of DNA

Humans evolving quickly, now more than ever

"Human races are evolving away from each other," Harpending says. "Genes are evolving fast in Europe, Asia and Africa, but almost all of these are unique to their continent of origin. We are getting less alike, not merging into a single, mixed humanity." He says that is happening because humans dispersed from Africa to other regions 40,000 years ago, "and there has not been much flow of genes between the regions since then."

unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html

tl;dr fuck off with your semitic lunacy. everything we do is based on facts, statistics, and science. the worst thing you've done so far to prove your jewry is putting echos on "evolution", but Darwin was not only smart but wise, quote

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state as we may hope, than the Caucasian and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

And so we will. Either the white race eradicates them or the Chinese or even the semitic savage Israelis are already doing a good job sterilizing, kicking out, and murdering their disgusting negroids. This is all for the sake of progress and we cannot do that with such an inferior race in humanity's fold. If it makes you feel better, Christcuck, consider it the destruction of the cursed descendants of Ham. The negroids a literally a race cursed by your Abrahamic God himself, he makes them suffer for a reason. He wants them gone. It is your duty to destroy those who have received the Curse of Ham in the form of their shitskin and inferior cursed negroid minds.

Yeah, but the muh 6000 years (the age of the world in Jewish mythology) is about trying to make whiteness something inconsequential. Short term evolution is little change. In reality we and Africans most likely have a very long period of divergent evolution, probably millions of years. It's good to have a scientific mindset, but it's also important to remember that no one in the universities have a scientific mindset anymore. They use shoddy procedures to "prove" their own biases.

Well, you're right that historians and evolutionists do tend to put things on a much shorter timescale, and later someone figures out they're wrong. It happens all the damn time. I see your point, but OP's point still has me baffled.

I'm very skeptical of their wording at least. "Turns off the brown" like we're all brown eyed beneath the blue eyes. That's pretty weird seeing how we lack the pigment altogether. Also, most people are born with blue eyes that turn dark, how does that fit with that?

I'd have to look at their data to know for sure, so I can't say right now whether it's just more bullshit. But you'd be amazed how often they just make up shit and publish it as real research now a days.

But yeah, we probably have a common ancestor some ways back. Way before 6000 years ago, but still.

AHAHAH WHAT THE SHIT?

Human civilisation (European) has been around for not just some thousands of years, not even 10's of thousands.
Every time its property looked into it keeps getting older and older.
We have found a city state in the English channel grander then giza that was submerged 10k+ years go.
A Pyramid bigger than "the great pyramid" off the cost of Japan thats been underwater for 15k/20k years.
We are now finding artefacts in europe from well within the ice age time frame.

Human civilisation (European) its been found to be 100k+ years older then we are allowed to think.

History has been Kike washed by there favorite tools, Christcucks. Don't forget, the US is our rightful clay.

All clay is our rightful clay.

...

...

But didn't Neanderthals have light eyes?

...

Confirmed for fake science.
The European genome hasn't even had any notable changes in the past 10,000 years.

As much as i like the Antarctica threads we have, they are barking well up the wrong tree about what I think is hidden there. I say think becauae its been kept very secretive to the rest of us, and impossible for anyone to go and accualy see for yourself.
I think its a untouched ancient civ far older than anything we have found befor, no way that would ever be allowed to get out and be appreciated for the rest of us.

They don't have a drop of Neanderthal blood but they have archaic subhuman admixture we still have yet to identify. They are literally not apart of humanity as a whole and they can very easily above even other animals be defined as a subspecies in scientific taxonomy but the PC retards keep fucking it all up. Here's a good article explaining what I mean

There are words in our language that seem to lead inevitably to controversy. This is surely true for the words "equality" and "race." And yet among well informed people, there is little disagreement as to what these words should mean, in part because various advances in biological science have produced a better understanding of the human condition.

Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms "subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature.

goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

Bushman Africans are 100% Homo sapien, everyone else has genetic additions on top of that - unless you don't believe that every descends from Africa.

I don't think most people here believe that and frankly it seems to me absurd to believe that it's that simple. Are you by any chance new around these parts?

I mean, the distinctions between the races are important to study, but ultimately it's hard to accept any other explanation for the existence of those races except that they stemmed from a common ancestry. Bushman Africans are the oldest ethnicity on Earth, so looking at them makes sense.

You have another explanation for the origin of Man?

but the paper's authors just can't seem to put two and two together

...

