Jump to content

What does the DNA say?


Wildcat Will

Recommended Posts

If an unbiased assessment of Black people is made, it will be discovered that the achievements of Blacks in the face of overwhelming odds border on the miraculous.

Whenever the playing field in any endeavor has been level, Black people have not only progressed, but have excelled. For example, there was a time when Blacks were not allowed to play in major sports in America, but today they dominate in almost everyone in which there has been participation.

Truth be told, Black people are almost like an enigmatic Supermensch (“mensch” is the Yiddish word for “human being”). It is possible that this could be attributed to the idea that diamonds are created under pressure, and the community has certainly been subjected to a lot of it. But that’s not the whole story; something else might be happening.

A study entitled “Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium at the CD4 locus and modern human origins” (SA Tishkoff, E. Dietzsch, W. Speed, AJ Pakstis…1996-science.sciencemag.org) has discovered that there is a genetic difference between Sub-Saharan African populations and Northeast African or non-African populations.

More to come.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wildcat Will said:

If an unbiased assessment of Black people is made, it will be discovered that the achievements of Blacks in the face of overwhelming odds border on the miraculous.

Whenever the playing field in any endeavor has been level, Black people have not only progressed, but have excelled. For example, there was a time when Blacks were not allowed to play in major sports in America, but today they dominate in almost everyone in which there has been participation.

Truth be told, Black people are almost like an enigmatic Supermensch (“mensch” is the Yiddish word for “human being”). It is possible that this could be attributed to the idea that diamonds are created under pressure, and the community has certainly been subjected to a lot of it. But that’s not the whole story; something else might be happening.

A study entitled “Global patterns of linkage disequilibrium at the CD4 locus and modern human origins” (SA Tishkoff, E. Dietzsch, W. Speed, AJ Pakstis…1996-science.sciencemag.org) has discovered that there is a genetic difference between Sub-Saharan African populations and Northeast African or non-African populations.

More to come.

Holla holla bow wow...

enjoy your ride...

since you don’t really want to hear, and since my speech is now being censored here ...

I’m not going to waste my time .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Troll said:

Holla holla bow wow...

enjoy your ride...

since you don’t really want to hear, and since my speech is now being censored here ...

I’m not going to waste my time .

 

Why can't you communicate without fear of censorship? Does the subject matter preclude you from an exchange of thoughts, for fear of crossing a line?

Limiting yourself again, unless you have reached your limit?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wildcat Will said:

Why can't you communicate without fear of censorship? Does the subject matter preclude you from an exchange of thoughts, for fear of crossing a line?

Limiting yourself again, unless you have reached your limit?

He lied on top of that. The only way he is being censored on here is if he is being racist. Hawg doesn't even check this side of the board unless someone tells him.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Ga96 said:

He lied on top of that. The only way he is being censored on here is if he is being racist. Hawg doesn't even check this side of the board unless someone tells him.

Didn’t get the impression it was Hawg or even this site...

regardless, results are the same...

not interested in anything but a free exchange of thoughts.  

Have a nice day, and maybe I’ll try again next year...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

You just said black people are “super human” 

“Super” the prefix to “Superior” in this context would suggest that black people are the superior race. 
 

super 

superior 

surpeme 

supremacist 

 

get it?

I said no such thing. What happened was you got that from what you read. 

I would say the author of the study and article accomplished their goal of communicating their message.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Wildcat Will said:

But that’s not the whole story; something else might be happening.

If you’re willing to abandon the paradigms you live by and take an unbiased look at what is going on in the world today, the picture becomes increasingly clear.  It’s like those hidden 3D images.  Look at them the wrong way and it’s just a blur.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, On2whls said:

If you’re willing to abandon the paradigms you live by and take an unbiased look at what is going on in the world today, the picture becomes increasingly clear.  It’s like those hidden 3D images.  Look at them the wrong way and it’s just a blur.  

Basically, in simple language, they cite the existence of a “9 series” DNA configuration in Sub-Saharan Blacks, as opposed to a “6 series” that is predominate among Europeans. Could these differences be responsible for something important?

The longer I live, the more I acquire.  The blur is not an issue. Clarity is advantageous. 

I believe.