That should be a rooster looking up to trex. Chickens and other ground birds are thought to be among the most basal of all birds and the closest living descendants of dinosaurs.

I don't know why you would think that one root still exists unchanged but all of these other things emerged from that root and became totally different. I mean, I suppose it depends upon setting a starting point if you were to set the "root" and then allow for mixing from outside related species that you totally ignored before that. Sounds more like there were several "roots" and maybe we don't know enough to know if they were all from Africa.

I think it's a bit ignorant to think we (you) know it all. It depends upon who you ask and frankly keeps changing all the time.

They're objectively the oldest, and by every definition are closest to the starting point. Didn't mean to confuse.

I didn't advocate Out Of Africa, as I believe the divergence happened before the time that Out Of Africa says. It's possible that the divergence happened elsewhere, but unlikely since the oldest ethnicity in the world is African.

Pic Related. Not who you think he is.

Thought wrongly.

Eye color is a polygenetic traits.

That's not what heterozygote means. Heterozygote means you at ' you have two alleles (gene variations) that express differently. You're thinking of gene amplification'', which is very coming. Look up allele, gene amplification, and hetrozogzity for further understanding.

It's polygenetic. It's not 50/50. The 50/50 rule is just an example that's used in explaining genetics. It's really depends on what genes she passed down and it's on a titled scaled spectrum, for a late of better term.

This user is correct. Also, take into account mutations spread faster than within a smaller population (which is what the world use to be).

Also, take into account, mutations happen to pop up on the same continent at the same time, usually spreading from both angles of the land.

What are you even doing?

WE

WUZ

The oldest ethnicity is in the world is fucking gone, you stupid nigger. They are in every other race. That's the point.

>Has no (((propaganda))) telling him the world's too crowded

Sup boys.

Shut the fuck up.

a few years ago in St Louis there was a black baby from two normal-looking black parents, who was born with windex-blue eyes. a couple years later the paper had a follow-up photo, and his eyes were still blue and he very definitely looked like his mom and his dad.

Let me correct myself so you can understand.
>The oldest living ethnicity on Earth*

Blond hair usually gets darker with age and lighter with sun exposure. The hazel is weird unless you mean your eyes changed in the first few years you were alive and your parents told you they were originally blue. I'm blond hair blue eye with ginger beard. Another fun fact, ginger hair turns gray faster than other colors. You'll be a gray beard in a decade or so.

I'm white with red hair and brown eyes, when I was born I had blue eyes and blonde hair.

Argue with this:
bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2164-15-1060

It's now pretty much confirmed that non-niggers are part Neanderthal. So no, not all our ancestors came from Africa.

Gene amplification is why you guys started out with ABC hair and eye color and turned to XYZ hair and eye color.

yeaa about that, jewtube related

Most Caucasian babies are born with blue eyes, they change usually by 6 months sometimes later.

...

What? That the semitic ancestors were hunted and raped into the degenerate mongrel race they are by literal super monkeys, seems about right to me.

"females hold the genes, males express them"
nytimes.com/2010/01/14/science/14gene.html
theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/25/study-shows-humans-are-evolving-faster-than-previously-thought
nbcnews.com/id/34843925/ns/health-mens_health/t/men-more-evolved-their-y-chromosome/
nature.com/news/epigenetics-the-sins-of-the-father-1.14816
whatisepigenetics.com/dads-life-experiences-may-epigenetically-influence-his-childrens-health/
theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes
oy vey it was real in my mind goy

jews aren't predators user, they don't have the aggression or the strength

All niggers with blue eyes are a result of miscegenation.

Still think 6k years ago is complete bullshit.

Nah I'll argue with you or not at all. Refute it.

It's far out man.

demean or demand?

Because I see no problem with the second.

Just think about it for two seconds, it would explain perfectly why they are all a bunch of pathology conniving, backstabbing, weasley rats.

its motive, not much else

A lot of kikes have blue eyes, too.

Also this half-jap with two half-jap parents who had western Euro fathers.

except her children (at most 10 in a lifetime but still unlikely for the time period) will only have a 50% chance of having blue eyes. Of those children they only have a 25% chance of having blue eyes. The 100 children 75 of which only show brown eyes and only have a 25% chance of passing any recessive genes at all and the 25 who have a 50% chance of passing the genes.

How does this make sense? If this were true wouldn't Europe still be majority brown eyed? How do they explain all the different colors of eyes within the realm of blue as well?

Are all blue eyes no matter the shade determined by HERC2?

How the hell can people think this is a myth when theres so much documentation of it through history?

I heard that the 6000 figure was a translation error. They took the hebrew word for 40+ years and translated it into 40 years. Considering there is no upper limit to 40+, you really screw with it's meaning if you just call it 40 years flat.

Less and less people are buying it user. The jew is crying loudly.

Kikes are mixed shit of everything and nothing. Mutation is not the same as evolution.

athro.com/evo/inherit.html

Mutation resulting from mixing blue and brown is my guess.

It's for that reason I don't buy the evolution narrative. It doesn't seem probable that such traits would ever take over.

Imo first white men were created somehow, and since then purity has been lost more and more. That's why so many shades of blue, green and brown.

>New (((research))) shows
>What (((we))) want (you) to think is
Qui bono? Who funds the (((research)))?

They only refer to them as mutations when it's something related to white people though.

…and the name of that ancestor?

ADOLF HITLER

Regardless of it is true, saying this would pretty much imply that those who stayed in Africa (niggers) are less human (or even just not human at all) than those living in other parts of the world.

All white Europeans supposedly share a common ancestor as recent as 600 ad

His name is Adam.

Among other things, you dumb negroids. Light skin, blue eyes, blonde hair, bringer of all things civil and refined..

This guy(s) pulled you niggers out of the stone age:

atlanteangardens.blogspot.com/2014/05/quetzalcoatl-kukulkan-viracocha-votan.html?m=1

Pure nigger

Actually it's plausible because the allele for eye color is obvious, so it is a tertiary sexual characteristic. That means people consciously react to this phenotype/genotype, they can see it. What would it matter if it's a mutuation or has only been around 6000 years?? Are ya'll so weak that your self of self worth is attached to your eye color and your genetic heritage? Who gives a flying fuck what color ur eyes are or when your common ancestor bestowed it on your gene pool? What's it have to do with how you act… maybe it's just part of your genetic heritage to give a miss to actually important qualities and behaviors that are re-productively relevant to the modern age? As if misunderstanding biological science is gonna get u chickz…heck maybe it will?

I Don't know why. but it all makes sense when phrased up all green texty wew

read a book nigger

ftfy whitey

Nice try, science-kike.

DO YOU REALIZE
that Europoids are the only people with actual colored eyes. Everything else is brown or black. That has to mean something.

What a coinkydink.

Pic related hasn't even been updated with the updated information showing cro-mag goes back even further.
Lemme guess, the inconvenient fossils are lies from satan?

That happened because neander liked raping white women.

Notice how the kikes at BI don't cite their source. Just listen and believe.

National Socialism is an evolution based ideology and almost everyone is prepared to breed a better man through science, speeding up the natural process. We will strive to be better than we currently are, which is pretty much also the core idea of Cosmotheism, Pierces religion. That the most important thing man can do is to strive to be the best form he possibly can, to achieve the most he can, and to become better than he currently is. Its like a religion that promotes whites dont mix with non-whites. Guy ran a magazine called National Socialist world. If you dont think the lebensborn has anything to do with evolution, you may be legitimately retarded.

What the fuck is this? Is it a real eye color or am I a mutant?

Why do you care? women like that shit.

Chickens are of the species Gallus gallus (subspecies domesticus), of the family ‎Phasianidae. This puts them firmly into the Neognathae group, as opposed to Paleognathae, where we find the ostriches and other ratites. The ratites never flew; their ancestors were flightless 100 million years ago. One member of this group, tinamous, independently evolved flight, but all of the other flying birds are descended from a flying ancestor who probably lived in the Jurassic.

There have been several other major divisions of Aves since the Mesozoic, but all aside from the Paleognathes and the Neognathes are extinct. Here's the thing though: all of the birds in the world are the exact same distance from the common ancestor that diverged from the other dinosaurs, and birds are dinosaurs themselves.

Birds are not "descended from" dinosaurs, and they are not "related to" dinosaurs, any more than you are "descended from" apes or "related to" primates. Birds are the last two surviving infraclasses of Dinosauria, united in the last dinosaurian class: Aves.

Tyrannosaurus rex was a theropod, the group that gave rise to birds, and of the infraorder Coelosauria, which consisted of theropods with hollow bones and relatively large brains. This is where the T. rex/Aves split occurs – Tyranosaurs were members of Maniraptoriformes, coelosaurs with fused wrist bones. Birds emerged much earlier from the coelosaurs and went their own way long before the emergence of tyrannosaurids.

I hope this dose of autism has been enlightening.

Hazel eyes are a mutation, yes.