Something more is happening 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/1996-paper-is-about-human-evolution-not-potential-for-genius/

CLAIM
“Black Africans possess more DNA series than any other group on earth”; The more DNA series you have, the greater your potential for genius”; “they copyrighted that study, to hide that truth”
VERDICT 
HTag_Inaccurate.png

SOURCE: Facebook users, Facebook, 10 Sep. 2021   

DETAILS
Inaccurate: The 1996 paper “Global Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium at the CD4 Locus and Modern Human Origins” referenced didn't address “potential for genius” and the term “DNA series” is not used in the paper. The paper is about human evolution and evidence in the human genome that backs the “out of Africa” model of human evolution.
Misleading: It is standard practice to copyright academic papers. The majority of scientific papers are copyrighted, with the journal that published the paper retaining the copyright.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, concha said:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/1996-paper-is-about-human-evolution-not-potential-for-genius/

CLAIM
“Black Africans possess more DNA series than any other group on earth”; The more DNA series you have, the greater your potential for genius”; “they copyrighted that study, to hide that truth”
VERDICT 
HTag_Inaccurate.png

SOURCE: Facebook users, Facebook, 10 Sep. 2021   

DETAILS
Inaccurate: The 1996 paper “Global Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium at the CD4 Locus and Modern Human Origins” referenced didn't address “potential for genius” and the term “DNA series” is not used in the paper. The paper is about human evolution and evidence in the human genome that backs the “out of Africa” model of human evolution.
Misleading: It is standard practice to copyright academic papers. The majority of scientific papers are copyrighted, with the journal that published the paper retaining the copyright.

Mic drop…..😂

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, concha said:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/1996-paper-is-about-human-evolution-not-potential-for-genius/

CLAIM
“Black Africans possess more DNA series than any other group on earth”; The more DNA series you have, the greater your potential for genius”; “they copyrighted that study, to hide that truth”
VERDICT 
HTag_Inaccurate.png

SOURCE: Facebook users, Facebook, 10 Sep. 2021   

DETAILS
Inaccurate: The 1996 paper “Global Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium at the CD4 Locus and Modern Human Origins” referenced didn't address “potential for genius” and the term “DNA series” is not used in the paper. The paper is about human evolution and evidence in the human genome that backs the “out of Africa” model of human evolution.
Misleading: It is standard practice to copyright academic papers. The majority of scientific papers are copyrighted, with the journal that published the paper retaining the copyright.

I am aware of this article.

Truth be told, it is the only article to dispute the geneticist that performed the extensive study. Find another.....just one more. Please point out the falsity. 

I notice the article you present is from a Facebook reader. Geneticist maybe? No?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, concha said:

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/1996-paper-is-about-human-evolution-not-potential-for-genius/

CLAIM
“Black Africans possess more DNA series than any other group on earth”; The more DNA series you have, the greater your potential for genius”; “they copyrighted that study, to hide that truth”
VERDICT 
HTag_Inaccurate.png

SOURCE: Facebook users, Facebook, 10 Sep. 2021   

DETAILS
Inaccurate: The 1996 paper “Global Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium at the CD4 Locus and Modern Human Origins” referenced didn't address “potential for genius” and the term “DNA series” is not used in the paper. The paper is about human evolution and evidence in the human genome that backs the “out of Africa” model of human evolution.
Misleading: It is standard practice to copyright academic papers. The majority of scientific papers are copyrighted, with the journal that published the paper retaining the copyright.

THE REST OF THE "MISLEADING" PORTION. THEIR CONCLUSION.

Contrary to suggestions by the Facebook posts and YouTube video, the paper never addressed “the potential for genius”. The posts and video also claimed that “the more DNA series you have, the greater your potential for genius”, however the paper compared the diversity of combinations of two linked regions on chromosome 12, not the amount of DNA. Moreover, the term “DNA series” never appeared in the paper, and “DNA series” is not a term used in human evolution and genetics.

Lastly, the Facebook posts and YouTube claimed that the 1996 study was copyrighted to “hide the truth”. This is misleading because copyrighting is a standard practice in academic publishing; the majority of scientific papers are copyrighted, with the scientific journal that published the paper retaining the copyright in most cases. In this case, the owner of the copyright is most likely the journal Science, which published the paper in 1996. Currently, the paper is not open access on Science, however PDF copies of “Global Patterns of Linkage Disequilibrium at the CD4 Locus and Modern Human Origins” are available online (see here and here). In short, this study was not copyrighted to “hide the truth”, but because copyrighting papers is par for the course in traditional scientific publishing.

When you bring something, read it all. Don't get excited when you read what you want at the beginning and it tells on you near the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...