Not true. Many extinct clades of primitive, birds that had teeth and tails were largely capable of true flight, even some non-avian dinosaurs closely relaed to birds like the earliest ancestors of the Velociraptor's family, the Dromaeosauridae, were okay flyers. The most recent common ancestors of ratites and neognatha was most likely capable for at least rudimentary flight and going even further back before the split vast majority of ratites' and neognathous birds common ancestors after the dinosaur/bird split were at least decent flyers.

I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that blue eyes would experience an extremely positive selective pressure on their own merit. Blue eyes are incredibly attractive. The first person to have them would be highly sought after.

Seriously never knew they were hazel. Thought hazel was some kind of shade of brown.

What is this shit? Isn't blue eyes a recessive allele? How could it spread if the blue eye guy only mates with brown eyes

Hazel covers a wide variety of multi colored eyes. You see more of the green/brown but the real stunners have some blue, yellow, orange etc. in them as well.

The Wanderer.

Schience!

the original carriers children would all have had brown eyes, still. but they would all carry the recessive gene themselves. you see where this is going, the fastest way to get more blue-eyed people would be via sibling incest. without that it would take more generations and the original carrier would never get to see his blue eyes passed on. if you really want to feel, realize he likely didn't have a mirror / any perfect mirror surface available so he never even got to see his own eyes.

You're thinking of abbos.

Regression to the mean is real you fucking moron. You get triggered by it because you don't understand how it, or evolution, works.
That's where you're wrong you stupid nigger.

You've been BTFO dozens of times. Fuck off already.

That's what we call gene hijacking. Jews and other muds are masters at hijacking our genes.

you mean thoth/enki/zoroaster/nabu?
i always had a thing for reincarnation

I share this ancestor but I'm never gonna fit in, am I? self-aware shitpost, chill

do either of you have aspergers?

Thanks Gregor Mendel. I really needed this.

Green eyed master race here. My parents, grandparents, and sibling all have pepe greens. I forbid to mix with a non-green!

from Hyperborea

But that's wrong.

You dumb shit.

This.
All non-african have neanderthal genes. Asians have also Denisovan admixture.

Good attitude.

(check)
Transhumanist bullshit, fuck off.

I thought it was mainly Abbos that have Denisovan admixture rather than "Asians".

carpets dont match curtains, would not bang

>Far too short a timeframe for (((evolution))) to have spread this to some billion plus descendants.

Uh, nope. That's what genetic drift is, retard.

In 6th century there was a single R1a1 mutation within the early Slavic population, today some 18% of Poles have that mutation, meaning they are all DIRECT patrilinear descendants of that one man. Hell, all R1a1 men descend from a single patriarch from about 15,000 years ago. Welcome to Genetics, junior.

You didn't answer the question. He asked how it propagated and the answer is:

1) it was nonharmful, when suppressed by the older allele.
2)eventually blue eyed people from the gene pool manifested as the descendants' lineage crossed their trait, which made them more successful. Either by protecting from snow blindess, being more attractive, more expressive (you can fallow the gaze of a blue eyed person more easily, which aids body language) or some other upside. There's plent y of animals with bright eye colors so it stands to reason it serves a practical purpose.

You have all the potential

this.

This mutation is the cause why Northern Europe stayed low-tech while Southern Europe became civilized: Blue eyes make females more attractive, bring in higher prices for female slaves sold south, down the rivers. so Nothern Europe could afford to import hi-tech stuff and not develop their own, like Arabs with oil money today.

Plot twist blue eyed people are descendants from chad-god which are why their eyes are glorified as beautiful and romantic!

Does this picture really say "the current year has ended," with the same connotations we have today, or did it mean something different than that?

Pic related, its an entire way of life, which makes it an ideology, you could argue its more than an ideology, but it is still an ideology.

No, its Lebensraum, and GLR, and WLP "bullshit". Man can be improved, we are not the best iteration of it. Right now were moving backwards, devolving because of this kiked society. You can breed a better horse, and you can breed a better man. Watching a Rockwell speech or something, degenerate larper.

In fact, heres Rockwell saying literally the only thing worth protecting with your life is ideals.

(and family and race)

Took me over an hour to realize in my head while doing something totally different that I wrote lebensraum instead of lebensborn. Sorry for quad post(and Im saging anyways), but the point is that not all whites are equal, and the best white living obviously isnt the best whites can be. Its not transhumanism, its just evolution and science.. and its what pretty much all our past leaders believed, if not all of them.